M Watanabe, H Nishino, Y Sameshima, A Ota, S Nakamura, T Hibi
Randomised clinical trial: evaluation of the efficacy of mesalazine (mesalamine) suppositories in patients with ulcerative colitis and active rectal inflammation -- a placebo-controlled study.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013 Aug;38(3):264-73. doi: 10.1111/apt.12362. Epub 2013 Jun 5.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Mesalazine suppositories are recommended and widely used as the standard therapy in induction and maintenance of remission for proctitis.
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of mesalazine suppositories in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and rectal inflammation; and in patient groups categorised by the extent of lesions.
METHODS: This study was a phase III multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Mild-to-moderate UC patients with rectal inflammation were randomly assigned either a 1 g mesalazine or placebo suppository. The suppository was administered in the rectum once daily for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the rate of endoscopic remission (mucosal score of 0 or 1) after 4 weeks.
RESULTS: The endoscopic remission rates after 4 weeks in the mesalazine and placebo suppository groups were 81.5% and 29.7%, respectively, and the superiority of mesalazine to placebo was confirmed (P < 0.0001, chi-squared test). For proctitis, the endoscopic remission rates after 4 weeks were 83.8% and 36.1% in the mesalazine and placebo suppository groups, respectively, and the corresponding rates for all other types of UC were 78.6% and 21.4%, respectively. The superiority of mesalazine to placebo was confirmed in both subgroups (P < 0.0001, Fisher's exact test). The percentage of patients without bleeding was significantly higher in the mesalazine group than the placebo group from Day 3 of treatment (P = 0.0001, Fisher's exact test).
CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of mesalazine suppositories in all types of UC patients with rectal inflammation was confirmed for the first time in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study (JapicCTI- 111421).
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Makoto Naganuma, Nobuo Aoyama, Tomohiro Tada, Kiyonori Kobayashi, Fumihito Hirai, Kenji Watanabe, Mamoru Watanabe, Toshifumi Hibi
Complete mucosal healing of distal lesions induced by twice-daily budesonide 2-mg foam promoted clinical remission of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis with distal active inflammation: double-blind, randomized study.
J Gastroenterol. 2018 Apr;53(4):494-506. doi: 10.1007/s00535-017-1376-4. Epub 2017 Aug 4.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Budesonide foam is used for the topical treatment of distal ulcerative colitis. This phase III study was performed to confirm mucosal healing and other therapeutic effects of twice-daily budesonide 2-mg foam in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis including left-sided colitis and pancolitis.
METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. A total of 126 patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis with active inflammation in the distal colon were randomized to two groups receiving twice-daily budesonide 2 mg/25 ml foam or placebo foam. The primary endpoint was the percentage of complete mucosal healing of distal lesions (endoscopic subscore of 0) at week 6. Some patients continued the treatment through week 12. Drug efficacy and safety were evaluated.
RESULTS: The percentages of both complete mucosal healing of distal lesions and clinical remission were significantly improved in the budesonide as compared with the placebo group (p = 0.0003 and p = 0.0035). Subgroup analysis showed similar efficacy of budesonide foam for complete mucosal healing of distal lesions and clinical remission regardless of disease type. The clinical remission percentage tended to be higher in patients achieving complete mucosal healing of distal lesions than in other patients. There were no safety concerns with budesonide foam.
CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed for the first time complete mucosal healing with twice-daily budesonide 2-mg foam in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis with distal active inflammation. The results also indicated that complete mucosal healing of distal lesions by budesonide foam promotes clinical remission of ulcerative colitis. Clinical trial registration no.: Japic CTI-142704.
日本消化器病学会：炎症性腸疾患(IBD)診療ガイドライン2020(改訂第2版).
Asher Kornbluth, David B Sachar, Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology
Ulcerative colitis practice guidelines in adults (update): American College of Gastroenterology, Practice Parameters Committee.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2004 Jul;99(7):1371-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.40036.x.
Abstract/Text
Guidelines for clinical practice are intended to indicate preferred approaches to medical problems as established by scientifically valid research. Double-blind placebo-controlled studies are preferable, but compassionate use reports and expert review articles are utilized in a thorough review of the literature conducted through Medline with the National Library of Medicine. When only data that will not withstand objective scrutiny are available, a recommendation is identified as a consensus of experts. Guidelines are applicable to all physicians who address the subject without regard to the specialty training or interests and are intended to indicate the preferable but not necessarily the only acceptable approach to a specific problem. Guidelines are intended to be flexible and must be distinguished from standards of care, which are inflexible and rarely violated. Given the wide range of specifics in any health-care problem, the physician must always choose the course best suited to the individual patient and the variables in existence at the moment of decision. Guidelines are developed under the auspices of the American College of Gastroenterology and its Practice Parameters Committee and approved by the Board of Trustees. Each has been extensively reviewed and revised by the Committee, other experts in the field, physicians who will use them, and specialists in the science of decision of analysis. The recommendations of each guideline are therefore considered valid at the time of their production based on the data available. New developments in medical research and practice pertinent to each guideline will be reviewed at a time established and indicated at the publication in order to assure continued validity.
M J Carter, A J Lobo, S P L Travis, IBD Section, British Society of Gastroenterology
Guidelines for the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults.
Gut. 2004 Sep;53 Suppl 5:V1-16. doi: 10.1136/gut.2004.043372.
Abstract/Text
L R Sutherland, G R May, E A Shaffer
Sulfasalazine revisited: a meta-analysis of 5-aminosalicylic acid in the treatment of ulcerative colitis.
Ann Intern Med. 1993 Apr 1;118(7):540-9.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of the newer 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) delivery systems compared with placebo or sulfasalazine for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis and for the maintenance of remission.
DATA SOURCES: Pertinent studies were selected using the MEDLINE and BIOS (1981 to 1992) data bases, reference lists from published articles, reviews, symposia proceedings, and abstracts from major gastrointestinal meetings.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of 5-ASA compared with placebo or sulfasalazine of a minimum of 4 weeks duration for active disease and a minimum of 6 months for maintenance of disease remission. Sixteen trials of 5-ASA for active disease, published either in abstract or full manuscript, were available. Eleven trials of 5-ASA for maintenance of remission were also reviewed.
DATA EXTRACTION: Crude rates for either induction of remission (active disease studies) or maintenance of remission (relapse-prevention trials) based on the intention-to-treat principle were extracted from the studies by two independent observers. Each study was given a quality score, based on predetermined criteria.
RESULTS: Studies were placed in three groups: 5-ASA compared with placebo, 5-ASA compared with sulfasalazine for active disease, and 5-ASA compared with sulfasalazine for maintenance of remission. 5-Aminosalicylic acid was superior to placebo in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis (pooled odds ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.50 to 2.72). A dose-response effect for 5-ASA existed (P < 0.001). For active disease, the pooled odds ratio for 5-ASA compared with sulfasalazine was 1.15 (CI, 0.83 to 1.61). When 5-ASA was compared with sulfasalazine for maintenance of disease remission, the pooled odds ratio was 0.85 (CI, 0.64 to 1.15). Withdrawal rates and reported side effects were similar for 5-ASA compared with placebo- or sulfasalazine-treated patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the newer 5-ASA preparations in a dose of at least 2 g/d are more effective than placebo in the treatment of ulcerative colitis, insufficient evidence exists to suggest that they are superior to sulfasalazine. Although they offer a benefit to the sulfasalazine-sensitive patient, use of 5-ASA preparations instead of sulfasalazine in the treatment of ulcerative colitis cannot yet be substantiated.
Javier P Gisbert, Fernando Gomollón, José Maté, José María Pajares
Role of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) in treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review.
Dig Dis Sci. 2002 Mar;47(3):471-88.
Abstract/Text
L Sutherland, D Roth, P Beck, G May, K Makiyama
Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000544. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000544.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of the newer release formulations of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) compared to placebo or sulfasalazine (SASP) in the maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.
SEARCH STRATEGY: A computer-assisted literature search for relevant studies (1981-1998) was performed using MEDLINE, BIOS, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Trials Register, and Science Citation Index, followed by a manual search of reference lists from previously retrieved articles, review articles, symposia proceedings, and abstracts from major gastrointestinal conferences.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were accepted for analysis if they were prospective, randomized, double-blinded, and placebo- or SASP-controlled clinical trials of parallel design with treatment duration of at least six months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Based on an intention to treat principle, the primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes were the number of patients experiencing adverse events, the number of patients withdrawn due to adverse events, and exclusions or withdrawals after entry into the study (not due to relapse). All data were analyzed using the Peto odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS: The Peto odds ratio for the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission (withdrawals and relapses) for 5-ASA versus placebo was 0. 47 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.62) with an NNT of 6. These values were also calculated for the trials in which SASP and 5-ASA were compared, revealing an odds ratio of 1.29 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57), with a negative NNT value (-19), suggesting a higher degree of therapeutic effectiveness for SASP. SASP and 5-ASA had similar adverse event profiles, with odds ratios of 1.16(0.62 to 2.16), and 1.31(0.86 to 1.99), respectively. The NNH values were determined to be 171 and 78 respectively.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The newer 5-ASA preparations were superior to placebo in maintenance therapy. However, the newer preparations had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP.
D Rachmilewitz
Coated mesalazine (5-aminosalicylic acid) versus sulphasalazine in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis: a randomised trial.
BMJ. 1989 Jan 14;298(6666):82-6.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of a preparation of mesalazine (5-aminosalicylic acid) coated with a pH dependent resin (Eudragit L) as compared with sulphasalazine in patients with active mild to moderate ulcerative colitis.
DESIGN: Eight week randomised double blind parallel group study.
SETTING: Forty six gastroenterology outpatient clinics in seven countries.
PATIENTS: Two hundred and twenty patients aged 18-70 who met the following criteria: clinical activity index greater than or equal to 6 and endoscopic index greater than or equal to 4; no concomitant treatment for ulcerative colitis; no hypersensitivity to salicylates or sulphonamides. Of the 164 patients eligible for efficacy analysis, 87 received the coated preparation of mesalazine and 77 sulphasalazine. Most of the remaining patients (28 in each group) were ineligible for the efficacy analysis because of treatment with steroid enemas. All pretrial characteristics were comparable in the two treatment groups.
INTERVENTIONS: Coated mesalazine (Mesasal) 1.5 g daily or sulphasalazine 3.0 g daily for eight weeks. Compliance monitored by pill counts.
END POINT: Clinical and endoscopic remission.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Clinical activity measured by daily diary cards, assessment by investigators, and laboratory findings. Endoscopic evaluation at week 8. After four weeks 50 of 70 patients (71%) taking coated mesalazine and 38 of 58 (66%) taking sulphasalazine had achieved remission of their disease by eight weeks remission rates were 74% (37/50 patients) and 81% (35/43) in the two treatment groups respectively. Endoscopic remission at eight weeks was recorded in 20 of 41 patients (49%) taking coated mesalazine and 18 of 38 (47%) taking sulphasalazine. There was a higher incidence of adverse events among patients taking sulphasalazine (25/105; 24%) than among those taking coated mesalazine (16/115; 14%).
CONCLUSION: Mesalazine coated with Eudragit L is a safe, logical alternative to sulphasalazine.
Wolfgang Kruis, Simon Bar-Meir, Janos Feher, Oliver Mickisch, Horst Mlitz, Marek Faszczyk, Yehuda Chowers, Gabriella Lengyele, Agotá Kovacs, László Lakatos, Manfred Stolte, Michael Vieth, Roland Greinwald
The optimal dose of 5-aminosalicylic acid in active ulcerative colitis: a dose-finding study with newly developed mesalamine.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003 Jan;1(1):36-43. doi: 10.1053/jcgh.2003.50006.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: 5-Aminosalicylate is the gold standard for inducing remission in patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. The optimal dose is as yet not defined. Despite some recent developments, the ideal formulation for 5-aminosalicylic acid is still awaited. A new pellet preparation was designed combining slow and delayed release properties. Aims of the study were to find the optimal dose and to test efficacy and safety of a new 5-aminosalicylic acid formulation.
METHODS: Three hundred twenty-one patients were included in a double-blind multicenter trial. Inclusion criteria were active ulcerative colitis (Clinical Activity Index [CAI] and Endoscopic Index [EI] according to Rachmilewitz, CAI 6-12; EI >/=4). Three different doses of 5-aminosalicylic acid (0.5 g 3 times a day, 1.0 g 3 times a day, and 1.5 g 3 times a day) were studied for 8 weeks.
RESULTS: Clinical remission rate (CAI CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant dose response between mesalamine 1.5 g/day, 3.0 g/day, and 4.5 g/day. The optimal dose to induce remission of ulcerative colitis is 0.5 g 5-aminosalicylic acid 3 times a day. Patients failing with this dose may benefit from an increase of the dose up to 1.0 g 3 times a day, but should also be considered for alternative treatment. A newly developed pellet formulation of 5-aminosalicylic acid has promising efficacy and excellent safety.
P G Farup, T A Hinterleitner, M Lukás, X Hébuterne, D Rachmilewitz, M Campieri, R Meier, R Keller, B Rathbone, E Oddsson
Mesalazine 4 g daily given as prolonged-release granules twice daily and four times daily is at least as effective as prolonged-release tablets four times daily in patients with ulcerative colitis.
