Chemoprevention of Colonic Polyps with Balsalazide: An Exploratory, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

A number of agents, including aspirin, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, folic acid, calcium, and vitamins, have been evaluated for their potential in chemoprevention of sporadic colorectal adenomas or cancer. Preclinical data suggest that 5-aminosalicylates also may have a chemopreventive effect. To investigate chemoprevention of colonic polyps with balsalazide, a 5-aminosalicylate prodrug. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults diagnosed with small polyps in the rectosigmoid colon were treated with either balsalazide 3 g/d or placebo for 6 months. Follow-up lower endoscopy was performed, and all polyps were measured and analyzed histologically. The primary endpoint was reduction in mean size of the largest polyp per subject. Among 241 participants screened, 86 were randomized to treatment, with 75 subjects evaluable. Balsalazide 3 g/d (n = 38) did not significantly reduce the mean size of the largest colonic polyp or the number of polyps compared with placebo (n = 37). Although not significant, post-hoc analysis revealed that total adenoma burden per subject, calculated as the sum of the volumes of all adenomas in mm3, increased by 55% in the balsalazide group compared with 95% in the placebo group. Although balsalazide did not have significant chemopreventive effects on established colonic polyps, these results can aid in designing future prospective studies

Cost effectiveness of ulcerative colitis treatment in Germany: a comparison of two oral formulations of mesalazine

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) can place a substantial financial burden on healthcare systems. The anti-inflammatory compound 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; mesalazine) is the recommended first-line treatment for patients with UC. In this analysis, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of two oral formulations of 5-ASA (Mezavant^®and Asacol^®) is examined in the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate, active UC in Germany.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A Markov cohort model was developed to assess the cost effectiveness of Mezavant compared with Asacol over a 5-year period in the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI). Drug pricing details for 2009 were applied throughout the model, and overall resource use was determined and also fitted to 2009 from published results of a large cross sectional study of German SHI patients. Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was the primary endpoint for this study. Remission rates were obtained using data from a randomised, phase III trial of Mezavant with an active Asacol reference arm and a long-term, open label, safety and tolerability trial of Mezavant. Uncertainty in the study model was assessed using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses applying a Monte Carlo simulation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Over a 5-year period, healthcare costs for patients receiving Mezavant were 624 Euro lower than for patients receiving Asacol. Additionally, patients receiving Mezavant gained 0.011 QALYs or 18 more days in remission compared with Asacol. One-way sensitivity analyses suggest that these results are driven by both differences in the acquisition cost between mesalazine formulations and differences in treatment efficacy. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses suggest a probability of 76% for cost savings and higher QALYs with Mezavant compared with Asacol. If adherence and its influence on the remission rates and the risk of developing colorectal cancer were included in the model, the results might have even been more favorable to Mezavant due to its once daily dosing regimen.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This model suggests that patients treated with Mezavant may achieve increased time in remission and higher QALYs, with lower direct costs to the SHI when compared with Asacol. Mezavant may therefore be a suitable first-line option for the induction and maintenance of remission in UC.</p

Mucosal Healing in Ulcerative Colitis: A Comprehensive Review

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease characterized by periods of remission and periods of relapse. Patients often present with symptoms such as rectal bleeding, diarrhea and weight loss, and may require hospitalization and even colectomy. Long-term complications of UC include decreased quality of life and productivity and an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Mucosal healing (MH) has gained progressive importance in the management of UC patients. In this article, we review the endoscopic findings that define both mucosal injury and MH, and the strengths and limitations of the scoring systems currently available in clinical practice. The basic mechanisms behind colonic injury and MH are covered, highlighting the pathways through which different drugs exert their effect towards reducing inflammation and promoting epithelial repair. A comprehensive review of the evidence for approved drugs for UC to achieve and maintain MH is provided, including a section on the pharmacokinetics of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha drugs. Currently approved drugs with proven efficacy in achieving MH in UC include salicylates, corticosteroids (induction only), calcineurin inhibitors (induction only), thiopurines, vedolizumab and anti-TNF alpha drugs (infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab). MH is of crucial relevance in the outcomes of UC, resulting in lower incidences of clinical relapse, the need for hospitalization and surgery, as well as reduced rates of dysplasia and colorectal cancer. Finally, we present recent evidence towards the need for a more strict definition of complete MH as the preferred endpoint for UC patients, using a combination of both endoscopic and histological findings.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

IBD: Infliximab dose optimization in IBD-proactive or reactive?

no abstract availabl