Budesonide versus mesalamine for maintaining remission in patients refusing other immunomodulators for steroid-dependent Crohn's disease. A comparison of budesonide and mesalamine for active Crohn's disease. International Budesonide-Mesalamine Study Group. An oral preparation of mesalamine as long-term maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. The Mesalamine Study Group. Delayed-release oral mesalamine 4.8 g/day (800-mg tablet) is effective for patients with moderately active ulcerative colitis. Once-daily, high-concentration MMX mesalamine in active ulcerative colitis. Oral mesalamine (Asacol) for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. A multicenter study. Mesalamine once daily is more effective than twice daily in patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis. Direct comparison of two different mesalamine formulations for the maintenance of remission in patients with ulcerative colitis: a double-blind, randomized study. A double-blind comparison of oral versus rectal mesalamine versus combination therapy in the treatment of distal ulcerative colitis.
To compare the efficacy of controlled-release budesonide capsules with that of mesalamine for maintaining remission and improving quality of life (QOL) in patients with steroid-dependent Crohn's disease.
                Fifty-seven patients (25 men; mean age, 32 +/- 10.1 yr) with quiescent steroid-dependent Crohn's ileitis, ileocolitis, or colitis (Crohn's disease activity index <150) entered a prospective, investigator-blind trial. Patients were eligible for treatment with azathioprine but had not consented or had developed side effects. Patients were randomized to receive budesonide 6 mg/day (n = 29) or mesalamine 1 g 3 times/day (n = 28). Follow-up assessments were made every 2 months for up to 1 year or until relapse. At each visit, quality of life (QOL) was assessed using the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ).
                There were no significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics between the study groups. The 1-year relapse rate was significantly lower in the budesonide group than in the mesalamine group (55% vs. 82%; 95% confidence interval, 12.4%-41%; P = 0.045). Patients assigned to budesonide also remained in remission longer (241 +/- 114 days vs. 147 +/- 117 days; 95% confidence interval, 32.7-155.3 days; P = 0.003). Compared with mesalamine, budesonide treatment also was associated with a better QOL throughout the study (mean total IBDQ scores 165 +/- 36 vs. 182 +/- 28, respectively; 95% confidence interval, -0.4 to 34.4, P = 0.0001). This advantage was confirmed in patients' self-assessed QOL scores.
                Over a 1-year period, controlled-release budesonide was significantly more effective than mesalamine for maintaining remission and improving the QOL of patients with steroid-dependent Crohn's disease. Crohn's disease is often treated with glucocorticoids or mesalamine. We compared the efficacy and safety of controlled-ileal-release budesonide capsules and slow-release mesalamine tablets in patients with active Crohn's disease affecting the ileum, the ascending colon, or both.
                In a double-blind, multicenter trial, we enrolled 182 patients with scores of 200 to 400 on the Crohn's Disease Activity Index (with higher scores indicating greater disease activity) and randomly assigned 93 to receive 9 mg of budesonide once daily and 89 to receive 2 g of mesalamine twice daily for 16 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was clinical remission, defined as a score of 150 or less on the Crohn's Disease Activity Index.
                In the analysis of all patients who received at least one dose of study drug, the rates of remission after 8 weeks of treatment were 69 percent in the budesonide group and 45 percent in the mesalamine group (P=0.001); the respective rates after 16 weeks of treatment were 62 percent and 36 percent (P<0.001). Seventy-seven patients in the budesonide group completed the 16 weeks of treatment, as compared with 50 patients in the mesalamine group (P<0.001). The numbers of patients with adverse events were similar in the two groups, but those assigned to budesonide had fewer severe adverse events. Among patients who completed 16 weeks of treatment, the morning plasma cortisol value was normal in 67 percent of budesonide-treated patients and 83 percent of mesalamine-treated patients (P=0.06); 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, had normal increases in cortisol in response to cosyntropin (P=0.02).
                In patients with active Crohn's disease affecting the ileum, the ascending colon, or both, a controlled-ileal-release formulation of budesonide was more effective in inducing remission than a slow-release formulation of mesalamine. 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. It is not clear what induction dose of mesalamine is optimal for treating patients with mildly and moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC). This study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of mesalamine 4.8 g/day compared with 2.4 g/day for the treatment of moderately active UC.