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2001 Aug;7(3):237-42.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: High doses of mesalazine usually result in an inconvenient dosage schedule and reduced compliance. The goal of this trial was to compare the effects of mesalazine 4 g daily given as prolonged-release granules in packets of 1 g with that of prolonged-release tablets of 0.5 g.
METHODS: Two hundred twenty-seven patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis were randomized to treatment with two packets twice daily (Gr-b.i.d.), 1 packet four times daily (Gr-q.i.d.) or 2 tablets four times daily (Ta-q.i.d.) for 8 weeks. A disease activity index (ulcerative colitis disease activity index: UC-DAI) was calculated, and the granules were defined as noninferior to the tablets if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the differences was more than -1 UC-DAI score unit.
RESULTS: Noninferiority of the granules compared with the tablets was demonstrated. The mean improvement in the UC-DAI in the treatment groups Gr-b.i.d., Gr-q.i.d., and Ta-q.i.d. were 3.2, 2.9, and 2.4, respectively; the proportion of complete responders in the three groups 39%, 37%, and 31%, respectively. There were no differences in side effects.
CONCLUSION: Mesalazine 4 g daily given as prolonged-release granules twice and four times daily is at least as effective as prolonged-release tablets four times daily in patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. The patients preferred the twice daily dosing.
M Vecchi, G Meucci, P Gionchetti, M Beltrami, P Di Maurizio, L Beretta, E Ganio, P Usai, M Campieri, G Fornaciari, R de Franchis
Oral versus combination mesalazine therapy in active ulcerative colitis: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomized multicentre study.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2001 Feb;15(2):251-6.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Oral and topical mesalazine formulations are effective in active ulcerative colitis, but little is known on the efficacy of combined treatment.
AIM: To compare the efficacy of oral mesalazine vs. combined oral and topical mesalazine in mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis.
METHODS: Patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis (Clinical Activity Index, CAI 4-12) were identified at 15 participating centres. They were randomized to receive either mesalazine 4 g orally plus placebo enema, or mesalazine 2 g orally plus mesalazine 2 g rectally as a liquid enema for 6 weeks. The rate of clinical remission (CAI < 4) or clinical remission/improvement (reduction of CAI of 50% from baseline) at 6 weeks and time to clinical remission/improvement were primary end-points; the rate of endoscopic remission was a secondary end-point.
RESULTS: 67 patients were assigned to oral treatment and 63 to combined treatment. One patient in the oral group and 2 in the combined group discontinued the treatment due to adverse events. Following an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of clinical remission was 82% for oral treatment and 87% for combined treatment (P=0.56); the mean time to remission 22.2 and 20.2 days, respectively (P=0.29); the rate of clinical remission/improvement and the rate of endoscopic remission were 85% and 91% (P=0.503) and 58% and 71% (P=0.21), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild active ulcerative colitis, mesalazine 4 g orally and 2 g orally plus 2 g enema are equally effective in inducing disease remission.
P Marteau, C S Probert, S Lindgren, M Gassul, T G Tan, A Dignass, R Befrits, G Midhagen, J Rademaker, M Foldager
Combined oral and enema treatment with Pentasa (mesalazine) is superior to oral therapy alone in patients with extensive mild/moderate active ulcerative colitis: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled study.
Gut. 2005 Jul;54(7):960-5. doi: 10.1136/gut.2004.060103.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Oral aminosalicylates are well established in the treatment of active mild/moderate ulcerative colitis (UC) when the disease is extensive (that is, beyond the splenic flexure). The majority of clinical symptoms relate to disease activity in the distal part of the colon and therefore this study was designed to investigate if adding a mesalazine enema to oral mesalazine has additional benefit for patients with extensive mild/moderate active UC.
METHODS: A randomised double blind study was performed in 127 ambulatory patients. All received 4 g/day (twice daily dosing) oral mesalazine for eight weeks. During the initial four weeks, they additionally received an enema at bedtime containing 1 g of mesalazine or placebo. Disease activity was assessed using the ulcerative colitis disease activity index, with clinical and endoscopic signs at four and eight weeks.
RESULTS: Remission was obtained in 44% (95% confidence interval (CI) 31%, 58%) of the mesalazine enema group (Me) and in 34% (95% CI 21%, 49%) of the placebo enema group (Pl) at four weeks (p = 0.31) and in 64% (95% CI 50%, 76%) of the Me group versus 43% (95% CI 28%, 58%) of the Pl group at eight weeks (p = 0.03). Improvement was obtained in 89% (95% CI 78%, 96%) of the Me group versus 62% (95% CI 46%, 75%) of the Pl group at four weeks (p = 0.0008) and in 86% (95% CI 75%, 94%) of the Me group versus 68% (95% CI 53%, 81%) of the Pl group at eight weeks (p = 0.026).
CONCLUSION: In patients with extensive mild/moderate active UC, the combination therapy is superior to oral therapy. It is safe, well accepted, and may be regarded as firstline treatment.
World Gastroenterology Organisation (WGO). World Gastroenterology Organisation Global Guideline: Inflammatory bowel disease: a global perspective. Munich (Germany): World Gastroenterology Organisation (WGO); 2009.
An oral preparation of mesalamine as long-term maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. The Mesalamine Study Group.
Ann Intern Med. 1996 Jan 15;124(2):204-11.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of a pH-sensitive, polymer-coated oral formulation of mesalamine (Asacol, Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Cincinnati, Ohio) with those of placebo in maintaining remission in patients with ulcerative colitis.
DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.
SETTING: Eight private practices, five university-based medical centers, and four hospitals or clinics.
PATIENTS: 264 patients with ulcerative colitis that had been maintained in remission for at least 1 month while the patients were receiving stable doses of sulfasalazine or any oral mesalamine product.
INTERVENTION: Coated mesalamine at oral dosages of 0.8 g/d or 1.6 g/d or matching placebo for 6 months.
MEASUREMENTS: Treatment success, defined as maintenance of remission after 6 months, and treatment failure, defined as relapse during the study (as indicated by proctosigmoidoscopy at 1, 3, or 6 months of treatment) or withdrawal due to adverse events. Safety was assessed on the basis of laboratory analyses and patient- and investigator-noted adverse events.
RESULTS: 189 patients were compliant with the protocol for 6 months or stopped receiving therapy because of relapse or adverse events. Of these 189 patients, 25 of the 63 patients (39.7%) in the placebo group had treatment success compared with 40 of the 68 patients (58.8% [95% CI, 46.4% to 71.3%]) in the group receiving mesalamine, 0.8 g/d (P = 0.036) and 38 of the 58 patients (65.5% [CI, 52.4% to 78.6%]) in the group receiving mesalamine, 1.6 g/d (P = 0.006). In the intention-to-treat analysis of all patients, 42 of the 87 patients (48.3%) in the placebo group had treatment success compared with 57 of the 90 patients (63.3% [CI, 52.8% to 73.8%]) in the group receiving mesalamine, 0.8 g/d (P = 0.050) and 61 of the 87 patients (70.1% [CI, 59.9% to 80.3%]) in the group receiving mesalamine, 1.6 g/d (P = 0.005). Age, sex, and race were not found to predict treatment success or failure. The mesalamine tablet was well tolerated, and no clinically significant changes were seen in hematologic, hepatic, or renal laboratory profiles.
CONCLUSION: Coated mesalamine at oral dosages of 0.8 g/d and 1.6 g/d is safe and effective in maintaining remission in patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis.
P Miner, S Hanauer, M Robinson, J Schwartz, S Arora
Safety and efficacy of controlled-release mesalamine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Pentasa UC Maintenance Study Group.
Dig Dis Sci. 1995 Feb;40(2):296-304.
Abstract/Text
This 12-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized 205 ulcerative colitis patients in remission to placebo or controlled-release mesalamine at 4 g/day for 12 months. Patients were stratified to either pancolitis or left-sided disease, based on previous diagnosis. Maintenance of remission was defined as a sigmoidoscopic index of < 5, less than five stools per day, and the absence of rectal bleeding. A significantly greater number of patients maintained remission on mesalamine 4 g/day than on placebo at each of five study visits, following the first one-month visit (P < 0.05). The estimated 12-month remission rates for the mesalamine group were 64% (38% for placebo, P = 0.0004). Baseline subgroups (disease location, time since last flare of active disease, and previous response to oral/rectal steroids or sulfasalazine) did not influence remission rates. Treatment-related adverse events were rare. Controlled-release mesalamine is a safe and efficacious single agent for maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis.
C J Mulder, G N Tytgat, I T Weterman, W Dekker, P Blok, M Schrijver, H van der Heide
Double-blind comparison of slow-release 5-aminosalicylate and sulfasalazine in remission maintenance in ulcerative colitis.
Gastroenterology. 1988 Dec;95(6):1449-53.
Abstract/Text
The results of a clinical trial comparing slow-release 5-aminosalicylic acid tablets (Pentasa) and enteric-coated sulfasalazine tablets (Salazopyrin) with regard to the efficacy of maintaining ulcerative colitis patients in remission for 12 mo and with regard to safety of treatment are reported. Seventy-five patients with ulcerative colitis in remission for between 1 mo and 5 yr were included for analysis. Forty-nine men and 26 women, aged between 18 and 79 yr, received either Pentasa t.i.d. (1500 mg) plus Salazopyrin placebo or Salazopyrin t.i.d. (3 g) plus Pentasa placebo daily. Patients were assessed clinically, endoscopically, and histologically before and 3, 6, 9, and 12 mo after the start of treatment. Life-table analysis showed ongoing remission after 6 and 12 mo for Pentasa to be 63% (26 of 41) and 54% (22 of 41) and for Salazopyrin 72% (22 of 31) and 46% (14 of 31). These differences were not statistically significant. Three patients treated with Salazopyrin were withdrawn because of severe erythrodermia, anxiety and backache, and pregnancy, respectively. One patient on Salazopyrin experienced transient rises in serum urea, creatinine, and lactic dehydrogenase and another patient in this group reported slight reversible loss of hair. In the Pentasa group no side effects were recorded. We conclude that Pentasa is a well-tolerated drug, equally effective as Salazopyrin in maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis.
Sunanda Kane, Dezheng Huo, Kalyani Magnanti
A pilot feasibility study of once daily versus conventional dosing mesalamine for maintenance of ulcerative colitis.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003 May;1(3):170-3. doi: 10.1053/cgh.2003.50025.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study was conducted to assess, in a small sample, the short-term outcomes of once-daily mesalamine versus conventional dosing in maintaining quiescent ulcerative colitis (UC) and to assess adherence rates with both regimens.
METHODS: Consecutive patients were randomly assigned to either a once-daily regimen, or they continued current conventional regimen (twice daily or 3 times daily). Patients were assessed at 3 months and 6 months. At each point, a clinical symptom disease score was obtained using patient questionnaires, and medication rates via pharmacy data. Adherence was defined as consumption of >80% of prescribed medication. Information was collected by an investigator blinded to treatment regimen.
RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were enrolled in the study, 12 in the once-daily group (QD) and 10 in the conventional group (CD). At 3 months, no patients had experienced a relapse. All of the patients in the QD group and 70% of patients in the CD group were adherent (P = 0.04). The average amount of medication consumed in the QD group was significantly higher than in the CD group (90% vs. 75%, P = 0.02). At 6 months, 2 patients (1 patient from each group) experienced a clinical relapse (P = 0.76). Seventy-five percent vs. 70% of patients were adherent (P = 0.8); the amount of medication taken approached significance (90% vs. 76%, P = 0.07). All patients in the QD group reported being either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with their regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized pilot trial, patients taking once-daily mesalamine had outcomes similar to those for patients on conventional regimens. A larger trial is warranted to assess whether true differences between regimens exist.
Seymour Katz
Update in medical therapy of ulcerative colitis: newer concepts and therapies.
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2005 Aug;39(7):557-69.
Abstract/Text
Recent advances in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis recognize the interface of genetic susceptibility, environmental factors (eg, gut microflora), and an altered host's immune response. The meteoric evolution of new therapies designed to address these pathogenetic factors may lead to confusing and often confounding treatment programs. This review is designed to assist the practitioner when in [corrected] incorporating new or novel therapies into a treatment program. These decisions are based on new clinical trial data and the experience of seasoned gastroenterologists with established remedies. NEWER CONCEPTS AND THERAPIES IN UC 5-ADA-- 1. Remains drug of choice for induction and maintenance of remission in mild to moderate IC.1,2 2. Rare but increased incidence of renal disease exists but benefits outweigh risks.18-20 3. Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer in UC is promising and may be related to higher dose and a lessened degree of inflammation.29-36 4. Bioequivalence of all USA 5-ASA is established. Choice of a 5-ASA preparation is not dependent on superiority of a particular mesalamine.3 Phosphodiesterase Inhibitor (OPC-6525)37: preliminary data promising Immunomodulators 6MP/AZA 1. long-term effect not waning51 2. concerns over lymphoma voiced but overall benefits outweigh risks64-70 3. 6MP metabolites measurements of increasing use52-56 Cyclosporine experience continues but serious adverse events remains.105-114 Biologics Infliximab--somewhat disappointing in CUC, awaiting RCT87-92 Basiliximab--useful as "steroid sensitizer" in previously steroid resistant patients118-120 Visilizumab--promising as alternative to cyclosporin in server U.C.115-117 Apheresis--and emerging "non-drug" treatment alternative121-135 Probiotics--Useful in pouchitis and some mild to moderate U.C.94-98, 154 ISIS topical therapy useful in early pilot study (pouchitis)151 Budesonide (pouchitis)147 Antibiotics (pouchitis)140-146 [corrected]
A Sood, V Midha, N Sood, V Kaushal, G Awasthi
Methylprednisolone acetate versus oral prednisolone in moderately active ulcerative colitis.
