Delayed-release Multi Matrix System (MMX) mesalazine: in ulcerative colitis

* Mesalazine appears to act locally on the mucosa of the colon and reduces the inflammation associated with ulcerative colitis. * Following oral administration, the majority (*78%) of a dose of delayed-release Multi Matrix System (MMX) mesalazine passes unabsorbed through the upper gastrointestinal tract to reach and traverse the entire length of the colon. * In a well designed phase III trial in patients with active, mild to moderate ulcerative colitis (n = 262), significantly (p < 0.01) more MMX mesalazine 2.4 (34%) or 4.8 g/day (29%) recipients than placebo recipients (13%) achieved clinical and endoscopic remission after 8 weeks of treatment.* In a second phase III trial (n = 341), clinical and endoscopic remission rates with MMX mesalazine 2.4 (40.5%) and 4.8 g/day (41.2%) were significantly (p < 0.01) greater than with placebo (22.1%) after 8 weeks, while the remission rate with non-MMX delayed-release mesalazine (Asacol) [32.6%] did not differ from placebo.* Overall, MMX mesalazine was generally well tolerated in controlled clinical trials, with a similar incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events in placebo (66%) and MMX mesalazine (56%) recipients in a pooled analysis; most adverse events were of mild or moderate severity. Two of 434 MMX mesalazine recipients experienced serious adverse events that were considered treatment related (pancreatitis caused by mesalazine sensitivity).     

MMX Multi Matrix System mesalazine for the induction of remission in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: a combined analysis of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND: MMX mesalazine [LIALDA (US), MEZAVANT XL (UK and Ireland) MEZAVANT (elsewhere)] utilizes MMX Multi Matrix System (MMX) technology which delivers mesalazine throughout the colon. Two phase III studies have already evaluated MMX mesalazine in patients with active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. Aim To provide more precise estimates of the efficacy of MMX mesalazine over placebo by combining the patient populations from the two phase III studies. Methods Combined data from two 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were analyzed. Patients randomized to MMX mesalazine 2.4 g/day (once daily or 1.2 g twice daily), 4.8 g/day (once daily) or placebo were reviewed. The primary end point was clinical and endoscopic remission (modified Ulcerative Colitis-Disease Activity Index of /=1-point reduction in sigmoidoscopy score from week 0). Results Data from 517 patients were analysed. 8-week remission rates were 37.2% and 35.1% in the MMX mesalazine 2.4 g/day and 4.8 g/day groups, vs. 17.5% on placebo (P < 0.001, both comparisons). 8-week complete mucosal healing rates were 32% in both MMX mesalazine groups compared with 16% on placebo. Adverse event frequency was similar in all groups. Conclusion MMX mesalazine is effective and generally well tolerated for inducing clinical and endoscopic remission of active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis.     

Review article: increasing the dose of oral mesalazine therapy for active ulcerative colitis does not improve remission rates

BACKGROUND: Oral mesalazine (mesalamine, 5-aminosalicylic acid) formulations are effective in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis. All formulations contain the same active drug but differ with regard to mechanisms to deliver the drug to the colon. Patients who fail to respond to initial therapy are often administered higher doses of the same formulation. AIM: To review published trials of oral mesalazine formulations in treating active ulcerative colitis and to examine the effect of dose escalation on remission rates. RESULTS: Increasing the doses of oral mesalazine formulations does not result in higher remission rates, although increasing the doses of some formulations has been effective in increasing symptomatic improvement and/or response to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Because oral mesalazine formulations do not demonstrate a significant dose response with regard to induction of remission of active ulcerative colitis, simple dose escalation may not be the most effective course for patients who fail to respond to initial mesalazine treatment.     