                A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 6-week, active-control study (ASCEND III) was conducted to assess the noninferiority of delayed-release mesalamine 4.8 g/day (Asacol HD, 800-mg tablet; Procter & Gamble, Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Mason, Ohio) with 2.4 g/day (Asacol, 400-mg tablet; Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc) in 772 patients with moderately active UC. The primary endpoint was treatment success (overall improvement) at week 6, defined as improvement in the Physician's Global Assessment (based on clinical assessments of rectal bleeding, stool frequency, and sigmoidoscopy), with no worsening in any individual clinical assessment.
                The primary objective of noninferiority was met. Seventy percent (273 of 389) of patients who received 4.8 g/day of mesalamine achieved treatment success at week 6, compared with 66% (251 of 383) of patients receiving 2.4 g/day (95% confidence interval for 2.4 g/day minus 4.8 g/day, -11.2 to 1.9). In addition, 43% of patients who received 4.8 g/day mesalamine achieved clinical remission at week 6 compared with 35% of patients who received 2.4 g/day (P = .04). A therapeutic advantage for the 4.8 g/day dose was observed among patients previously treated with corticosteroids, oral mesalamines, rectal therapies, or multiple UC medications. Both regimens were well-tolerated with similar adverse events.
                Delayed-release mesalamine 4.8 g/day (800-mg tablet) is efficacious and well-tolerated in patients with moderately active UC. SPD476 (LIALDA in the US; MEZAVANT in the EU; otherwise known as MMX mesalamine; Shire Pharmaceuticals Inc., Wayne, PA, under license from Giuliani SpA, Milan, Italy) is a novel, once-daily, high-strength (1.2 g/tablet) formulation of mesalamine, utilizing MMX Multi Matrix System (MMX) technology designed to deliver the active drug throughout the colon. We performed a double-blind, multicenter study, comparing MMX mesalamine vs placebo for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis. A delayed-release oral mesalamine (ASACOL; Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH) reference arm was included.
                Three hundred forty-three patients with active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis received MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day or 4.8 g/day given once daily, ASACOL 2.4 g/day given in 3 divided doses, or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of patients in clinical and endoscopic remission (modified ulcerative colitis disease activity index of < or =1 with rectal bleeding and stool frequency scores of 0, no mucosal friability, and a > or =1-point reduction in sigmoidoscopy score from baseline).
                A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day given once daily (40.5%; P = .01) and 4.8 g/day given once daily (41.2%; P = .007) achieved clinical and endoscopic remission at week 8, vs placebo (22.1%). The clinical and endoscopic remission rate for ASACOL (32.6%; P = .124) was not significantly superior to placebo. All active treatments were well-tolerated.
                Once-daily MMX mesalamine was efficacious and well-tolerated for the induction of clinical and endoscopic remission. MMX mesalamine offers effective and convenient mesalamine therapy, potentially improving treatment compliance. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a pH-sensitive, polymer-coated oral preparation of mesalamine in patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis.
                A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial.
                Five university-based medical centers, one inflammatory bowel disease center, and three private practice sites.
                A total of 158 patients with newly or previously diagnosed active ulcerative colitis.
                A pH-sensitive, polymer-coated oral preparation of mesalamine (5-aminosalicylic acid) was used at 1.6 and 2.4 g/d for 6 weeks.
                Efficacy was measured by scores for stool frequency, rectal bleeding, patient's functional assessment, sigmoidoscopic findings, and physician's global assessment. Stringent criteria for disease activity were established prospectively.
                The analysis of protocol-compliant patients showed a significant improvement at 3 weeks in patients taking 2.4 g/d of mesalamine compared with patients taking placebo (32% versus 9%; P = 0.003). At 6 weeks, both the 1.6 g/d (43%) and 2.4 g/d (49%) doses were significantly superior to placebo (23%) (P = 0.03 and P = 0.003, respectively). In addition, more patients worsened in the placebo group compared with the 2.4 g/d group (50% versus 19%; P = 0.003); however, there was no statistically significant difference in worsening between the 1.6 g/d mesalamine group and the placebo group. The oral mesalamine tablet was well tolerated, and no clinically significant changes were observed in hematologic, hepatic, or renal laboratory profiles.