Indian J Gastroenterol. 2002 Jan-Feb;21(1):11-3.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Patients with active ulcerative colitis are treated with corticosteroids. We compared the efficacy and safety of intramuscular depot preparation of methylprednisolone acetate with oral prednisolone in the treatment of moderately active ulcerative colitis.
DESIGN: Open labeled, randomized, prospective, four-month study.
METHODS: 40 patients with moderately active ulcerative colitis (activity index 150-220) were randomized into two groups. Group A (n=21) received methylprednisolone acetate (80 mg intramuscularly once weekly for 6 weeks). Group B (n=19) received oral prednisolone (40 mg/day) in a 'tailing-off' regimen. In addition, patients in both the groups received sulfasalazine. Patients were followed up at 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 12 and 16 weeks. The primary measure of therapeutic response was activity index. An index of <150 was considered as clinical remission. Secondary efficacy was assessed by subjective evaluation of acceptability of treatment by the patient.
RESULTS: After one week of treatment, the decrease in mean activity index was significantly more with oral prednisolone (p<0.05), and five 5 patients (23.8%) in Group A and 12 (63.2%) in Group B were in clinical remission (p<0.05). However, after 2 weeks and beyond, the mean activity index and the number of patients with clinical remission were comparable in the two treatment groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Methylprednisolone acetate as a depot preparation and oral prednisolone are equally effective in inducing remission in patients with moderately active ulcerative colitis. Though symptomatic improvement is quicker with oral prednisolone, the remission rate with the two drugs was similar after 2 weeks of treatment.
Simon P L Travis, Silvio Danese, Limas Kupcinskas, Olga Alexeeva, Geert D'Haens, Peter R Gibson, Luigi Moro, Richard Jones, E David Ballard, Johan Masure, Matteo Rossini, William J Sandborn
Once-daily budesonide MMX in active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: results from the randomised CORE II study.
Gut. 2014 Mar;63(3):433-41. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304258. Epub 2013 Feb 22.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: Budesonide MMX is a novel oral formulation of budesonide that uses Multi-Matrix System (MMX) technology to extend release to the colon. This study compared the efficacy of budesonide MMX with placebo in patients with active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC).
DESIGN: Patients were randomised 1:1:1:1 to receive budesonide MMX 9 mg or 6 mg, or Entocort EC 9 mg (budesonide controlled ileal-release capsules; reference arm) or placebo once daily for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was combined clinical and endoscopic remission, defined as UC Disease Activity Index score ≤1 with a score of 0 for rectal bleeding and stool frequency, no mucosal friability on colonoscopy, and a ≥1-point reduction in endoscopic index score from baseline.
RESULTS: 410 patients were evaluated for efficacy. Combined clinical and endoscopic remission rates with budesonide MMX 9 mg or 6 mg, Entocort EC and placebo were 17.4%, 8.3%, 12.6% and 4.5%, respectively. The difference between budesonide MMX 9 mg and placebo was significant (OR 4.49; 95% CI 1.47 to 13.72; p=0.0047). Budesonide MMX 9 mg was associated with numerically higher rates of clinical (42.2% vs 33.7%) and endoscopic improvement (42.2% vs 31.5%) versus placebo. The rate of histological healing (16.5% vs 6.7%; p=0.0361) and proportion of patients with symptom resolution (23.9% vs 11.2%; p=0.0220) were significantly higher for budesonide MMX 9 mg than placebo. Adverse event profiles were similar across groups.
CONCLUSION: Budesonide MMX 9 mg was safe and more effective than placebo at inducing combined clinical and endoscopic remission in patients with active, mild-to-moderate UC.
Katsuyoshi Matsuoka, Mamoru Watanabe, Toshihide Ohmori, Koichi Nakajima, Tetsuya Ishida, Yoh Ishiguro, Kazunari Kanke, Kiyonori Kobayashi, Fumihito Hirai, Kenji Watanabe, Hidehiro Mizusawa, Shuji Kishida, Yoshiharu Miura, Akira Ohta, Toshifumi Kajioka, Toshifumi Hibi, AJM300 Study Group
AJM300 (carotegrast methyl), an oral antagonist of α4-integrin, as induction therapy for patients with moderately active ulcerative colitis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Jul;7(7):648-657. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00022-X. Epub 2022 Mar 30.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: AJM300 is an oral, small-molecule α4-integrin antagonist. We assessed the efficacy and safety of AJM300 in patients with moderately active ulcerative colitis.
METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study consisted of two phases: a treatment phase and an open-label re-treatment phase. The study was done at 82 hospitals and clinics in Japan. Patients with a Mayo Clinic score of 6-10, endoscopic subscore of 2 or more, rectal bleeding subscore of 1 or more, and an inadequate response or intolerance to mesalazine were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) via a website to either AJM300 (960 mg) or placebo by the minimisation method, which was adjusted centrally by dynamic assignment against the Mayo Clinic score (≥6 to ≤7, ≥8 to ≤10 points), any use of corticosteroid, anti-TNFα antibody, or immunosuppressants during the disease-active period (yes vs no), duration of induction therapy until randomisation (<4 weeks vs ≥4 weeks) as the minimisation factors. Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignments. The study drug was administered orally, three times daily, for 8 weeks, and continued for up to 24 weeks if endoscopic remission was not achieved or rectal bleeding did not stop. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a clinical response at week 8, and was analysed in the full analysis set. Clinical response was defined as a reduction in Mayo Clinic score of 30% or more and 3 or more, a reduction in rectal bleeding score of 1 or more or rectal bleeding subscore of 1 or less, and an endoscopic subscore of 1 or less at week 8. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03531892, and is closed to recruitment.
FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2018, and July 22, 2020, 203 patients were randomly assigned to AJM300 (n=102) or placebo (n=101). At week 8, 46 (45%) patients in the AJM300 group and 21 (21%) patients in the placebo group had a clinical response (odds ratio 3·30, 95% CI 1·73-6·29; p=0·00028). During the 8-week treatment and 16-week extension treatment periods, adverse events occurred in 39 (39%) of 101 patients in the placebo group and 39 (38%) of 102 patients in the AJM300 group. We found no difference in the incidence of adverse events between groups or after repeated administration of AJM300. The most common adverse event was nasopharyngitis (11 [11%] of 101 patients in the placebo group and ten [10%] of 102 patients in the AJM300 group). The most common treatment-related adverse event was also nasopharyngitis (four [4%] of 101 patients in the placebo group and three [3%] of 102 patients in the AJM300 group). Most adverse events were mild-to-moderate in severity. No deaths were reported. A serious adverse event was reported in the AJM300 group (one patient with anal abscess), but this was judged to be unrelated to study drug.
INTERPRETATION: AJM300 was well tolerated and induced a clinical response in patients with moderately active ulcerative colitis who had an inadequate response or intolerance to mesalazine. AJM300 could be a novel induction therapy for the treatment of patients with moderately active ulcerative colitis.
FUNDING: EA Pharma and Kissei Pharmaceutical.
TRANSLATION: For the Japanese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A Kornbluth, J F Marion, P Salomon, H D Janowitz
How effective is current medical therapy for severe ulcerative and Crohn's colitis? An analytic review of selected trials.
J Clin Gastroenterol. 1995 Jun;20(4):280-4.
Abstract/Text
To determine the efficacy of current medical therapies in the treatment of severe ulcerative and Crohn's colitis, we conducted a MEDLINE computer-assisted literature search using the terms "severe ulcerative colitis," "severe Crohn's colitis," "drugs," and "therapy." Studies were compared and then selected based, in decreasing order of importance, on the use of standard criteria to assess disease severity, uniform entrance criteria with prospective drug protocols using defined end points; prospective placebo-controlled trials; and retrospective studies. We then conducted an analytic review of those studies selected. For severe ulcerative colitis, we identified seven studies comprising 319 treatment episodes in 306 patients. Clinical remission was achieved on average in 62% of subjects (range, 43-80%); 38% (25-57%) came to prompt colectomy. Remission was maintained in 38-71% of patients achieving success in the acute phase. For severe Crohn's colitis, we identified five studies comprising 68 patients. Clinical remission was achieved on average in 65% of patients (range, 55-94%). Remission was maintained in 54-69% of those achieving success in the acute phase. Current medical therapies have improved the outlook for severe ulcerative colitis; however, physicians cannot predict response to therapy based upon individual's clinical features or previous presentations. Current medical therapy for severe Crohn's colitis appears to spare many patients early colectomy, but the current dearth of clinical trials postpones any further advances in the medical management of these patients.
F Carbonnel, D Gargouri, M Lémann, L Beaugerie, S Cattan, J Cosnes, J P Gendre
Predictive factors of outcome of intensive intravenous treatment for attacks of ulcerative colitis.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2000 Mar;14(3):273-9.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Intensive intravenous treatment remains the first line therapy of severe, uncomplicated attacks of ulcerative colitis.
AIM: To predict the failure of intensive intravenous treatment by combining clinical and laboratory parameters with endoscopy findings.
METHODS: Retrospective study conducted in a tertiary care referral centre. Failure of intensive intravenous treatment was defined as colectomy before day 30, intravenous cyclosporin, or death. Predictive factors of outcome were assessed using univariate and multivariate prognostic analysis.
RESULTS: Between January 1990 and May 1997, 85 consecutive patients were treated with intensive intravenous treatment for non-response to oral corticosteroids (n=59) and/or severe attack of ulcerative colitis (n=26). There were 41 successes and 44 failures (including 1 death, 13 cyclosporin and 30 colectomies before day 30). Multivariate prognostic analysis found that the presence of Truelove and Witts' criteria (P=0.018), an attack that had lasted more than 6 weeks (P=0.001), and severe endoscopic lesions (P=0.007) were associated with an increased risk of failure. Patients with severe endoscopic lesions and Truelove and Witts' criteria, or an attack of more than 6 weeks had a failure rate of 85-86%.
CONCLUSION: Clinical, laboratory and endoscopic findings can predict the risk of failure of intensive intravenous treatment. A prospective study is required to confirm these results.
W Rosenberg, A Ireland, D P Jewell
High-dose methylprednisolone in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis.
J Clin Gastroenterol. 1990 Feb;12(1):40-1.
Abstract/Text
Twenty patients with severe active ulcerative colitis were entered into a pilot study to test the efficacy of pulsed high-dose methylprednisolone in inducing remission. Of 20 patients, 12 improved, but 8 of 20 patients (40%) who did not went for urgent colectomy. The group proceeding to surgery tended to have more extensive disease. These results contrast unfavorably with historical control data from this unit.
J L Rosenberg, A J Wall, B Levin, H J Binder, J B Kirsner
A controlled trial of azathioprine in the management of chronic ulcerative colitis.
Gastroenterology. 1975 Jul;69(1):96-9.
Abstract/Text
To determine the efficacy of azathioprine in the treatment of ulcerative colitis, a 6-month double blind trial was carried out. Thirty patients with chronic ulcerative colitis who required the equivalent of at least 10 mg of prednisone per day over the 3 months prior to entering the study were randomized into placebo and azathioprine (1.5 mg per kg) treatment groups. Reduction of steriods was a major objective of the trial. Age and sex distribution, number of bowel movements, sense of well being, steroid dosage, and findings on proctoscopy, rectal biopsy, and colon X-ray initially were similar in the two groups. No side effects were associated with azathioprine. Although steroid dose was lower (p less than 0.05) in the azathioprine group at the termination of the study, no difference between the two groups could be detected in the number of bowel movements, sense of well being, and findings on proctoscopy during the first 3 weeks compared with the last 3 and during the first 3 months compared with the last 3. Although azathioprine does not confer dramatic benefit upon patients with chronic ulcerative colitis who require steroids, it does permit reduction of steroid dosage without apparent worsening of the disease. Its major value in ulcerative colitis may be in facilitating significant decreases or complete discontinuance of steroids.
A B Hawthorne, R F Logan, C J Hawkey, P N Foster, A T Axon, E T Swarbrick, B B Scott, J E Lennard-Jones
Randomised controlled trial of azathioprine withdrawal in ulcerative colitis.
BMJ. 1992 Jul 4;305(6844):20-2.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether azathioprine can prevent relapse in ulcerative colitis.
DESIGN: One year placebo controlled double blind trial of withdrawal or continuation of azathioprine.
SETTING: Outpatient clinics of five hospitals.
