Clinical trial: ulcerative colitis maintenance treatment with 5-ASA: a 1-year, randomized multicentre study comparing MMX with Asacol. 5-Aminosalicylic acid suppositories in the maintenance of remission in idiopathic proctitis or proctosigmoiditis: a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. Coated oral 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. A randomized study. Safety and efficacy of controlled-release mesalamine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Pentasa UC Maintenance Study Group. 5-ASA enema versus oral sulphasalazine in maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis. Topical treatment with 5-aminosalicylic in distal ulcerative colitis by using a new suppository preparation. A double-blind placebo controlled trial. An oral preparation of mesalamine as long-term maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. The Mesalamine Study Group. Is maintenance therapy always necessary for patients with ulcerative colitis in remission? Once daily versus conventional dosing of pH-dependent mesalamine long-term to maintain quiescent ulcerative colitis: Preliminary results from a randomized trial.
5-ASA-MMX (1.2 g/tablet) is a 5-aminosalicylic acid formulation, designed for once-daily dosing in the treatment of ulcerative colitis.
                To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 5-ASA-MMX (2.4 g/day, once daily), compared with Asacol (2.4 g/day, twice daily) in the maintenance of left-sided UC, through a double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, randomized, comparator study.
                In all, 331 patients with UC were randomized to receive either 5-ASA-MMX 2.4 g/day, once daily, or Asacol 2.4 g/day, twice daily, for 12 months. All patients were in remission for >or=1 month prior to the trial, with >or=1 documented relapse in the previous year. The co-primary endpoints of this study were the proportion of patients in clinical, and clinical and endoscopic remission following 12 months' treatment.
                In the intent-to-treat population, excluding those with major protocol deviations, 68.0 and 65.9% patients in the 5-ASA-MMX and Asacol groups, respectively, were in clinical remission (P = 0.69), and 60.9 and 61.7% of patients, respectively, were in clinical and endoscopic remission (P = 0.89). Diary card data revealed statistically significant treatment differences favouring 5-ASA-MMX. Both treatments were similarly tolerated.
                Once-daily 5-ASA-MMX is similarly effective with a comparable safety profile to Asacol administered twice daily, for the maintenance treatment of ulcerative colitis. Thirty patients with distal ulcerative colitis in remission (17 proctitis, 13 proctosigmoiditis) were randomly given either 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) or placebo suppositories, 400 mg bid. During the 1-yr follow-up, patients were assessed clinically every month, and flexible sigmoidoscopy with a rectal pinch biopsy specimen and laboratory data were carried out every 3 months. Two patients in the 5-ASA group chose to withdraw from the study, one relapsed, and 12 remained in remission. In the placebo group, one patient chose to withdraw, 11 relapsed, and three remained in remission. The cumulative remission rate at the 12th month was 92% in the 5-ASA group and 21% in the placebo group. Log rank test showed a significant difference in the relapse rate between the two groups (chi 2 = 14.26, p less than 0.001). No side effects were observed. We conclude that 5-ASA in suppository form (800 mg/day), administered for 1 yr, is safe and effective in maintaining remission of distal ulcerative colitis. We assessed oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) prepared with a pH-sensitive polymer coating in 87 patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 5-ASA at a dosage of either 4.8 or 1.6 g per day or placebo for six weeks. The outcome was monitored by flexible proctosigmoidoscopic examinations and physicians' assessments at three-week intervals and by patients' recordings of daily symptoms. Results showed 24 percent complete and 50 percent partial responses in those receiving 4.8 g of 5-ASA per day as compared with 5 percent complete and 13 percent partial responses in those receiving placebo (P less than 0.0001, rank-sum test). At a dosage of 1.6 g per day, the response was twice as good as with placebo, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.51). Age, sex, duration of disease, duration of active symptoms, or extent of disease did not affect the clinical outcome. We conclude that oral 5-ASA administered in a dosage of 4.8 g per day is effective therapy, at least in the short term, for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. 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. This prospective trial in patients with left-sided ulcerative colitis evaluated the efficacy and acceptability of biweekly high-dose 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) enemas (4g/100ml) in maintaining a remission recently induced using daily 5-ASA enemas. Thirty-one patients were randomly assigned, 16 to 5-ASA and 15 to oral sulphasalazine (2g/day), and examined monthly. Sigmoidoscopy was performed "blind" at six months or at clinical relapse. Twelve patients on 5-ASA (75%) and nine on sulphasalazine (60%) remained in clinical and endoscopic remission throughout the study (NS), and the survival curve for 5-ASA was better at all points (NS). No patient stopped therapy due to side effects, and all those on 5-ASA chose to continue rectal maintenance therapy after the study. It was concluded that biweekly 5-ASA enemas is at least as effective as oral sulphasalazine in maintaining remission in unselected patients whose remission has been achieve using local therapy. Sixty-two patients with ulcerative colitis localised to the distal sigmoid colon and rectum (less than 20 cm) entered the trial. Thirty-two were treated with 5-ASA 500 mg suppositories (Asacol) 3 times a day for 1 month while 30 received a placebo given in the same regime. Clinical, sigmoidoscopic and histological assessment was carried out before, after 15 days and after 1 month of treatment. At the end of the study 5-ASA suppositories showed significantly better results in all the parameters recorded than placebo (p less than 0.01). There were no unwanted effects related to the use of suppositories. This treatment should therefore be offered as a first choice for patients with distal rectosigmoiditis. 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.
                Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.
                Eight private practices, five university-based medical centers, and four hospitals or clinics.
                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.
                Coated mesalamine at oral dosages of 0.8 g/d or 1.6 g/d or matching placebo for 6 months.
                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.
                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.
                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. The efficacy of sulphasalazine and mesalazine in preventing relapse in patients with ulcerative colitis is well known. It is less clear how long such maintenance should be continued, and if the duration of disease remission is a factor that affects the risk of recurrence.
                To determine whether the duration of disease remission affects the relapse rate, by comparing the efficacy of a delayed-release mesalazine (Asacol, Bracco S.p.A., Milan, Italy) against placebo in patients with ulcerative colitis with short- and long-duration of disease remission.
                112 patients (66 male, 46 female, mean age 35 years), with intermittent chronic ulcerative colitis in clinical, endoscopic and histological remission with sulphasalazine or mesalazine for at least 1 year, were included in the study. Assuming that a lower duration of remission might be associated with a higher relapse rate, the patients were stratified according to the length of their disease remission, prior to randomization into Group A (Asacol 26, placebo 35) in remission from 1 to 2 years, or Group B (Asacol 28, placebo 23) in remission for over 2 years, median 4 years. Patients were treated daily with oral Asacol 1.2 g vs. placebo, for a follow-up period of 1 year.
                We employed an intention-to-treat analysis. In Group A, whilst no difference was found between the two treatments after 6 months, mesalazine was significantly more effective than placebo in preventing relapse at 12 months [Asacol 6/26 (23%), placebo 17/35 (49%), P = 0.035, 95% Cl: 48-2.3%]. In contrast, in Group B no statistically significant difference was observed between the two treatments, either at 6 or 12 months [Asacol 5/28 (18%), placebo 6/23 (26%), P = 0.35, 95% Cl: 31-14%] of follow-up. Patients in group B were older, and had the disease and remission duration for longer, than those in Group A.
                Mesalazine prophylaxis is necessary for the prevention of relapse by patients with ulcerative colitis in remission for less than 2 years, but this study casts doubt over whether continuous maintenance treatment is necessary in patients with prolonged clinical, endoscopic and histological remission, who are at very low risk of relapse. Multiple studies have demonstrated the efficacy of aminosalicylates in maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis (UC). A newer formulation of mesalamine can be administered once daily. We aimed to examine the efficacy and tolerability of pH-dependent mesalamine for long-term maintenance, and compare the rates of medication consumption between groups over a prolonged period.
                Subjects whose UC had been quiescent for at least 4 months, and who had been receiving mesalamine for maintenance only, were randomized to once daily or conventional dosing for 12 months. Disease activity and medication consumption was assessed every 3 months. The primary endpoint was the percentage of those with quiescent disease at 12 months.
                We enrolled 20 patients, 12 to once daily and 8 to conventional dosing. Six of the 12 patients (50%) in the once daily group compared with 5 of the 8 patients (62.5%) in the conventional group experienced a flare (p = 0.31). Only 5 of the 12 (42%) patients in the once daily group were adherent compared with 3 of 8 patients (37.5%) in the conventional dosing group (p = NS). Median amount consumed in the once daily group was 63% (range 0%-100%) and in the conventional group 55% (range 0%-100%), (p > 0.5). None of the adherent subjects in the once daily group experienced a flare, while 6 out of 7 (86%) who were non-adherent experienced a flare (p < 0.01). In the conventional dosing group, 1 in 3 adherent patients (33%) experienced a flare compared with 4 out of 5 (80%) in the non-adherent group (p < 0.01).
                Adherence, rather than medication regimen, appeared to be important in disease outcome at 12 months.
5-ASA was superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis. However, 5-ASA had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily is as effective and safe as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis. There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy or safety between the various formulations of 5-ASA. Patients with extensive ulcerative colitis or with frequent relapses may benefit from a higher dose of maintenance therapy. High dose therapy appears to be as safe as low dose and is not associated with a higher incidence of adverse events.