Preview

Meditsinskiy sovet = Medical Council

Advanced search

The effectiveness of mesalazine therapy of ulcerative colitis of moderate severity in real clinical practice

https://doi.org/10.21518/2079-701X-2019-14-80-86

Abstract

Aim of the study. To compare the efficacy of treatment of patients with moderate left-sided and overall affection ulcerative colitis (UC) receiving equivalent doses of mesalazines – Mesacol and Salofalk.

Materials and methods. 90 UC patients of medium severity who received mesalazine Salofalk (group 1) were included, of which 41 (45.5%) were males and 49 (54.5%) females, mean age 35.8 ± 2.5 years, and 96 UC patients of medium severity who received mesalazine Mesacol (group 2), of whom 42 (43.75%) were males and 54 (56.25%) females, mean age 37.1 ± 3.1 years. Patient follow-up time was 12 weeks. The efficacy of the therapy was assessed taking into account 1) response to therapy in 2 weeks from the beginning of therapy; 2) achievement and maintenance of clinical remission (persistent remission) within 12 weeks after the beginning of therapy.

Results and discussions. After 2 weeks 78 (86,7%) patients of the 1st group responded to the therapy with mesalazine Salofalc (stool frequency decreased to 4–6 t/day, presence of pathological impurities in the stool decreased, according to laboratory indices anemia and leukocytosis decreased, and the level of CRP and ESR decreased). Twelve patients (13.3%) did not have a proper response to therapy. In the 2nd group of patients receiving Mesacol mesalazine, 80 (83,4%) out of 96 patients responded to the therapy, and 16 patients (16,6%) did not respond. After 12 weeks, 78 (86.7%) of the 90 UC Group 1 patients who responded to mesalazine Salofalk treatment still had clinical remission. The Mayo index in the group decreased from an average of 7.98 ±0.11 to 2.9 ±0.24 points. After 12 weeks, in group 2 UC patients (n = 96), 80 patients (83.4%) who responded to Mesalazine Mesacol therapy also had clinical remission. The Mayo Index in Group 2 decreased on average from 7.8 ± 0.1 to 2.8 ± 0.25 points. One year after the start of Salofalk mesalazine therapy, clinical remission remained in 76 (84.4%) of the 90 UC patients who responded to therapy, of whom 32 (35.5%) had clinical endoscopic remission. In the second group of UC patients receiving Mesacol, clinical remission remained in 78 (82.0%) out of 96 patients who responded to therapy, clinical endoscopic remission in 32 (35.5%) patients with UC. When comparing the duration of remission among UC patients receiving mesalazine Salofalk and patients receiving mesalazine Mesacol, there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.45).

Conclusion. Mesalazines remain the first line of treatment for mild and moderate UC patients. Treatment of moderately active UC should start with oral mesalazine >2 g/day in combination with local mesalazine. Prolonged continuous use of Mesacol and Salofalk mesalazines for a year is comparable in efficacy.

About the Authors

O. V. Knyazev
The Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center
Russian Federation

Oleg V. Knyazev, Dr. of Sci. (Med), Head of the Department of Treatment of Inflammatory Diseases of the Intestines, Moscow State Budgetary Institution of Healthcare 

86, Entuziastov shosse, Moscow, 111123



A. V. Kagramanova
The Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center
Russian Federation

Anna V. Kagramanova, Cand. of Sci. (Med), Senior Researcher of the Department of Treatment of Inflammatory Diseases of the Intestines, Moscow State Budgetary Institution of Healthcare 

86, Entuziastov shosse, Moscow, 111123



A. A. Lishchinskaya
The Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center
Russian Federation

Albina A. Lischinskaya, Cand. of Sci. (Med), Senior Researcher of the Department of Treatment of Inflammatory Diseases of the Intestines, Moscow State Budgetary Institution of Healthcare 

86, Entuziastov shosse, Moscow, 111123



A. I. Parfenov
The Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center
Russian Federation

Asfol’d I. Parfenov, Dr. of Sci. (Med), Professor, Head of Intestinal Pathology Department, Moscow State Budgetary Institution of Healthcare 

86, Entuziastov shosse, Moscow, 111123



References

1. Parfenov A.I. Enterologiya. Rukovodstvo dlya vrachey = Enterology. Manual for physicians. 2nd edition, supplemented and revised. Moscow: Medical Information Agency, 2009, 875 p. (In Russ.) Available at: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=19546916.

2. M’Koma A.E. Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Expanding Global Health Problem. Clin Med Insights Gastroenterol. 2013;6:33-47. doi: 10.4137/CGast.S12731.