                Colon-targeted oral mesalamine at 2.4 g/d is effective therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. It is well tolerated and should provide a viable therapeutic alternative to sulfasalazine. Oral mesalamine (5-aminosalicylate) is the current standard of care for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. We investigated the efficacy and safety of once daily administration of prolonged-release mesalamine granules in maintenance of remission in patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis, compared with the well established twice daily dosing regimen.
                In this multicenter, randomized, single blind, noninferiority trial, 362 patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups that were given oral mesalamine 2 g, once daily, or 1 g, twice daily, for 12 months. The primary objective was to compare remission rates at 1 year, based on the ulcerative colitis disease activity index score, using Kaplan-Meier methodology.
                At 1 year, 70.9% of the group given 2 g mesalamine once daily remained in remission vs 58.9% of the group given 1 g mesalamine twice daily; this difference was statistically significant (P = .024), indicating the increased efficacy of once daily, compared with twice daily, dosing. Self-reported adherence to therapy, measured by visual analog scale score after 4, 8, and 12 months, was significantly greater in the group given 2 g mesalamine once daily, compared with twice daily, at all but 1 study visit (P < .05). Compliance measured by medication taken was not significantly different between the groups. The difference between the 2 groups in overall incidence of adverse events was not statistically significant (P = .23).
                Patients with ulcerative colitis given prolonged-release oral mesalamine 2 g once daily had better remission rates, acceptability, and self-reported adherence to therapy compared with patients given oral mesalamine 1 g twice daily. Mesalamine has been used as the first-line medication for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). We directly compared the efficacy and safety of two different mesalamine formulations in the maintenance of remission in patients with UC.
                In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study, 131 patients with quiescent UC were assigned to two groups: 65 to receive a pH-dependent release formulation of mesalamine at 2.4 g/day (pH-2.4 g) and 66 to receive a time-dependent release formulation of mesalamine at 2.25 g/day (Time-2.25 g). Both formulations were administered three times daily for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without bloody stools.
                In the full analysis set (n = 130), the proportion of patients without bloody stools was 76.9% in the pH-2.4 g and 69.2% in the Time-2.25 g, demonstrating the noninferiority of pH-2.4 g to Time-2.25 g. No statistically significant difference in time to bloody stools was found between the two formulations (P = 0.27, log-rank test), but the time to bloody stools tended to be longer in pH-2.4 g compared to Time-2.25 g, and a similar trend was observed with regard to the time to relapse. No differences were observed between the safety profiles of the two formulations.
                The pH- and time-dependent release of mesalamine formulations were similarly safe and effective. Interestingly, the remission phase tended to be longer in the group that received the pH-dependent formulation compared to the group that received the time-dependent formulation (UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, no. C000000289). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of mesalamine rectal suspension enema (Rowasa) alone, oral mesalamine tablets (Asacol) alone, and the combination of mesalamine enema and mesalamine tablets in patients with active mild-to-moderate distal ulcerative colitis.
                Sixty outpatients with ulcerative colitis at least 5 cm above the anal verge and not more than 50 cm, inclusive, and a total disease activity index (DAI) score between 4 and 10, inclusive, were randomized to either mesalamine rectal enema (n = 18) once nightly, oral mesalamine 2.4 g/day (n = 22), or a combination of both treatments (n = 20). Placebo capsules and enemas were used to maintain a blind procedure. Total DAI scores and abbreviated DAI scores were evaluated at wk 3 and 6, and wk 1 and 2, respectively. Patients recorded the amount of blood in stools, urgency, straining at stools, and abdominal pain in daily diaries. Physicians and patients rated overall improvement at each visit.
                At wk 6, combination therapy produced a greater improvement (-5.2) in total DAI scores than did either mesalamine enema (-4.4) or mesalamine tablet (-3.9) therapy alone; similar treatment differences were observed at wk 3. Compared with patients given mesalamine enemas or mesalamine tablets, combination-therapy patients reported an absence of blood in stools significantly sooner and, at all visits, the combination therapy group had the highest percentage of patients who reported no blood in their stools. Physicians' and patients' ratings of improvement indicated that combination therapy significantly improved disease status, compared with mesalamine tablet therapy alone. All treatments were well tolerated.
                The combination of oral and rectal mesalamine therapy was well tolerated and produced earlier and more complete relief of rectal bleeding than oral or rectal therapy alone.
At present, there is no evidence to recommend the clinical use of oral budesonide for the induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis. Mesalamine is superior to budesonide for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis.