Search

Background There are no comparative studies of coated mesalazine. Aim To compare the efficacy and tolerability of Eudragit-L- and ethylcellulose-coated mesalazine tablets in patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. Methods A double-blind, double-dummy, randomized parallel group trial was performed across 18 centres in Australia, and 20 in Eastern Europe. Patients were treated with 3 g mesalazine for 8 weeks with the primary efficacy end point being clinical remission. Results Of 215 patients, 69% achieved clinical remission in both treatment groups ( P < 0.001; chi-square test) with no differences in frequency of adverse events. In the Australian cohort ( n = 63), the Eudragit-L group had a higher remission rate (73% vs. 36%) and responded 13 days faster, compared with those in the European group (67% vs. 84%, and 2 days respectively). No clear reasons for differences in treatment responses were identified. Conclusions Eudragit-L and ethylcellulose-coated mesalazine tablets are well tolerated and equally effective in achieving remission in mild-moderately active ulcerative colitis over 8 weeks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: Mesalazineas the treatment standard for ulcerative colitis can be applied in different galenical preparations.: A novel formulation of mesalazine pellets with delayed and prolonged release characteristics was compared with conventional Eudragit L-coated tablets. Furthermore, the effect of mesalazine dose escalation on nonresponders was evaluated in both treatment groups.: A total of 233 patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis were randomized to receive either mesalazine (1.5 g/day in three doses) as pellets (n = 115) or tablets (n = 118) for 8 weeks. At insufficient response, the dose was increased to 3.0 g.: The clinical remission rate (clinical activity index ≤ 4) for pellets was 67% vs. 68% for tablets which statistically proved to be not inferior (significance levelα = 2.5%). In patients without dose increase, the remission rate was 47% (pellets) vs. 42% (tablets). Endoscopic improvement was observed in 80% (pellets) vs. 83% (tablets), and histological improvement in 48% (pellets) vs. 52% (tablets) of patients.: Mesalazine pellets are as effective as tablets in the treatment of mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. Dose escalation to 3.0 g/day is a valid option for nonresponders to a starting dose of 1.5 g/day. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Useful indices to determine whether to reduce the dose of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) during remission remain unclear. We aimed to analyze the rate and risk factors of relapse after reducing the dose of oral 5-ASA used for maintenance therapy of UC. Methods: UC patients whose 5-ASA dose was reduced in clinical remission (partial Mayo score of ≤ 1) at our institution from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed. Various clinical variables of patients who relapsed after reducing the dose of oral 5-ASA were compared with those of patients who maintained remission. Risk factors for relapse were assessed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Cumulative relapse-free survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: A total of 70 UC patients were included; 52 (74.3%) patients maintained remission and 18 (25.7%) patients relapsed during the follow-up period. Multivariate analysis indicated that a history of acute severe UC (ASUC) was an independent predictive factor for clinical relapse (p = 0.024, odds ratio: 21, 95% confidence interval: 1.50–293.2). Based on Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, the cumulative relapse-free survival rate within 52 weeks was 22.2% for patients with a history of ASUC, compared with 82.0% for those without. the log-rank test showed a significant difference in a history of ASUC (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Dose reduction of 5-ASA should be performed carefully in patients who have a history of ASUC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Efficacy of maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis (UC) in the remission stage has been reported to depend on release profile or dosing regimen of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) products used. Aim of this study is to investigate real life results in using oral 5-ASA products for maintaining mild to moderate UC patients in Japan.Methods: Adult UC outpatients treated with oral 5-ASA products were enrolled from 379 sites in Japan between July 2012 and July 2013, and followed for 52 weeks. Remission maintenance rate was evaluated by products and dosages. Factors affecting recurrence were also examined.Results: A total of 5695 UC patients were registered. Among the 4677 patients in whom remission maintenance was observed, remission maintenance rate at week 52 was 80.2%. As for disease duration and dosage, Pentasa® 4000 mg/day in 2 divided doses was administered to 480 (21.0%) patients in remission and 341 (46.6%) patients in active stage, and Asacol® 3600 mg/day in 3 divided doses was administered to 696 (46.4%) patients in remission and 473 (67.3%) patients in active stage. The remission maintenance rate at week 52 by dosage and frequency did not significantly differ between Pentasa® Tablets at 4000 mg/day in 2 divided doses (76.5%) and Asacol® Tablets at 3600 mg/day in 3 divided doses (76.1%, P = 0.7868). Factors affecting the risk of relapse in UC were identified. Significantly persistent remission maintenance was noted in patients in whom duration of remission maintenance until enrollment was 12 to <24 months or ≥24 months relative to the reference category of <3 months (12 to <24 months: HR 0.600 [0.486-0.740], p < 0.0001]; ≥24 months: HR 0.352 [0.289-0.431], p < 0.0001).Conclusions: Efficacy of real life results in using oral 5-ASA products for maintaining mild to moderate UC patients was favorable. Maintaining remission for 12 months or longer after induction therapy was shown to reduce recurrence risk thereafter.Trial Registration: UMIN 000008563 (the date of registration: July 30, 2012), ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01654783 (the date of registration: July 30, 2012). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) have developed to become a major global health problem. Ulcerative colitis (UC) is one of two main types of IBD, and >90% of patients suffering from mild or moderate forms of UC are treated with mesalazine, a well-tolerated and cost-effective drug. To allow oral administration, the drug has to be protected from resorption before it can reach the affected sites in the colon. The drug is therefore released from most currently used medications either constantly slow (time-dependent) or triggered by an increased pH during gastrointestinal transition. Both variants are widely used in clinical practice and it is surprising that they have not yet been compared directly in a large clinical study. In this overview, the evidence that may suggest preferential use of one type of mesalazine formulation over the other in general or for defined subgroups of patients is summarized and evaluated. Data from in vitro modelling of drug release and measurements of drug concentrations in colonic mucosa suggest that in many cases, constant release and pH-dependent formulations are of similar therapeutic efficiency; however, pH-triggered release may be superior in patients with proctitis-type UC or sites of inflammation in the proximal colon. Additionally, patients with a long gastric residence time, slow small intestinal transition, disease-related diarrhea or sensitivity to systemic adverse effects may benefit more from pH-dependent release formulations. In general, medications based on both concepts show similar efficacies, but the pH-dependent release formulations seem to be more robust in the treatment of a not further classified group of patients with UC. Future comparative clinical studies are required to clearly define the subgroups of patients that should be treated preferably with constant or pH-dependent release formulations of mesalazine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim: Oral mesalazine and sulfasalazine (SASP) are key drugs for treating ulcerative colitis (UC). The efficacy of switching from one of the several mesalazine formulations to another is largely unknown. This study assessed the efficacy of switching among three types of mesalazine formulation and SASP for UC therapy. Methods: UC patients receiving high-dose mesalazine/SASP who switched to other formulations due to disease activity were considered eligible. Efficacy was evaluated 2, 6, and 12 months after switching. Results: A total of 106 switches in 88 UC patients were analyzed. The efficacy at 2 months after switching was observed in 23/39 (59%) cases from any mesalazine formulation to SASP, in 18/55 (33%) cases from one mesalazine to another, and in 2/12 (17%) cases from SASP to any mesalazine formulation. Nine of 43 effective cases showed inefficacy or became intolerant post-switching. Delayed efficacy more than two months after switching was observed in four cases. Steroid-free remission was achieved in 42/106 (39%) cases—within 100 days in 35 of these cases (83%). Conclusions: Switching from mesalazine to SASP was effective in more than half of cases. The efficacy of switching between mesalazine formulations was lower but may be worth attempting in clinical practice from a safety perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]