SUBJECTS: 79 patients with ulcerative colitis who had been taking azathioprine for six months or more. Patients in full remission for two months or more (67), and patients with chronic low grade or corticosteroid dependent disease (12) were randomised separately. 33 patients in remission received azathioprine and 34 placebo; five patients with chronic stable disease received azathioprine and seven placebo.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Rate of relapse. Relapse was defined as worsening of symptoms or sigmoidoscopic appearance.
RESULTS: For the remission group the one year rate of relapse was 36% (12/33) for patients continuing azathioprine and 59% (20/34) for those taking placebo (hazard rate ratio 0.5, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 1.0). For the subgroup of 54 patients in long term remission (greater than six months before entry to trial) benefit was still evident, with a 31% (8/26) rate of relapse with azathioprine and 61% (17/28) with placebo (p less than 0.01). For the small group of patients with chronic stable colitis (six were corticosteroid dependent and six had low grade symptoms) no benefit was found from continued azathioprine therapy. Adverse events were minimal.
CONCLUSIONS: Azathioprine maintenance treatment in ulcerative colitis is beneficial for at least two years if patients have achieved remission while taking the drug. Demonstration of the relapse preventing properties of azathioprine has implications for a large number of patients with troublesome ulcerative colitis, who may benefit from treatment with azathioprine.
Gerassimos J Mantzaris, Michael Sfakianakis, Emmanuel Archavlis, Kalliopi Petraki, Angeliki Christidou, Alexandros Karagiannidis, George Triadaphyllou
A prospective randomized observer-blind 2-year trial of azathioprine monotherapy versus azathioprine and olsalazine for the maintenance of remission of steroid-dependent ulcerative colitis.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2004 Jun;99(6):1122-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.11481.x.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study was to assess whether the coadministration of azathioprine (AZA) and olsalazine is superior to AZA monotherapy in maintaining remission of steroid-dependent ulcerative colitis (UC).
METHODS: Patients with steroid-dependent UC in remission were randomized to receive AZA alone (2.2 mg/kg) or in combination with olsalazine (0.5 g tid). Remission was defined as steroid withdrawal, an Ulcerative Colitis Clinical Activity Index (UCCAI) score of <2, an Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) score of 0, and a negative colonoscopy and histology. Patients were followed in the outpatient clinic every month for 2 yr. The study protocol included 1) monthly clinical examination, assessment of UCCAI, hematological and biochemical tests, and compliance with treatment; 2) a sigmoidoscopy and completion of inflammatory bowel disease quality-of-life questionnaire (IBD-Q) and UCDAI every 3 months; and 3) total colonoscopy with biopsies at the end of the first and second year of the trial.
RESULTS: Seventy patients were randomized to receive AZA alone (n = 34) or with olsalazine (n = 36). Three patients in each group developed side effects or could not comply with treatment and were withdrawn from the study. Three patients receiving AZA relapsed after the first year of the study and three after the second year of the study (19%). In the combination therapy group four patients relapsed after the first year of study and two after the second year of the study (18%). Relapse rates were not significant whether analyzed by intention-to-treat or per protocol. There were no significant differences between groups in time to relapse or discontinuation of treatment, UCCAI, UCDAI, or IBD-Q scores. However, the number of adverse events and the cost of treatment were significantly higher, whereas compliance with treatment was poorer in the combination therapy.
CONCLUSION: Patients with steroid-dependent UC successfully maintained in remission on AZA are not in need of 5-aminosalicylic acid compounds.
日本肝臓学会 肝炎診療ガイドライン作成委員会編：B型肝炎治療ガイドライン（第2.2版）、2016.
Taku Kobayashi, Satoshi Motoya, Shiro Nakamura, Takayuki Yamamoto, Masakazu Nagahori, Shinji Tanaka, Tadakazu Hisamatsu, Fumihito Hirai, Hiroshi Nakase, Kenji Watanabe, Takayuki Matsumoto, Masanori Tanaka, Takayuki Abe, Yasuo Suzuki, Mamoru Watanabe, Toshifumi Hibi, HAYABUSA Study Group
Discontinuation of infliximab in patients with ulcerative colitis in remission (HAYABUSA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jun;6(6):429-437. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00062-5. Epub 2021 Apr 20.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents are the mainstay of long-term treatment for refractory ulcerative colitis. However, long-term use of anti-TNF therapy might lead to an increased risk of malignancy or infection. To date, no randomised controlled trial has evaluated whether anti-TNF agents can be safely discontinued in patients with ulcerative colitis in remission. We therefore aimed to compare outcomes in these patients who continued infliximab with those who discontinued infliximab.
METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial at 24 specialist centres in Japan. We enrolled patients with ulcerative colitis who were in remission, had been treated with intravenous infliximab (5 mg/kg) every 8 weeks, and had started infliximab at least 14 weeks before study enrolment. No restrictions regarding age and comorbidities were used to exclude participation. Patients who were confirmed to be in remission for more than 6 months, to be corticosteroid-free, and to have a Mayo Endoscopic Subscore (MES) of 0 or 1 were centrally randomised. An independent organisation randomly assigned patients (1:1) into either the infliximab-continued group or infliximab-discontinued group, using a computer-generated stratified randomisation procedure. The stratified factors were the use of immunomodulators (yes or no) and MES (0 or 1). Neither patients nor health-care providers were masked to the randomisation. The primary endpoint was the remission rate at week 48 in the full analysis set, which was based on the intention-to-treat principle and excluded participants with no efficacy data after randomisation. This study was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Center Trials registry, UMIN000012092.
FINDINGS: Between June 16, 2014, and July 28, 2017, 122 patients were eligible for screening and a total of 95 patients were randomly assigned to the infliximab-continued group (n=48) or the infliximab-discontinued group (n=47). 92 patients (n=46 for both groups) were included in the full analysis set. 37 (80·4% [95% CI 66·1-90·6]) of 46 patients in the infliximab-continued group and 25 (54·3% [39·0-69·1]) of 46 patients in the infliximab-discontinued group were in remission at week 48. The between-group difference was 26·1% (95% CI 7·7-44·5; p=0·0076) before adjustment and 27·3% (95% CI 8·0-44·1; p=0·0059) after adjustment for stratification factors. Eight (17%) of 48 patients in the infliximab-continued group and six (13%) of 47 in the infliximab-discontinued group developed adverse events (between-group difference 3·9% [95% CI -10·3 to 18·1]; p=0·59). In the infliximab-continued group, one patient had an infusion reaction and two patients had psoriatic skin lesions. Eight (66·7%, 95% CI 34·9-90·1) of the 12 patients in the infliximab-discontinuation group who were re-treated with infliximab after relapsing were in remission within 8 weeks of re-treatment; none had infusion reactions.
INTERPRETATION: Maintenance of remission was significantly more common in patients who continued infliximab than in those who discontinued. Discontinuing infliximab should therefore be discussed with caution, taking both risk of relapse and efficacy of re-treatment into account.
FUNDING: Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation and the Intractable Disease Project of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan.
TRANSLATION: For the Japanese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Katsuyoshi Matsuoka, Yasushi Iwao, Takeshi Mori, Atsushi Sakuraba, Tomoharu Yajima, Tadakazu Hisamatsu, Susumu Okamoto, Yuichi Morohoshi, Motoko Izumiya, Hitoshi Ichikawa, Toshiro Sato, Nagamu Inoue, Haruhiko Ogata, Toshifumi Hibi
Cytomegalovirus is frequently reactivated and disappears without antiviral agents in ulcerative colitis patients.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Feb;102(2):331-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00989.x. Epub 2006 Dec 11.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: The clinical significance of cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation complicating ulcerative colitis (UC) patients has been uncertain. It has therefore remained undetermined whether or not CMV reactivation should be treated in UC patients under immunosuppression. The aim of the study was to clarify the natural history of CMV reactivation in UC patients.
METHODS: Sixty-nine UC patients with moderate to severe activity were enrolled in the study. All of the patients were treated with prednisolone, and/or immunosuppressants such as cyclosporine A. We sequentially monitored CMV reactivation every 2 wk up until 8 wk using the CMV antigenemia (Ag) assay and plasma quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for CMV.
RESULTS: Immunoglobulin (Ig) G for CMV was positive in 48 patients (69.6%) and negative in 21 patients (30.4%). CMV was reactivated in 25 patients out of the 48 seropositive patients (52.1%) during the study period. The CMV Ag and PCR values were low and none of the patients showed any evidence of CMV infection on biopsy specimens by hematoxylin and eosin staining. While gancylovir (GCV) was not used except in two patients, clinical outcomes including rates of remission and colectomy were not significantly different among the CMV reactivation-positive, -negative, and CMV IgG negative groups. Furthermore, CMV disappeared without GCV in most of the CMV reactivation-positive patients.
CONCLUSIONS: CMV is frequently reactivated in active UC patients; however, it disappears without antiviral agents. Therefore, antiviral therapies should not be necessary for most UC patients with only CMV reactivation as long as CMV Ag values are low.
Koji Sawada, Tetsuichiro Muto, Takashi Shimoyama, Masamichi Satomi, Toshio Sawada, Hirokazu Nagawa, Nobuo Hiwatashi, Hitoshi Asakura, Toshifumi Hibi
Multicenter randomized controlled trial for the treatment of ulcerative colitis with a leukocytapheresis column.
Curr Pharm Des. 2003;9(4):307-21.
Abstract/Text
The administration of steroids is not always effective for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). Their long-term use often causes adverse effects which sometimes result in their stoppage and acute exacerbation. Therefore, an alternative treatment is necessary in order to decrease steroid dosage and avoid the clinical problems associated with steroids. Methods The effectiveness and adverse effects of a leukocytapheresis (LCAP) were investigated in a controlled multicenter trial with randomized assignment of 76 active-stage UC patients in two groups. In the LCAP group (39 patients), LCAP weekly for 5 weeks as an intensive therapy was added to the on-going drug therapy, while steroids were maintained but not increased, and then LCAP was gradually reduced to once every 4 weeks as a maintenance therapy. In the high dose prednisolone (h-PSL) group (37 patients), PSL was added or increased 30 approximately 40 mg/day for moderately severe and 60 approximately 80 mg/day for severe patients and then gradually tapered. Findings The LCAP group showed a significantly higher effectiveness (74% vs. 38%; p=0.005) and lower incidence of adverse effects (24% vs. 68%; p<0.001). The patients were able to continue the trial for a longer period in the LCAP group than the h-PSL group (p=0.012). Clinical activity and endoscopic indexes showed the LCAP group had better improvements than the h-PSL group. Interpretation The results of the trial show that LCAP permits a reduction in total PSL dosage and is more effective and safer than high-dose PSL administration for intensive therapy, and LCAP may maintain remission longer than PSL.
T Shimoyama, K Sawada, N Hiwatashi, T Sawada, K Matsueda, A Munakata, H Asakura, T Tanaka, R Kasukawa, K Kimura, Y Suzuki, Y Nagamachi, T Muto, H Nagawa, B Iizuka, S Baba, M Nasu, T Kataoka, N Kashiwagi, A R Saniabadi
Safety and efficacy of granulocyte and monocyte adsorption apheresis in patients with active ulcerative colitis: a multicenter study.
J Clin Apher. 2001;16(1):1-9.
Abstract/Text
Active ulcerative colitis (UC) is characterized by activation and infiltration of granulocytes and monocytes/macrophages into the colonic mucosa. The infiltrated leukocytes can cause mucosal damage by releasing degradative proteases, reactive oxygen derivatives, and proinflammatory cytokines. The aim of this trial (conducted in 14 specialist centers) was to assess safety and efficacy of granulocyte and monocyte adsorption apheresis in patients with active UC most of whom were refractory to conventional drug therapy. We used a new adsorptive type extracorporeal column (G-1 Adacolumn) filled with cellulose acetate beads (carriers) of 2 mm in diameter, which selectively adsorb granulocytes and monocytes/macrophages. Patients (n = 53) received five apheresis sessions, each of 60 minutes duration, flow rate 30 ml per minute for 5 consecutive weeks in combination with 24.4 +/- 3.60 mg prednisolone (mean +/- SE per patient per day, baseline dose). During 60 minutes apheresis, 26% of granulocytes, 19.5% of monocytes and 2% of lymphocytes adsorbed to the carriers. At week 7, 58.5% of patients had remission or improved, the dose of prednisolone was reduced to 14.2 +/- 2.25 mg (n = 37). The apheresis treatment was fairly safe, only eight non-severe side effects (in 5 patients) were reported. Based on our results, we believe that in patients with active severe UC, patients who are refractory to conventional drugs, granulocyte and monocyte adsorption apheresis is a useful adjunct to conventional therapy. This procedure should have the potential to allow tapering the dose of corticosteroids, shorten the time to remission and delay relapse.
G D'Haens, L Lemmens, K Geboes, L Vandeputte, F Van Acker, L Mortelmans, M Peeters, S Vermeire, F Penninckx, F Nevens, M Hiele, P Rutgeerts
Intravenous cyclosporine versus intravenous corticosteroids as single therapy for severe attacks of ulcerative colitis.
Gastroenterology. 2001 May;120(6):1323-9.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Cyclosporine has been effective in patients with steroid-refractory attacks of ulcerative colitis (UC). We investigated the effects of intravenous (IV) cyclosporine as single IV therapy (without glucocorticosteroids) for severe UC and compared these with the response to glucocorticosteroids.