Once daily MMX mesalazine for the treatment of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: a phase II, dose-ranging study

Background SPD476 (MMX? mesalazine), is a novel, once daily, high‐strength mesalazine formulation (1.2 g/tablet) that utilizes Multi Matrix System? (MMX) technology to delay and extend delivery of the active drug throughout the colon. Aim To assess the safety and efficacy of MMX mesalazine in patients with mild‐to‐moderately active ulcerative colitis, in a pilot, phase II, randomized, multicentre, double‐blind, parallel‐group, dose‐ranging study (SPD476‐202). Methods Thirty‐eight patients with mild‐to‐moderately active ulcerative colitis were randomized to MMX mesalazine 1.2, 2.4 or 4.8 g/day given once daily for 8 weeks. Remission ulcerative colitis‐disease activity index (UC‐DAI) ≤1, a score of 0 for rectal bleeding and stool frequency, and ≥1‐point reduction in sigmoidoscopy score from baseline was the primary end point. Results Week 8 remission rates were 0%, 31% and 18% of patients receiving MMX mesalazine 1.2, 2.4 and 4.8 g/day respectively. No statistically significant difference in remission was observed between treatment groups. MMX mesalazine 2.4 and 4.8 g/day groups demonstrated greater improvement in overall UC‐DAI and component scores from baseline, compared with the 1.2 g/day group. Conclusion MMX mesalazine given as 2.4 or 4.8 g/day once daily is well tolerated and effective for the treatment of mild‐to‐moderately active ulcerative colitis.     

Distribution of mesalazine enemas in active and quiescent ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of mesalazine enemas depends on intraluminal concentration of the drug and is therefore limited by the enema distribution in the colon. Active ulcerative colitis changes colon motility and this leads to uncertainty about enema spread. AIM: To assess the influence of disease activity on enema distribution, we conducted a physician-blinded, longitudinal study of the retrograde spread of three mesalazine enemas. METHODS: Thirty-one patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis were subdivided into three groups, and treated with 2 g mesalazine in 30 mL (group I, n = 10), 4 g mesalazine in 60 mL (group II, n = 12) or 1 g mesalazine in 100 mL (group III, n = 9). All patients received oral mesalazine 500 mg t.d.s. Enemas were labelled by adding 10 MBq (99mTc)technetium-sulphur colloid. Anterior scintigraphic images were taken at the start of the study and after 12 weeks of therapy; retrograde spread was assessed by calculating the percentage of the enema in each colonic segment. RESULTS: The activity score of ulcerative colitis diminished significantly after 12 weeks of treatment, but five patients dropped out of the study. At the start of treatment enema activity in group I was mainly concentrated in the sigmoid (99%); in group II activity was found in the rectum (9%), the sigmoid (61%) and the descending colon (15%); in group III activity was distributed between the sigmoid (66%) and descending colon (25%). The colonic distribution of mesalazine enemas was not influenced by disease activity. CONCLUSION: Volume, but not disease activity, is the important determinant of retrograde colonic spread of mesalazine enemas in ulcerative colitis.     

Mesalazine granules are superior to Eudragit-L-coated mesalazine tablets for induction of remission in distal ulcerative colitis - a pooled analysis

Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 34: 1115–1122

Summary

Background Different oral formulations of ‘mesalazine (mesalamine)’ may have different efficacy in distal ulcerative colitis. Aim  To evaluate the efficacy of mesalazine granules (Salofalk granules) vs. mesalazine tablets (Salofalk tablets) as induction therapy in patients with distinct extensions of ulcerative colitis. Methods A pooled analysis of 705 patients from four prospective, randomised, double‐blind phase III trials was performed. The efficacy of 8 weeks’ induction with 3 g/day mesalazine granules [3 g once daily (o.d.) or 1 g three times daily (t.d.s)] vs. 3 g/day mesalazine tablets (1 g t.d.s.) was compared in terms of clinical remission (CR: CAI ≤ 4) and endoscopic remission (ER: EI ≤ 3) (both according to Rachmilewitz) in subgroups with pancolitis, left‐sided colitis, or proctosigmoiditis. Results Mesalazine granules were equipotent to mesalazine tablets in pancolitis regarding CR (72% vs. 71%, P = 0.909) and ER (58% vs. 49%, P = 0.338). In left‐sided colitis, both mesalazine formulations were equipotent regarding CR (66% vs. 67%; P = 0.843) but mesalazine granules were superior regarding ER (56% vs. 37%; P = 0.025). In proctosigmoiditis, mesalazine granules were significantly more effective than mesalazine tablets regarding CR (78% vs. 55%P < 0.001) and ER (67% vs. 43%P < 0.001). Furthermore, o.d. application of mesalazine granules was more effective than t.d.s. dosing in left‐sided colitis (CR 73% vs. 62%, P = 0.181; ER 71% vs. 48%P = 0.005) and proctosigmoiditis (CR 86% vs. 73%, P = 0.020; ER 75% vs. 61%, P = 0.021), but not in pancolitis. Conclusion This pooled analysis supports the hypothesis that mesalazine granules are superior to mesalazine tablets in induction of remission in distal colitis and should be taken once daily.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of Eudragit-L-coated mesalazine tablets with ethylcellulose-coated mesalazine tablets in patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis

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.     

