Rectal 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

Division of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, 2F59, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4K1.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 6.03). 11/2012; 11(11):CD004118. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004118.pub2
Source: PubMed


BACKGROUND: 5-Aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) is a first-line therapy for inducing and maintaining remission of mild and moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC). When the proximal margin of inflammation is distal to the splenic flexure, 5-ASA therapy can be delivered as a rectal suppository, foam or liquid enema. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of rectal 5-ASA for maintaining remission of distal UC. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1966 to August 2012), the Cochrane Library (August 2012), abstracts from major gastroenterology meetings (1997-2011) and bibliographies of relevant publications to identify relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials comparing rectal 5-ASA to placebo or another active treatment for a minimum duration of six months. Symptom scores needed to be assessed in at least one study outcome. Patients had to be at least 12 years of age with disease extent less than 60 cm from the anal verge or distal to the splenic flexure, as determined by barium enema, colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. Patients were expected to be in remission prior to the treatment trial. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study eligibility was independently assessed by three authors. Data were extracted using standardized forms by two independent reviewers, with inter-rater agreement assessed using Cohen's Kappa and disagreements resolved by consensus. In cases where clarification of study results or methodology was needed, corresponding authors were contacted. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool and by a 30-point scale developed and used previously by the authors. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continued clinical, endoscopic and histologic remission were estimated for comparisons between rectal 5-ASA and placebo or oral 5-ASA, and for comparisons among 5-ASA doses. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi(2) test and visual inspection of forest plots. If no significant heterogeneity was identified (P > 0.10 for Chi(2)) a fixed-effect model (Mantel-Haenstzel) was used. If heterogeneity was significant, a random-effects model was used. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies (484 patients) met the pre-specified inclusion criteria (Kappa 1.00). Six studies were rated as low risk of bias. Three studies were rated as high risk of bias due to blinding (two open label and one single-blind). The total daily dose of rectal 5-ASA ranged from 0.5 g to 4 g, and dose frequency ranged from once to three times daily. 5-ASA was delivered as liquid enema in five studies or as a suppository in four studies. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 24 months. Rectal 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of symptomatic remission over a period of 12 months.Sixty-two per cent of patients in the rectal 5-ASA group maintained symptomatic remission compared to 30% of patients in the placebo group (4 studies; 301 patients; RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.90; I(2) = 67%; P < 0.01). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome was low due to imprecision (i.e. sparse data 144 events) and inconsistency (i.e. unexplained heterogeneity). Rectal 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of endoscopic remission over a 12 month period. Seventy-five per cent of patients in the rectal 5-ASA group maintained endoscopic remission compared to 15% of patients in the placebo group (1 study; 25 patients; RR 4.88, 95% CI 1.31 to 18.18; P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who experienced at least one adverse event. Sixteen per cent of patients in the rectal 5-ASA group experienced at least one adverse compared to 12% of placebo patients (2 studies; 160 patients; RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.89; I(2) = 0%; P = 0.44). The most commonly reported adverse events were anal irritation and abdominal pain. No statistically significant differences between rectal and oral 5-ASA were identified for either symptomatic or endoscopic remission over a period of six months. Eighty per cent of patients in the rectal 5-ASA group maintained symptomatic remission compared to 65% of patients in the oral 5-ASA group (2 studies; 69 patients; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.66; I(2) = 0%; P = 0.15). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome was low due to imprecision (i.e. sparse data 50 events) and high risk of bias (i.e. both studies in the pooled analysis were open label). Eighty per cent of patients in the rectal 5-ASA group maintained endoscopic remission compared to 70% of patients in the oral 5-ASA group (2 studies; 91 patients; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.45; I(2) = 0%; P = 0.26). In two small trials, one comparing 2 g/day 5-ASA enemas to 4 g/day 5-ASA enemas and the other comparing 0.5 g/day 5-ASA suppositories to 1 g/day 5-ASA suppositories no dose response relationship was observed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The limited data available suggest that rectal 5-ASA is effective and safe for maintenance of remission of mild to moderately active distal UC. Well designed randomized trials are needed to establish the optimal dosing regimen for rectal 5-ASA, to compare rectal 5-ASA with rectal corticosteroids and to identify subgroups of patients who are more or less responsive to specific rectal 5-ASA regimens. The combination of oral and rectal 5-ASA appears to be more effective than either oral or rectal monotherapy for induction of remission. The efficacy of combination therapy for maintenance of remission has not been assessed and could be evaluated in future trials.