METHODS: Patients with a severe attack of UC were randomized to treatment with IV cyclosporine, 4 mg x kg(-1) x day(-1), or with methylprednisolone, 40 mg/day, in a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. After 8 days, patients who had a response received the same medication orally in combination with azathioprine. Patients were followed up clinically, endoscopically, and by scintigraphy. Renal function was assessed using urinary inulin clearances. Endpoints were clinical improvement, discharge from the hospital, and remission up to 12 months after intravenous therapy.
RESULTS: Thirty patients were included. After 8 days, 8 of 15 patients (53%) who received methylprednisolone had a response to therapy vs. 9 of 14 (64%) receiving cyclosporine. In nonresponders, 3 of 7 methylprednisolone patients and 1 of 3 cyclosporine patients improved when both treatments were combined. No serious drug-related toxicity was observed with either treatment. At 12 months, 7 of 9 patients (78%) initially controlled with cyclosporine maintained their remission vs. 3 of 8 (37%) initially treated with methylprednisolone. No clinically significant decrease of renal function was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Cyclosporine monotherapy is an effective and safe alternative to glucocorticosteroids in patients with severe attacks of UC.
S Lichtiger, D H Present, A Kornbluth, I Gelernt, J Bauer, G Galler, F Michelassi, S Hanauer
Cyclosporine in severe ulcerative colitis refractory to steroid therapy.
N Engl J Med. 1994 Jun 30;330(26):1841-5. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199406303302601.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: There has been no new effective drug therapy for patients with severe ulcerative colitis since corticosteroids were introduced almost 40 years ago. In an uncontrolled study, 80 percent of 32 patients with active ulcerative colitis refractory to corticosteroid therapy had a response to cyclosporine therapy.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial in which cyclosporine (4 mg per kilogram of body weight per day) or placebo was administered by continuous intravenous infusion to 20 patients with severe ulcerative colitis whose condition had not improved after at least 7 days of intravenous corticosteroid therapy. A response to therapy was defined as an improvement in a numerical symptom score (0 indicated no symptoms, and 21 severe symptoms) leading to discharge from the hospital and treatment with oral medications. Failure to respond to therapy resulted in colectomy, but some patients in the placebo group who had no response and no urgent need for surgery were subsequently treated with cyclosporine.
RESULTS: Nine of 11 patients (82 percent) treated with cyclosporine had a response within a mean of seven days, as compared with 0 of 9 patients who received placebo (P < 0.001). The mean clinical-activity score fell from 13 to 6 in the cyclosporine group, as compared with a decrease from 14 to 13 in the placebo group. All five patients in the placebo group who later received cyclosporine therapy had a response.
CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous cyclosporine therapy is rapidly effective for patients with severe corticosteroid-resistant ulcerative colitis.
Gert Van Assche, Geert D'Haens, Maja Noman, Séverine Vermeire, Martin Hiele, Katrien Asnong, Joris Arts, Andre D'Hoore, Freddy Penninckx, Paul Rutgeerts
Randomized, double-blind comparison of 4 mg/kg versus 2 mg/kg intravenous cyclosporine in severe ulcerative colitis.
Gastroenterology. 2003 Oct;125(4):1025-31.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cyclosporine A is highly effective in severe attacks of ulcerative colitis (UC) but is associated with important adverse effects that are mainly dose dependent. Our single center, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial aimed to evaluate the additional clinical benefit of 4 mg/kg over 2 mg/kg IV cyclosporine in the acute treatment of severe UC.
METHODS: Primary end point was the proportion of patients with a clinical response. Secondary end points included time to response, colectomy rate, and adverse effects.
RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were included. Day-8 response rates were 84.2% (32 of 38, 4 mg/kg) and 85.7% (32 of 35, 2 mg/kg) after a median of 4 days in both groups. Short-term colectomy rates were 13.1% (4 mg/kg) and 8.6% (2 mg/kg). Mean cyclosporine blood levels were 237 +/- 33 in the 2-mg/kg group and 332 +/- 43 ng/mL in the 4-mg/kg group. Active smoking was inversely correlated with clinical response (odds ratio, 0.06), but concomitant azathioprine or steroids were not predictive. A trend toward a higher incidence of hypertension was observed in the 4-mg/kg group (23.7% vs. 8.6%, 2 mg/kg, P < 0.08).
CONCLUSIONS: High-dose IV cyclosporine has no additional clinical benefit over low dose in the treatment of severe UC. Although we did not observe differences in adverse effects on the short term, the use of 2 mg/kg IV cyclosporine should provide an improved toxicity profile for medical treatment of severe UC.
Haruhiko Ogata, Jun Kato, Fumihito Hirai, Nobuyuki Hida, Toshiyuki Matsui, Takayuki Matsumoto, Katsuyoshi Koyanagi, Toshifumi Hibi
Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral tacrolimus (FK506) in the management of hospitalized patients with steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis.
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2012 May;18(5):803-8. doi: 10.1002/ibd.21853. Epub 2011 Sep 1.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: We report a multicenter study of oral tacrolimus (FK506) therapy in steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis (UC).
METHODS: In a placebo-controlled, double-blind study, 62 patients with steroid-refractory, moderate-to-severe UC were randomized into either a tacrolimus group or a placebo for 2 weeks. Patients were evaluated using the Disease Activity Index (DAI). As an entry criterion, patients had to have a total DAI score of 6 or more as well as a mucosal appearance subscore of 2 or 3. Clinical response was defined as improvement in all DAI subscores. Mucosal healing was defined as mucosal appearance subscore of 0 or 1. Clinical remission was defined as a total DAI score ≤ 2 with an individual subscore of 0 or 1.
RESULTS: The mean total DAI score at study entry was 9.8 ± 1.61 in the tacrolimus group and 9.1 ± 1.05 in the placebo group. At week 2 the clinical response rate was 50.0% (16/32) in the tacrolimus group and 13.3% (4/30) in the placebo group (P = 0.003). The rate of mucosal healing observed was 43.8% (14/32) in the tacrolimus group and 13.3% (4/30) in the placebo group (P = 0.012) and the rate of clinical remission observed was 9.4% (3/32) in the tacrolimus group and 0.0% (0/30) in the placebo group (P = 0.238). The therapies in this study were well tolerated, with only minor side effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral tacrolimus therapy in patients with steroid-refractory UC shortened the acute phase and induced rapid mucosal healing. These results suggest that tacrolimus therapy is useful as an alternative therapy for steroid-refractory UC.
Copyright © 2011 Crohn's & Colitis Foundation of America, Inc.
Paul Rutgeerts, William J Sandborn, Brian G Feagan, Walter Reinisch, Allan Olson, Jewel Johanns, Suzanne Travers, Daniel Rachmilewitz, Stephen B Hanauer, Gary R Lichtenstein, Willem J S de Villiers, Daniel Present, Bruce E Sands, Jean Frédéric Colombel
Infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis.
N Engl J Med. 2005 Dec 8;353(23):2462-76. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa050516.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody directed against tumor necrosis factor alpha, is an established treatment for Crohn's disease but not ulcerative colitis.
METHODS: Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies--the Active Ulcerative Colitis Trials 1 and 2 (ACT 1 and ACT 2, respectively)--evaluated the efficacy of infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy in adults with ulcerative colitis. In each study, 364 patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis despite treatment with concurrent medications received placebo or infliximab (5 mg or 10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously at weeks 0, 2, and 6 and then every eight weeks through week 46 (in ACT 1) or week 22 (in ACT 2). Patients were followed for 54 weeks in ACT 1 and 30 weeks in ACT 2.
RESULTS: In ACT 1, 69 percent of patients who received 5 mg of infliximab and 61 percent of those who received 10 mg had a clinical response at week 8, as compared with 37 percent of those who received placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). A response was defined as a decrease in the Mayo score of at least 3 points and at least 30 percent, with an accompanying decrease in the subscore for rectal bleeding of at least 1 point or an absolute rectal-bleeding subscore of 0 or 1. In ACT 2, 64 percent of patients who received 5 mg of infliximab and 69 percent of those who received 10 mg had a clinical response at week 8, as compared with 29 percent of those who received placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). In both studies, patients who received infliximab were more likely to have a clinical response at week 30 (P< or =0.002 for all comparisons). In ACT 1, more patients who received 5 mg or 10 mg of infliximab had a clinical response at week 54 (45 percent and 44 percent, respectively) than did those who received placebo (20 percent, P<0.001 for both comparisons).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis treated with infliximab at weeks 0, 2, and 6 and every eight weeks thereafter were more likely to have a clinical response at weeks 8, 30, and 54 than were those receiving placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00036439 and NCT00096655.)
Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Geert R D'Haens, Remo Panaccione, Peter D R Higgins, Severine Vermeire, Miquel Gassull, Yehuda Chowers, Stephen B Hanauer, Hans Herfarth, Daan W Hommes, Michael Kamm, Robert Löfberg, A Quary, Bruce Sands, A Sood, G Watermeyer, G Watermayer, Bret Lashner, Marc Lémann, Scott Plevy, Walter Reinisch, Stefan Schreiber, Corey Siegel, Stephen Targan, M Watanabe, Brian Feagan, William J Sandborn, Jean Frédéric Colombel, Simon Travis
The London Position Statement of the World Congress of Gastroenterology on Biological Therapy for IBD with the European Crohn's and Colitis Organization: when to start, when to stop, which drug to choose, and how to predict response?
Am J Gastroenterol. 2011 Feb;106(2):199-212; quiz 213. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2010.392. Epub 2010 Nov 2.
Abstract/Text
The advent of biological therapy has revolutionized inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care. Nonetheless, not all patients require biological therapy. Selection of patients depends on clinical characteristics, previous response to other medical therapy, and comorbid conditions. Availability, reimbursement guidelines, and patient preferences guide the choice of first-line biological therapy for luminal Crohn's disease (CD). Infliximab (IFX) has the most extensive clinical trial data, but other biological agents (adalimumab (ADA), certolizumab pegol (CZP), and natalizumab (NAT)) appear to have similar benefits in CD. Steroid-refractory, steroid-dependent, or complex fistulizing CD are indications for starting biological therapy, after surgical drainage of any sepsis. For fistulizing CD, the efficacy of IFX for inducing fistula closure is best documented. Unique risks of NAT account for its labeling as a second-line biological agent in some countries. Patients who respond to induction therapy benefit from systematic re-treatment. The combination of IFX with azathioprine is better than monotherapy for induction of remission and mucosal healing up to 1 year in patients who are naïve to both agents. Whether this applies to other agents remains unknown. IFX is also effective for treatment-refractory, moderate, or severely active ulcerative colitis. Patients who have a diminished or loss of response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy may respond to dose adjustment of the same agent or switching to another agent. Careful consideration should be given to the reasons for loss of response. There are insufficient data to make recommendations on when to stop anti-TNF therapy. Preliminary evidence suggests that a substantial proportion of patients in clinical remission for >1 year, without signs of active inflammation can remain in remission after stopping treatment.
David Laharie, Arnaud Bourreille, Julien Branche, Matthieu Allez, Yoram Bouhnik, Jerome Filippi, Frank Zerbib, Guillaume Savoye, Maria Nachury, Jacques Moreau, Jean-Charles Delchier, Jacques Cosnes, Elena Ricart, Olivier Dewit, Antonio Lopez-Sanroman, Jean-Louis Dupas, Franck Carbonnel, Gilles Bommelaer, Benoit Coffin, Xavier Roblin, Gert Van Assche, Maria Esteve, Martti Färkkilä, Javier P Gisbert, Philippe Marteau, Stephane Nahon, Martine de Vos, Denis Franchimont, Jean-Yves Mary, Jean-Frederic Colombel, Marc Lémann, Groupe d'Etudes Thérapeutiques des Affections Inflammatoires Digestives
Ciclosporin versus infliximab in patients with severe ulcerative colitis refractory to intravenous steroids: a parallel, open-label randomised controlled trial.
Lancet. 2012 Dec 1;380(9857):1909-15. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61084-8. Epub 2012 Oct 10.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Ciclosporin and infliximab are potential rescue treatments to avoid colectomy in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis refractory to intravenous corticosteroids. We compared the efficacy and safety of these drugs for this indication.
METHODS: In this parallel, open-label, randomised controlled trial, patients were aged at least 18 years, had an acute severe flare of ulcerative colitis defined by a Lichtiger score greater than 10 points, and had been given an unsuccessful course of high-dose intravenous steroids. None of the patients had previously received ciclosporin or infliximab. Between June 1, 2007, and Aug 31, 2010, patients at 27 European centres were randomly assigned (via computer-derived permutation tables; 1:1) to receive either intravenous ciclosporin (2 mg/kg per day for 1 week, followed by oral drug until day 98) or infliximab (5 mg/kg on days 0, 14, and 42). In both groups, azathioprine was started at day 7 in patients with a clinical response. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to study treatment. The primary efficacy outcome was treatment failure defined by absence of a clinical response at day 7, a relapse between day 7 and day 98, absence of steroid-free remission at day 98, a severe adverse event leading to treatment interruption, colectomy, or death. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2006-005299-42) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00542152).
FINDINGS: 115 patients were randomly assigned; 58 patients were allocated to receive ciclosporin and 57 to receive infliximab. Treatment failure occurred in 35 (60%) patients given ciclosporin and 31 (54%) given infliximab (absolute risk difference 6%; 95% CI -7 to 19; p=0·52). Nine (16%) patients in the ciclosporin group and 14 (25%) in the infliximab group had severe adverse events.
INTERPRETATION: Ciclosporin was not more effective than infliximab in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis refractory to intravenous steroids. In clinical practice, treatment choice should be guided by physician and centre experience.
FUNDING: Association François Aupetit, Société Nationale Française de Gastroentérologie, and the International Organization for the study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
William J Sandborn, Gert van Assche, Walter Reinisch, Jean-Frederic Colombel, Geert D'Haens, Douglas C Wolf, Martina Kron, Mary Beth Tighe, Andreas Lazar, Roopal B Thakkar
Adalimumab induces and maintains clinical remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.
Gastroenterology. 2012 Feb;142(2):257-65.e1-3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.10.032. Epub 2011 Nov 4.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Adalimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α. Its efficacy as maintenance therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis has not been studied in a controlled, double-blind trial.
METHODS: Ulcerative colitis long-term remission and maintenance with adalimumab 2 (ULTRA 2) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of adalimumab in induction and maintenance of clinical remission in 494 patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who received concurrent treatment with oral corticosteroids or immunosuppressants. Patients were stratified based on prior exposure to TNF-α antagonists (either had or had not been previously treated with anti-TNF-α) and randomly assigned to groups given adalimumab 160 mg at week 0, 80 mg at week 2, and then 40 mg every other week or placebo. Primary end points were remission at weeks 8 and 52.
RESULTS: Overall rates of clinical remission at week 8 were 16.5% on adalimumab and 9.3% on placebo (P = .019); corresponding values for week 52 were 17.3% and 8.5% (P = .004). Among anti-TNF-α naïve patients, rates of remission at week 8 were 21.3% on adalimumab and 11% on placebo (P = .017); corresponding values for week 52 were 22% and 12.4% (P = .029). Among patients who had previously received anti-TNF agents, rates of remission at week 8 were 9.2% on adalimumab and 6.9% on placebo (P = .559); corresponding values for week 52 were 10.2% and 3% (P = .039). Serious adverse events occurred in 12% of patients given adalimumab or placebo. Serious infections developed in 1.6% of patients given adalimumab and 1.9% given placebo. In the group given adalimumab, 1 patient developed squamous cell carcinoma and 1 developed gastric cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab was safe and more effective than placebo in inducing and maintaining clinical remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who did not have an adequate response to conventional therapy with steroids or immunosuppressants.
Copyright © 2012 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
William J Sandborn, Brian G Feagan, Colleen Marano, Hongyan Zhang, Richard Strauss, Jewel Johanns, Omoniyi J Adedokun, Cynthia Guzzo, Jean-Frederic Colombel, Walter Reinisch, Peter R Gibson, Judith Collins, Gunnar Järnerot, Toshifumi Hibi, Paul Rutgeerts, PURSUIT-SC Study Group
Subcutaneous golimumab induces clinical response and remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.
Gastroenterology. 2014 Jan;146(1):85-95; quiz e14-5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.05.048. Epub 2013 Jun 2.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about the efficacy of golimumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) -α, for treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). We evaluated subcutaneous golimumab induction therapy in TNF-α antagonist-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe UC despite conventional treatment.
METHODS: We integrated double-blind phase 2 dose-finding and phase 3 dose-confirmation trials in a study of 1064 adults with UC (Mayo score: 6-12; endoscopic subscore ≥ 2; 774 patients in phase 3). Patients were randomly assigned to groups given golimumab doses of 100 mg and then 50 mg (phase 2 only), 200 mg and then 100 mg, or 400 mg and then 200 mg, 2 weeks apart. The phase 3 primary end point was week-6 clinical response. Secondary end points included week-6 clinical remission, mucosal healing, and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) score change.
RESULTS: In phase 2, median changes from baseline in the Mayo score were -1.0, -3.0, -2.0, and -3.0, in the groups given placebo, 100 mg/50 mg, 200/100 mg, and 400/200 mg golimumab, respectively. In phase 3, rates of clinical response at week 6 were 51.0% and 54.9% among patients given 200 mg/100 mg and 400 mg/200 mg golimumab, respectively, vs 30.3% among those given placebo (both, P ≤ .0001). Rates of clinical remission and mucosal healing and mean changes in IBDQ scores were significantly greater in both golimumab groups vs the placebo group (P ≤ .0014, all comparisons). Rates of serious adverse events were 6.1% and 3.0%, and rates of serious infection were 1.8% and 0.5%, in the placebo and golimumab groups, respectively. One patient in the 400 mg/200 mg group died as a result of surgical complications of an ischiorectal abscess.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with subcutaneous golimumab induces clinical response, remission, and mucosal healing, and increases quality of life in larger percentages of patients with active UC than placebo. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT00487539.
Copyright © 2014 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
William J Sandborn, Chinyu Su, Bruce E Sands, Geert R D'Haens, Séverine Vermeire, Stefan Schreiber, Silvio Danese, Brian G Feagan, Walter Reinisch, Wojciech Niezychowski, Gary Friedman, Nervin Lawendy, Dahong Yu, Deborah Woodworth, Arnab Mukherjee, Haiying Zhang, Paul Healey, Julian Panés, OCTAVE Induction 1, OCTAVE Induction 2, and OCTAVE Sustain Investigators
Tofacitinib as Induction and Maintenance Therapy for Ulcerative Colitis.
N Engl J Med. 2017 May 4;376(18):1723-1736. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606910.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib, an oral, small-molecule Janus kinase inhibitor, was shown to have potential efficacy as induction therapy for ulcerative colitis in a phase 2 trial. We further evaluated the efficacy of tofacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy.
METHODS: We conducted three phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of tofacitinib therapy in adults with ulcerative colitis. In the OCTAVE Induction 1 and 2 trials, 598 and 541 patients, respectively, who had moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis despite previous conventional therapy or therapy with a tumor necrosis factor antagonist were randomly assigned to receive induction therapy with tofacitinib (10 mg twice daily) or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary end point was remission at 8 weeks. In the OCTAVE Sustain trial, 593 patients who had a clinical response to induction therapy were randomly assigned to receive maintenance therapy with tofacitinib (either 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily) or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary end point was remission at 52 weeks.
RESULTS: In the OCTAVE Induction 1 trial, remission at 8 weeks occurred in 18.5% of the patients in the tofacitinib group versus 8.2% in the placebo group (P=0.007); in the OCTAVE Induction 2 trial, remission occurred in 16.6% versus 3.6% (P<0.001). In the OCTAVE Sustain trial, remission at 52 weeks occurred in 34.3% of the patients in the 5-mg tofacitinib group and 40.6% in the 10-mg tofacitinib group versus 11.1% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). In the OCTAVE Induction 1 and 2 trials, the rates of overall infection and serious infection were higher with tofacitinib than with placebo. In the OCTAVE Sustain trial, the rate of serious infection was similar across the three treatment groups, and the rates of overall infection and herpes zoster infection were higher with tofacitinib than with placebo. Across all three trials, adjudicated nonmelanoma skin cancer occurred in five patients who received tofacitinib and in one who received placebo, and adjudicated cardiovascular events occurred in five who received tofacitinib and in none who received placebo; as compared with placebo, tofacitinib was associated with increased lipid levels.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib was more effective as induction and maintenance therapy than placebo. (Funded by Pfizer; OCTAVE Induction 1, OCTAVE Induction 2, and OCTAVE Sustain ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01465763 , NCT01458951 , and NCT01458574 , respectively.).
Stephen Hanauer, Remo Panaccione, Silvio Danese, Adam Cheifetz, Walter Reinisch, Peter D R Higgins, Deborah A Woodworth, Haiying Zhang, Gary S Friedman, Nervin Lawendy, Daniel Quirk, Chudy I Nduaka, Chinyu Su
Tofacitinib Induction Therapy Reduces Symptoms Within 3 Days for Patients With Ulcerative Colitis.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jan;17(1):139-147. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.07.009. Epub 2018 Sep 10.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Tofacitinib is an oral, small molecule inhibitor of JAK for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). We evaluated the onset of symptom improvement in post-hoc analyses of data from 2 phase 3 trials of induction therapy with tofacitinib in patients with UC (OCTAVE Induction 1 and 2).
METHODS: The studies comprised patients with moderate to severe active UC who were intolerant to, or failed by previous treatment with, corticosteroids, thiopurines, and/or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists. Patients received tofacitinib (10 mg twice daily, n = 905) or placebo (n = 234) for 8 weeks. Daily Mayo stool frequency and rectal bleeding subscores were calculated using diary data from the first 15 days of therapy. We analyzed data from subgroups including failure of prior anti-TNF therapy, baseline corticosteroid use, and baseline serum levels of C-reactive protein.
RESULTS: Mean changes were significantly greater in patients given tofacitinib vs placebo in reductions from baseline stool frequency subscore (tofacitinib: -0.27 vs placebo: -0.11; P < .01), total number of daily bowel movements (-1.06 vs -0.27; P < .0001), and rectal bleeding subscore (-0.30 vs -0.14; P < .01) by day 3. Compared with placebo, more tofacitinib-treated patients had reductions from baseline in stool frequency subscore (by ≥1 point for tofacitinib, 241/837, 28.8% vs placebo, 39/218, 17.9%) (P < .01) and rectal bleeding subscore (by ≥1 point for tofacitinib, 266/830, 32.0% vs placebo, 43/214, 20.1%) (P < .01) by day 3. A consistent effect of tofacitinib was observed in all subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: In a post-hoc analysis of data from phase 3 trials of induction therapy with tofacitinib in patients with UC, we found significant improvements in symptoms among patients given tofacitinib compared with placebo within 3 days. These findings indicate the rapid onset of effect of this drug in patients with UC. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01465763 and NCT01458951.
Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Brian G Feagan, Silvio Danese, Edward V Loftus, Séverine Vermeire, Stefan Schreiber, Timothy Ritter, Ronald Fogel, Rajiv Mehta, Sandeep Nijhawan, Radosław Kempiński, Rafał Filip, Ihor Hospodarskyy, Ursula Seidler, Frank Seibold, Ian L P Beales, Hyo Jong Kim, John McNally, Chohee Yun, Sally Zhao, Xiaopeng Liu, Chia-Hsiang Hsueh, Chantal Tasset, Robin Besuyen, Mamoru Watanabe, William J Sandborn, Gerhard Rogler, Toshifumi Hibi, Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet
Filgotinib as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis (SELECTION): a phase 2b/3 double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.
Lancet. 2021 Jun 19;397(10292):2372-2384. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00666-8. Epub 2021 Jun 3.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The global prevalence of ulcerative colitis is increasing, and induction and maintenance of remission is a crucial therapeutic goal. We assessed the efficacy and safety of filgotinib, a once-daily, oral Janus kinase 1 preferential inhibitor, for treatment of ulcerative colitis.
METHODS: This phase 2b/3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial including two induction studies and one maintenance study was done in 341 study centres in 40 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis for at least 6 months before enrolment (induction study A: inadequate clinical response, loss of response to or intolerance to corticosteroids or immunosuppressants, naive to tumour necrosis factor [TNF] antagonists and vedolizumab [biologic-naive]; induction study B: inadequate clinical response, loss of response to or intolerance to any TNF antagonist or vedolizumab, no TNF antagonist or vedolizumab use within 8 weeks before screening [biologic-experienced]). Patients were randomly assigned 2:2:1 to receive oral filgotinib 200 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, or placebo once per day for 11 weeks. Patients who had either clinical remission or a Mayo Clinic Score response at week 10 in either induction study entered the maintenance study. Patients who received induction filgotinib were rerandomised 2:1 to continue their induction filgotinib regimen or to placebo. Patients who received induction placebo continued receiving placebo. The primary endpoint was clinical remission by Mayo endoscopic, rectal bleeding, and stool frequency subscores at weeks 10 and 58. For the induction studies, efficacy was assessed in all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug or placebo within that study. For the maintenance study, efficacy was assessed in all patients randomised to any filgotinib treatment group in the induction studies who received at least one dose of study drug or placebo in the maintenance study. Patients who received placebo throughout the induction and maintenance study were not included in the full analysis set for the maintenance study. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug or placebo within each study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02914522.
FINDINGS: Between Nov 14, 2016, and March 31, 2020, we screened 2040 patients for eligibility. 659 patients enrolled in induction study A were randomly assigned to receive filgotinib 100 mg (n=277), filgotinib 200 mg (n=245), or placebo (n=137). 689 patients enrolled into induction study B were randomly assigned to receive filgotinib 100 mg (n=285), filgotinib 200 mg (n=262), or placebo (n=142). 34 patients in induction study A and 54 patients in induction study B discontinued the study drug before week 10. After efficacy assessment at week 10, 664 patients entered the maintenance study (391 from induction study A, 273 from induction study B). 93 patients continued to receive placebo. 270 patients who had received filgotinib 100 mg in the induction study were randomly assigned to receive filgotinib 100 mg (n=179) or placebo (n=91). 301 patients who had received filgotinib 200 mg in the induction study were randomly assigned to receive filgotinib 200 mg (n=202) or placebo (n=99). 263 patients discontinued treatment in the maintenance study. At week 10, a greater proportion of patients given filgotinib 200 mg had clinical remission than those given placebo (induction study A 26·1% vs 15·3%, difference 10·8%; 95% CI 2·1-19·5, p=0·0157; induction study B 11·5% vs 4·2%, 7·2%; 1·6-12·8, p=0·0103). At week 58, 37·2% of patients given filgotinib 200 mg had clinical remission versus 11·2% in the respective placebo group (difference 26·0%, 95% CI 16·0-35·9; p<0·0001). Clinical remission was not significantly different between filgotinib 100 mg and placebo at week 10, but was significant by week 58 (23·8% vs 13·5%, 10·4%; 0·0-20·7, p=0·0420). The incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events of interest was similar between treatment groups. In the induction studies, serious adverse events occurred in 28 (5·0%) of 562 patients given filgotinib 100 mg, 22 (4·3%) of 507 patients given filgotinib 200 mg, and 13 (4·7%) of 279 patients given placebo. In the maintenance study, serious adverse events were reported in eight (4·5%) of 179 patients given filgotinib 100 mg, seven (7·7%) of 91 patients in the respective placebo group, nine (4·5%) of 202 patients in the filgotinib 200 mg group, and no patients in the respective placebo group. No deaths were reported during either induction study. Two patients died during the maintenance study; neither was related to treatment.
INTERPRETATION: Filgotinib 200 mg was well tolerated, and efficacious in inducing and maintaining clinical remission compared with placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.
FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Silvio Danese, Séverine Vermeire, Wen Zhou, Aileen L Pangan, Jesse Siffledeen, Susan Greenbloom, Xavier Hébuterne, Geert D'Haens, Hiroshi Nakase, Julian Panés, Peter D R Higgins, Pascal Juillerat, James O Lindsay, Edward V Loftus, William J Sandborn, Walter Reinisch, Min-Hu Chen, Yuri Sanchez Gonzalez, Bidan Huang, Wangang Xie, John Liu, Michael A Weinreich, Remo Panaccione
Upadacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: results from three phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomised trials.
Lancet. 2022 Jun 4;399(10341):2113-2128. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00581-5. Epub 2022 May 26.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: There is a great unmet need for advanced therapies that provide rapid, robust, and sustained disease control for patients with ulcerative colitis. We assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, as induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.
METHODS: This phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical programme consisted of two replicate induction studies (U-ACHIEVE induction [UC1] and U-ACCOMPLISH [UC2]) and a single maintenance study (U-ACHIEVE maintenance [UC3]). The studies were conducted across Europe, North and South America, Australasia, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region at 199 clinical centres in 39 countries (UC1), 204 clinical centres in 40 countries (UC2), and 195 clinical centres in 35 countries (UC3). Patients aged 16-75 years with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Adapted Mayo score 5-9; endoscopic subscore 2 or 3) for at least 90 days were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral upadacitinib 45 mg once daily or placebo for 8 weeks (induction studies). Patients who achieved clinical response following 8-week upadacitinib induction were re-randomly assigned (1:1:1) to upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo for 52 weeks (maintenance study). All patients were randomly assigned using web-based interactive response technology. The primary endpoints were clinical remission per Adapted Mayo score at week 8 (induction) and week 52 (maintenance). The efficacy analyses in the two induction studies were based on the intent-to-treat population, which included all randomised patients who received at least one dose of treatment. In the maintenance study, the primary efficacy analyses reported in this manuscript were based on the first 450 (planned) clinical responders to 8-week induction therapy with upadacitinib 45 mg once daily. The safety analysis population in the induction studies consisted of all randomised patients who received at least one dose of treatment; in the maintenance study, this population included all patients who received at least one dose of treatment as part of the primary analysis population. These studies are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02819635 (U-ACHIEVE) and NCT03653026 (U-ACCOMPLISH).
FINDINGS: Between Oct 23, 2018, and Sept 7, 2020, 474 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 45 mg once daily (n=319) or placebo (n=155) in UC1. Between Dec 6, 2018, and Jan 14, 2021, 522 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 45 mg once daily (n=345) or placebo (n=177) in UC2. In UC3, a total of 451 patients (21 from the phase 2b study, 278 from UC1, and 152 from UC2) who achieved a clinical response after 8 weeks of upadacitinib induction treatment were randomly assigned again to upadacitinib 15 mg (n=148), upadacitinib 30 mg (n=154), and placebo (n=149) in the primary analysis population. Statistically significantly more patients achieved clinical remission with upadacitinib 45 mg (83 [26%] of 319 patients in UC1 and 114 [34%] of 341 patients in UC2) than in the placebo group (seven [5%] of 154 patients in UC1 and seven [4%] of 174 patients; p<0·0001; adjusted treatment difference 21·6% [95% CI 15·8-27·4] for UC1 and 29·0% [23·2-34·7] for UC2). In the maintenance study, clinical remission was achieved by statistically significantly more patients receiving upadacitinib (15 mg 63 [42%] of 148; 30 mg 80 [52%] of 154) than those receiving placebo (18 [12%] of 149; p<0·0001; adjusted treatment difference 30·7% [21·7-39·8] for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo and 39·0% [29·7-48·2] for upadacitinib 30 mg vs placebo). The most commonly reported adverse events in UC1 were nasopharyngitis (15 [5%] of 319 in the upadacitinib 45 mg group vs six [4%] of 155 in the placebo group), creatine phosphokinase elevation (15 [4%] vs three [2%]), and acne (15 [5%] vs one [1%]). In UC2, the most frequently reported adverse event was acne (24 [7%] of 344 in the upadacitinib 45 mg group vs three [2%] of 177 in the placebo group). In both induction studies, serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment were less frequent in the upadacitinib 45 mg group than in the placebo group (serious adverse events eight [3%] vs nine (6%) in UC1 and 11 [3%] vs eight [5%] in UC2; adverse events leading to discontinuation six [2%] vs 14 [9%] in UC1 and six [2%] vs nine [5%] in UC2). In UC3, the most frequently reported adverse events (≥5%) were worsening of ulcerative colitis (19 [13%] of 148 in the upadacitinib 15 mg group vs 11 [7%] of 154 in the upadacitinib 30 mg group vs 45 [30%] of 149 in the placebo group), nasopharyngitis (18 [12%] vs 22 [14%] vs 15 [10%]), creatine phosphokinase elevation (nine [6%] vs 13 [8%] vs three [2%]), arthralgia (nine [6%] vs five [3%] vs 15 [10%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (seven [5%] vs nine [6%] vs six [4%]). The proportion of serious adverse events (ten [7%] vs nine [6%] vs 19 [13%]) and adverse events leading to discontinuation (six [4%] vs ten [6%] vs 17 [11%]) was lower in both upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group. Events of cancer, adjudicated major adverse cardiac events, or venous thromboembolism were reported infrequently. There were no treatment-related deaths.
INTERPRETATION: Upadacitinib demonstrated a positive efficacy and safety profile and could be an effective treatment option for patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.
FUNDING: AbbVie.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Juan S Lasa, Pablo A Olivera, Silvio Danese, Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet
Efficacy and safety of biologics and small molecule drugs for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Feb;7(2):161-170. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00377-0. Epub 2021 Nov 29.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: There is a growing armamentarium for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. We aimed to compare the relative efficacy and safety of biologics and small molecule drugs for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.
METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials without language restrictions for articles published between Jan 1, 1990, and July 1, 2021. Major congresses' databases from Jan 1, 2018, to July 3, 2021, were reviewed manually. Phase 3, placebo-controlled or head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of biologics or small molecule drugs as induction or maintenance therapies for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis were included. Phase 2 RCTs were excluded because of their small sample sizes and inclusion of doses not further explored in phase 3 RCTs. Summary data from intention-to-treat analyses were extracted from included reports by JSL and PAO. The primary outcome was the induction of clinical remission. A network meta-analysis was done under the frequentist framework, obtaining pairwise odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to rank the included agents for each outcome. Higher SUCRA scores correlate with better efficacy, whereas lower SUCRA scores correlate with better safety. Maintenance data on efficacy for treat-straight-through and randomised responder trials are also presented. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021225329.
FINDINGS: Our search yielded 5904 results, from which 29 studies (four being head-to-head RCTs) fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included. Of these, 23 studies assessed induction therapy with either a biologic or small molecule drug, comprising 10 061 patients with ulcerative colitis. A risk of bias assessment showed a low risk of bias for most of the included studies. Upadacitinib was significantly superior to all other interventions for the induction of clinical remission (infliximab [OR 2·70, 95% CI 1·18-6·20], adalimumab [4·64, 2·47-8·71], golimumab [3·00, 1·32-6·82], vedolizumab [3·56, 1·84-6·91], ustekinumab [2·92, 1·31-6·51], etrolizumab [4·91, 2·59-9·31], tofacitinib [2·84, 1·28-6·31], filgotinib 100 mg [6·15, 2·98-12·72], filgotinib 200 mg [4·49, 2·18-9·24], and ozanimod (2·70, 1·18-6·20), and ranked highest for the induction of clinical remission (SUCRA 0·996). No differences between active interventions were observed when assessing adverse events and serious adverse events. Vedolizumab ranked lowest for both adverse events (SUCRA 0·184) and serious adverse events (0·139), whereas upadacitinib ranked highest for adverse events (0·843) and ozanimod ranked highest for serious adverse events (0·831).
INTERPRETATION: Upadacitinib was the best performing agent for the induction of clinical remission (the primary outcome) but the worst performing agent in terms of adverse events in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Vedolizumab was the best performing agent for safety outcomes. With the paucity of direct comparisons in the published literature, our results might help clinicians to position drugs in treatment algorithms.
FUNDING: None.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Dhruv Ahuja, Mohammad Hassan Murad, Christopher Ma, Vipul Jairath, Siddharth Singh
Comparative Speed of Early Symptomatic Remission With Advanced Therapies for Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2023 Apr 24;. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002263. Epub 2023 Apr 24.
Abstract/Text
INTRODUCTION: Rapidity of symptom resolution informs treatment choice in patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing early symptomatic remission with approved therapies.
METHODS: Through a systematic literature review to December 31, 2022, we identified randomized trials in adult outpatients with moderate-severe UC treated with approved therapies (tumor necrosis factor α antagonists, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, janus kinase inhibitors, or ozanimod), compared with each other or placebo, reporting rates of symptomatic remission (based on partial Mayo score, with resolution of rectal bleeding and near-normalization of stool frequency) at weeks 2, 4, and/or 6. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach and estimated relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval values.
RESULTS: On network meta-analysis, upadacitinib was more effective than all agents in achieving symptomatic remission at weeks 2 (range of RR, 2.85-6.27), 4 (range of RR, 1.78-2.37), and 6 (range of RR, 1.84-2.79). Tumor necrosis factor α antagonists and filgotinib, but not ustekinumab and vedolizumab, were more effective than ozanimod in achieving symptomatic remission at week 2, but not at weeks 4 and 6. With approximately 10% placebo-treated patients achieving symptomatic remission at 2 weeks, we estimated 68%, 22%, 23.7%, 23.9%, 22.2%, 18.4%, 15.7%, and 10.9% of upadacitinib-, filgotinib-, infliximab-, adalimumab-, golimumab-, ustekinumab-, vedolizumab-, and ozanimod-treated patients would achieve early symptomatic remission, ustekinumab and vedolizumab achieving rapid remission only in biologic-naïve patients.
DISCUSSION: In a systematic review and network meta-analysis, upadacitinib was most effective in achieving early symptomatic remission, whereas ozanimod was relatively slower acting.
Copyright © 2023 by The American College of Gastroenterology.
Scott Friedberg, David Choi, Thomas Hunold, Natalie K Choi, Nicole M Garcia, Emma A Picker, Nathaniel A Cohen, Russell D Cohen, Sushila R Dalal, Joel Pekow, Atsushi Sakuraba, Noa Krugliak Cleveland, David T Rubin
Upadacitinib Is Effective and Safe in Both Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease: Prospective Real-World Experience.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Jul;21(7):1913-1923.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.001. Epub 2023 Mar 8.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Upadacitinib is a novel selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor that has shown efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD), and has received Food and Drug Administration approval for UC. We report a large real-world experience with upadacitinib in UC and CD.
METHODS: We performed a prospective analysis of clinical outcomes on upadacitinib in patients with UC and CD using predetermined intervals at weeks 0, 2, 4, and 8 as part of a formalized treatment protocol at our institution. We used the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index and the Harvey-Bradshaw index, as well as C-reactive protein and fecal calprotectin to assess efficacy, and also recorded treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events.
RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were followed up for 8 weeks on upadacitinib, 84 of whom (44 UC patients, 40 CD patients) were initiated because of active luminal or perianal disease and included in the analysis. One hundred percent previously received anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy, and 89.3% had received 2 or more advanced therapies. At 4 and 8 weeks of treatment for UC, 19 of 25 (76.0%) and 23 of 27 (85.2%) achieved clinical response and 18 of 26 (69.2%) and 22 of 27 (81.5%) achieved clinical remission, respectively. Of those who previously were tofacitinib-exposed, 7 of 9 (77.8%) achieved clinical remission by 8 weeks. In CD, 13 of 17 (76.5.%) achieved clinical response and 12 of 17 (70.6%) achieved clinical remission by 8 weeks. Of those with increased fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein levels, 62% and 64% normalized by week 8, respectively. Results were seen as early as week 2 in both UC and CD, with clinical remission rates of 36% and 56.3.%, respectively. Acne was the most commonly reported adverse event, occurring in 24 of 105 patients (22.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: In this large real-world experience in medically resistant patients with UC or CD, we report that upadacitinib is rapidly effective and safe, including in those who had prior tofacitinib exposure. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Chicago (IRB20-1979).
Copyright © 2023 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Brian G Feagan, Paul Rutgeerts, Bruce E Sands, Stephen Hanauer, Jean-Frédéric Colombel, William J Sandborn, Gert Van Assche, Jeffrey Axler, Hyo-Jong Kim, Silvio Danese, Irving Fox, Catherine Milch, Serap Sankoh, Tim Wyant, Jing Xu, Asit Parikh, GEMINI 1 Study Group
Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis.
N Engl J Med. 2013 Aug 22;369(8):699-710. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1215734.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Gut-selective blockade of lymphocyte trafficking by vedolizumab may constitute effective treatment for ulcerative colitis.
METHODS: We conducted two integrated randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of vedolizumab in patients with active disease. In the trial of induction therapy, 374 patients (cohort 1) received vedolizumab (at a dose of 300 mg) or placebo intravenously at weeks 0 and 2, and 521 patients (cohort 2) received open-label vedolizumab at weeks 0 and 2, with disease evaluation at week 6. In the trial of maintenance therapy, patients in either cohort who had a response to vedolizumab at week 6 were randomly assigned to continue receiving vedolizumab every 8 or 4 weeks or to switch to placebo for up to 52 weeks. A response was defined as a reduction in the Mayo Clinic score (range, 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating more active disease) of at least 3 points and a decrease of at least 30% from baseline, with an accompanying decrease in the rectal bleeding subscore of at least 1 point or an absolute rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1.
RESULTS: Response rates at week 6 were 47.1% and 25.5% among patients in the vedolizumab group and placebo group, respectively (difference with adjustment for stratification factors, 21.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.6 to 31.7; P<0.001). At week 52, 41.8% of patients who continued to receive vedolizumab every 8 weeks and 44.8% of patients who continued to receive vedolizumab every 4 weeks were in clinical remission (Mayo Clinic score ≤2 and no subscore >1), as compared with 15.9% of patients who switched to placebo (adjusted difference, 26.1 percentage points for vedolizumab every 8 weeks vs. placebo [95% CI, 14.9 to 37.2; P<0.001] and 29.1 percentage points for vedolizumab every 4 weeks vs. placebo [95% CI, 17.9 to 40.4; P<0.001]). The frequency of adverse events was similar in the vedolizumab and placebo groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Vedolizumab was more effective than placebo as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. (Funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals; GEMINI 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00783718.).
Bruce E Sands, Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, Edward V Loftus, Silvio Danese, Jean-Frédéric Colombel, Murat Törüner, Laimas Jonaitis, Brihad Abhyankar, Jingjing Chen, Raquel Rogers, Richard A Lirio, Jeffrey D Bornstein, Stefan Schreiber, VARSITY Study Group
Vedolizumab versus Adalimumab for Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis.
N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 26;381(13):1215-1226. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1905725.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Biologic therapies are widely used in patients with ulcerative colitis. Head-to-head trials of these therapies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease are lacking.
METHODS: In a phase 3b, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial conducted at 245 centers in 34 countries, we compared vedolizumab with adalimumab in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis to determine whether vedolizumab was superior. Previous exposure to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor other than adalimumab was allowed in up to 25% of patients. The patients were assigned to receive infusions of 300 mg of vedolizumab on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, 14, 22, 30, 38, and 46 (plus injections of placebo) or subcutaneous injections of 40 mg of adalimumab, with a total dose of 160 mg at week 1, 80 mg at week 2, and 40 mg every 2 weeks thereafter until week 50 (plus infusions of placebo). Dose escalation was not permitted in either group. The primary outcome was clinical remission at week 52 (defined as a total score of ≤2 on the Mayo scale [range, 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating more severe disease] and no subscore >1 [range, 0 to 3] on any of the four Mayo scale components). To control for type I error, efficacy outcomes were analyzed with a hierarchical testing procedure, with the variables in the following order: clinical remission, endoscopic improvement (subscore of 0 to 1 on the Mayo endoscopic component), and corticosteroid-free remission at week 52.
RESULTS: A total of 769 patients underwent randomization and received at least one dose of vedolizumab (383 patients) or adalimumab (386 patients). At week 52, clinical remission was observed in a higher percentage of patients in the vedolizumab group than in the adalimumab group (31.3% vs. 22.5%; difference, 8.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5 to 15.0; P = 0.006), as was endoscopic improvement (39.7% vs. 27.7%; difference, 11.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.3 to 18.5; P<0.001). Corticosteroid-free clinical remission occurred in 12.6% of the patients in the vedolizumab group and in 21.8% in the adalimumab group (difference, -9.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -18.9 to 0.4). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates of infection were 23.4 and 34.6 events per 100 patient-years with vedolizumab and adalimumab, respectively, and the corresponding rates for serious infection were 1.6 and 2.2 events per 100 patient-years.
CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, vedolizumab was superior to adalimumab with respect to achievement of clinical remission and endoscopic improvement, but not corticosteroid-free clinical remission. (Funded by Takeda; VARSITY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02497469; EudraCT number, 2015-000939-33.).
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Bruce E Sands, William J Sandborn, Remo Panaccione, Christopher D O'Brien, Hongyan Zhang, Jewel Johanns, Omoniyi J Adedokun, Katherine Li, Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, Gert Van Assche, Silvio Danese, Stephan Targan, Maria T Abreu, Tadakazu Hisamatsu, Philippe Szapary, Colleen Marano, UNIFI Study Group
Ustekinumab as Induction and Maintenance Therapy for Ulcerative Colitis.
N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 26;381(13):1201-1214. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1900750.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of ustekinumab, an antagonist of the p40 subunit of interleukin-12 and interleukin-23, as induction and maintenance therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis is unknown.
METHODS: We evaluated ustekinumab as 8-week induction therapy and 44-week maintenance therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. A total of 961 patients were randomly assigned to receive an intravenous induction dose of ustekinumab (either 130 mg [320 patients] or a weight-range-based dose that approximated 6 mg per kilogram of body weight [322]) or placebo (319). Patients who had a response to induction therapy 8 weeks after administration of intravenous ustekinumab were randomly assigned again to receive subcutaneous maintenance injections of 90 mg of ustekinumab (either every 12 weeks [172 patients] or every 8 weeks [176]) or placebo (175). The primary end point in the induction trial (week 8) and the maintenance trial (week 44) was clinical remission (defined as a total score of ≤2 on the Mayo scale [range, 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating more severe disease] and no subscore >1 [range, 0 to 3] on any of the four Mayo scale components).
RESULTS: The percentage of patients who had clinical remission at week 8 among patients who received intravenous ustekinumab at a dose of 130 mg (15.6%) or 6 mg per kilogram (15.5%) was significantly higher than that among patients who received placebo (5.3%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Among patients who had a response to induction therapy with ustekinumab and underwent a second randomization, the percentage of patients who had clinical remission at week 44 was significantly higher among patients assigned to 90 mg of subcutaneous ustekinumab every 12 weeks (38.4%) or every 8 weeks (43.8%) than among those assigned to placebo (24.0%) (P = 0.002 and P<0.001, respectively). The incidence of serious adverse events with ustekinumab was similar to that with placebo. Through 52 weeks of exposure, there were two deaths (one each from acute respiratory distress syndrome and hemorrhage from esophageal varices) and seven cases of cancer (one each of prostate, colon, renal papillary, and rectal cancer and three nonmelanoma skin cancers) among 825 patients who received ustekinumab and no deaths and one case of cancer (testicular cancer) among 319 patients who received placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: Ustekinumab was more effective than placebo for inducing and maintaining remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; UNIFI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02407236.).
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Geert D'Haens, Marla Dubinsky, Taku Kobayashi, Peter M Irving, Stefanie Howaldt, Juris Pokrotnieks, Kathryn Krueger, Janelle Laskowski, Xingyuan Li, Trevor Lissoos, Joe Milata, Nathan Morris, Vipin Arora, Catherine Milch, William Sandborn, Bruce E Sands, LUCENT Study Group
Mirikizumab as Induction and Maintenance Therapy for Ulcerative Colitis.
N Engl J Med. 2023 Jun 29;388(26):2444-2455. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2207940.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Mirikizumab, a p19-directed antibody against interleukin-23, showed efficacy in the treatment of ulcerative colitis in a phase 2 trial.
METHODS: We conducted two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of mirikizumab in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. In the induction trial, patients were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive mirikizumab (300 mg) or placebo, administered intravenously, every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. In the maintenance trial, patients with a response to mirikizumab induction therapy were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive mirikizumab (200 mg) or placebo, administered subcutaneously, every 4 weeks for 40 weeks. The primary end points were clinical remission at week 12 in the induction trial and at week 40 (at 52 weeks overall) in the maintenance trial. Major secondary end points included clinical response, endoscopic remission, and improvement in bowel-movement urgency. Patients who did not have a response in the induction trial were allowed to receive open-label mirikizumab during the first 12 weeks of the maintenance trial as extended induction. Safety was also assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 1281 patients underwent randomization in the induction trial, and 544 patients with a response to mirikizumab underwent randomization again in the maintenance trial. Significantly higher percentages of patients in the mirikizumab group than in the placebo group had clinical remission at week 12 of the induction trial (24.2% vs. 13.3%, P<0.001) and at week 40 of the maintenance trial (49.9% vs. 25.1%, P<0.001). The criteria for all the major secondary end points were met in both trials. Adverse events of nasopharyngitis and arthralgia were reported more frequently with mirikizumab than with placebo. Among the 1217 patients treated with mirikizumab during the controlled and uncontrolled periods (including the open-label extension and maintenance periods) in the two trials, 15 had an opportunistic infection (including 6 with herpes zoster infection) and 8 had cancer (including 3 with colorectal cancer). Among the patients who received placebo in the induction trial, 1 had herpes zoster infection and none had cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Mirikizumab was more effective than placebo in inducing and maintaining clinical remission in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Opportunistic infection or cancer occurred in a small number of patients treated with mirikizumab. (Funded by Eli Lilly; LUCENT-1 and LUCENT-2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03518086 and NCT03524092, respectively.).
Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Marla C Dubinsky, David B Clemow, Theresa Hunter Gibble, Xingyuan Li, Severine Vermeire, Tadakazu Hisamatsu, Simon P L Travis
Clinical Effect of Mirikizumab Treatment on Bowel Urgency in Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis and the Clinical Relevance of Bowel Urgency Improvement for Disease Remission.
Crohns Colitis 360. 2023 Jan;5(1):otac044. doi: 10.1093/crocol/otac044. Epub 2022 Dec 13.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Bowel urgency reduces ulcerative colitis patients' quality of life. Mirikizumab, a p19-directed anti-IL-23 antibody, demonstrates ulcerative colitis efficacy. Mirikizumab efficacy to reduce bowel urgency and bowel urgency association with other endpoints were analyzed in 2 Phase 3 trials.
METHODS: LUCENT-1 (Induction): 1162 patients randomized 3:1 to intravenous 300 mg mirikizumab or placebo every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. LUCENT-2 (Maintenance): 544 mirikizumab responders during induction were re-randomized 2:1 to subcutaneous mirikizumab 200 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 40 weeks (52 weeks of continuous treatment). Bowel urgency was measured using the Urgency Numeric Rating Scale (0-10); for patients with LUCENT-1 baseline score ≥3, bowel urgency clinically meaningful improvement (≥3-point decrease) and remission (score ≤1) rates in mirikizumab versus placebo groups were compared at Weeks 12 and 52. Associations between bowel urgency and other efficacy endpoints were assessed at Weeks 12 and 52.
RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of mirikizumab patients versus placebo achieved clinically meaningful improvement in bowel urgency and remission at Weeks 12 and 52. Significantly higher percentages of patients achieving bowel urgency clinically meaningful improvement or remission, compared with those who did not, also achieved endpoints for clinical, corticosteroid-free, endoscopic, and symptomatic remission; clinical response; normalized fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein; and improved quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ulcerative colitis, bowel urgency improvement was associated with better clinical outcomes than in patients without improvement during induction and maintenance. A greater proportion of mirikizumab patients achieved sustainable bowel urgency improvement and remission compared to placebo patients.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Crohn's & Colitis Foundation.