A double-blind dose-escalating trial comparing novel mesalazine pellets with mesalazine tablets in active ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND: Mesalazine as the treatment standard for ulcerative colitis can be applied in different galenical preparations. AIM: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: The clinical remission rate (clinical activity index < or = 4) for pellets was 67% vs. 68% for tablets which statistically proved to be not inferior (significance level alpha = 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.     

美沙拉嗪口服联合灌肠治疗溃疡性结肠炎的疗效评价

目的评价美沙拉嗪口服联合灌肠治疗溃疡性结肠炎(UC)的临床疗效。方法将120例UC患者随机分为治疗组和对照组,对照组给予口服美沙拉嗪缓释颗粒;治疗组在此基础上,同时给予美沙拉嗪灌肠剂保留灌肠。疗程均为4周。结果治疗组总有效率96.7%,明显高于对照组的68.3%(P<0.05)。治疗后结肠镜检查结果及血清C-反应蛋白(CRP)、纤维蛋白原(Fib)、平均血小板体积(MPV)的水平治疗组与对照组比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗组与对照组不良反应发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论美沙拉嗪口服联合灌肠治疗溃疡性结肠炎疗效确切,安全性好,值得推广。     

美沙拉嗪治疗溃疡性结肠炎的疗效

目的 探讨美沙拉嗪治疗溃疡性结肠炎的临床疗效与安全性.方法 溃疡性结肠炎患者84例随机均分为两组,分别在支持治疗的基础上,观察组加用美沙拉嗪治疗,每日口服3次,1.0 g/次;对照组加用柳氮磺胺吡啶常规治疗;疗程为8周.比较两组临床疗效和治疗前后外周血C反应蛋白(CRP)、IL-6和TNF-α变化,记录治疗期的不良反应.结果 观察组的总有效率为97.6％,明显高于对照组的81.0％ (P＜0.05).治疗后两组外周血CRP和炎性细胞因子IL6和TNF-α水平均明显下降,且观察组的改变更为明显(P＜0.05).两组的不良反应发生率相仿(4.8％vs.9.5％)(P＞0.05).结论 美沙拉嗪治疗溃疡性结肠炎的临床疗效优于柳氮磺胺吡啶,能够明显改善患者体内的炎性状态.     

Safety and efficacy of azathioprine in the maintenance of ciclosporin-induced remission of ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND: It has been shown that azathioprine prolongs the response to ciclosporin of steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis, but no specific data are available concerning its toxicity in this indication. AIM AND METHODS: The charts of 21 patients with steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis who received azathioprine overlapping with a successful ciclosporin course were reviewed for the onset of toxicity. The controls consisted of 48 initial responders to steroids who received azathioprine for steroid-dependence or resistance/toxicity. RESULTS: Two of the 21 patients were withdrawn because of hypersensitivity to azathioprine. The remaining 19 were treated for a median of 18 months together with a median daily steroid dose of 35 mg (10-75 mg) to be tapered off. Toxicity (31%) included leukopenia alone (two cases), cholestasis alone (one case), cholestasis and increased amylase (one case), increased amylase alone (one case), and cutaneous infection (one case). The frequency of withdrawal was 21%. The mean daily steroid doses were reduced from 38 mg to 3.8 mg in the study cohort, and from 25 mg to 8 mg in the controls, among whom toxicity (27%) included four cases each of leukopenia and increased amylase, two cases each of alteration of liver enzymes and infection, and one case of gastric intolerance. Ten of the 48 controls (20%) were withdrawn from the study. CONCLUSION: Azathioprine is as effective and safe in the maintenance of the response of patients with steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis to ciclosporin as it is in the treatment of those who respond to steroids.