15 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The clinical management of ulcerative colitis (UC) involves first treating the acute symptoms to induce remission, and then successfully maintaining it. Oral 5-aminosalicylic acids are safe and useful for maintaining remission in patients with UC. In terms of adherence, a once-daily form of 5-aminosalicylic acid is superior in maintaining remission as compared with split dosing. Patients at high risk of relapse may be candidates for treatment with thiopurines and/or biologics in the early stages of UC. Calcineurin inhibitors, such as cyclosporine and tacrolimus, are effective for severe, steroid-refractory UC patients. It is suggested that these patients use thiopurines as their maintenance therapy once they achieve remission with calcineurin inhibitors. Recent studies have confirmed that biologics are effective for inducing clinical and endoscopic remission of UC, and thus they may improve long-term prognosis of UC.
    Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology 05/2013; 7(4):341-51. DOI:10.1586/egh.13.18 · 2.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) represent a chronic inflammatory condition of the bowel that often require lifelong medical therapy for the induction and maintenance of the remission. Mesalazine therapies are available both as oral delayed-release and sustained-release formulation, topical formulations and as prodrug. Areas covered: Available literature regarding mesalazine is extensively reviewed in this article, covering its mechanism of action, pharmaceutics and pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability in different settings. Expert opinion: Mesalazine has a well-established role in the management of UC. It is the treatment of choice in active and inactive mild-to-moderate UC combining oral and topical drug. No clear role of mesalazine in prevention of colon cancer has been demonstrated because of the contradictory results coming from case-control and prospective studies. The role of mesalazine in the management of CD is less clear; some studies suggest a potential efficacy of 5-ASA in preventing relapse of CD after surgical resection but more convincing results are needed.
    Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 06/2013; 14(12). DOI:10.1517/14656566.2013.808622 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the effects of nilotinib in a rat model of trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid (TNBS)-induced colitis. Twenty-one Wistar albino female rats obtained from Dokuz Eylul University Department of Laboratory Animal Science were categorized into a control (n = 7), TNBS (n = 7) and nilotinib group (n = 7). Saline was administered orally for 14 d to the control and the TNBS group. The TNBS group received rectal TNBS on the first day while saline was administered to the control group. The nilotinib group received 20 mg/kg nilotinib for 14 d in 2 divided doses, starting the same day as TNBS administration. For 14 d, the rats were fed a standard diet, and their weights were recorded daily. After sacrifice, colon tissue samples from each group were scored for macroscopic and microscopic pathology. Apoptotic indices were determined by the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP-biotin nick end labeling method. Platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) alpha and beta levels were assessed through immunohistochemistry staining scores and compared among the groups. Tissue and serum tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha levels were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Between days 1 and 14, the nilotinib group rats lost significantly less weight than the TNBS group rats (-0.7 g vs -14.0 g, P = 0.047). The difference in weight between the control and nilotinib groups was also statistically significant (+8.3 g vs -0.7 g, P = 0.031). From day 7 to day 14, the weight differences of the control group vs the TNBS group, the TNBS group vs the nilotinib group, and the control group vs the nilotinib group were all statistically significant (+8.0 g vs -11.1 g, P = 0.007; -11.1 g vs +2.9 g, P = 0.015; +8.0 g vs +2.9 g, P = 0.042, respectively). Macroscopic and microscopic scores were significantly lower in the nilotinib group than in the TNBS group (0.00 ± 0.00 vs 1.43 ± 0.65, P = 0.009; 2.86 ± 0.55 vs 7.71 ± 1.48, P = 0.030, respectively). However, these scores were similar between the nilotinib and control groups. While no significant difference for the nilotinib vs control groups could be determined for PDGFR alpha and beta scores, PDGFR alpha and beta scores were lower in the nilotinib group than in the TNBS group. Furthermore, the TNF alpha levels in the serum, tissue and apoptosis scores were similar between the nilotinib and TNBS groups. Nilotinib prevents weight loss, facilitates mucosal healing by improving the pathological scores without introducing variation into the apoptotic scores or TNF alpha levels.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 10/2013; 19(37):6237-6244. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v19.i37.6237 · 2.37 Impact Factor
Show more