3. Dignass A., Lindsay J. O., Sturm A., Windsor A., Colombel J.-F., Allez M., D’Haens G., D’Hoore A., Mantzaris G., Novacek G., Oresland T., Reinisch W., Sans M., Stange E., Vermeire S., Travis S., Assche G.V. Second European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis Part 2: Current management. J Crohns Colitis. 2012;6(10):991-1030. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2012.09.002.

4. Ivashkin V.T., Shelygin Yu.A., Khalif I.L., Belousova E.A., Shifrin O.S., Abdulganieva D.I., Abdulkhakov R.A., Alekseeva O.P., Alekseenko S.A., Achkasov S.I., Baranovsky A.Yu., Bolikhov K.V., Valuiskikh E.Yu., Vardanyan A.V., Veselov A.V., Veselov V.V., Golovenko A.O., Golovenko O.V., Grigorev E.G., Gubonina I.V., Zhigalova T.N., Kashnikov V.N., Knyazev O.V., Kostenko N.V., Kulyapin A.V., Morozova N.A., Muravev A.V., Nizov A.A., Nikitina N.V., Nikolaeva N.N., Osipenko M.F., Pavlenko V.V., Parfenov A.I., Poluektova E.A., Potapov A.S., Rumyantsev V.G., Svetlova I.O., Sitkin S.I., Timerbulatov V.M., Tkachev A.V., Tkachenko E.I., Frolov S.A., Khubezov D.A., Chashkova E.Yu., Shapina M.V., Shchukina O.B., Yakovlev A.A. Clinical guide of russian association of gastroenterology and russian association of coloproctology on diagnostics and treatment of ulcerative colitis. Koloproktologiya = Koloproktologia. 2017;(1):6-30. (In Russ,) Available at: https://gastroe.ru/files/rekomendatsii_yazvenniy_kolit_2017.pdf.

5. Vorob’ev G.I., Khalif I.L. Nonspecific inflammatory bowel disease. Moscow: Miklosh, 2008; 400 c. (In Russ.) Available at: https://www.twirpx.com/file/437299/

6. Kniazev O.V., Churikova A.A. Anti-cytokine therapy and the quality of life in the patients presenting with inflammatory intestinal disorders. Dokazatel’naya gastroehnterologiya = Evidence-based gastroenterology. 2014;(2):17– 23. (In Russ.) Available at: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=22471915.

7. Belousova E.A., Nikitina N.V., TSodikova O.M. Treatment of ulcerative colitis of light and moderate heavy current. Farmateka = Pharmateca. 2013;(2):42–46. (In Russ.) Available at: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=18911742.

8. SutherLand L., May G., Shaffer E. SuLfasaLazine revisited: a meta-anaLysis of 5-aminosaLicyLic acid in the treatment of uLcerative coLitis. Ann Intern Med, 1993;(118):540-549. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819118-7-199304010-00009.

9. Sutherland L., MacDonald J.K. Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD000544. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000544.pub2.

10. Sutherland L.R., Roth D.E., Beck P.L. Alternatives to sulfasalazine: a meta-analysis of 5-asa in the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 1997;3(2):65-78. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23282747.

11. Feagan B.G. MacDonald J.K. Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD000543. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000543.pub3.

12. Shapina M.V., Khalif I.L. Use of 5-aminosalicylic acid for treatment of ulcerative colitis in different dosage modes. Meditsinskiy sovet = Medical Council. 2017;(15):44-50. (In Russ.) doi: 10.21518/2079-701X-2017-15-44-50.

13. D’Inca R., Paccagnella M., Cardin R., Pathak S., Baldo V., Giron M.C., Sturniolo G.C. 5-ASA colonic mucosal concentrations resulting from different pharmaceutical formulations in ulcerative colitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(34):5665-5670. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i34.5665.

14. Myers B., Evans D.N, Rhodes J., Evans B.K., Hughes B.R., Lee M.G., Richens A., Richards D. Metabolism and urinary excretion of 5-amino salicylic acid in healthy volunteers when given intravenously or released for absorption at different sites in the gastrointestinal tract. Gut. 1987;28(2):196-200. doi: 10.1136/gut.28.2.196.

15. Hardy J.G., Healey J.N.C. Reynolds J.R. Evaluation of an enteric-coated delayedrelease 5-aminosalicylic acid tablet in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1987;1(4):273-280. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.1987.tb00627.x.

16. Dew M.J., Harries A.D., Evans N., Evans B.K., and Rhodes J. Maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis with 5-amino salicylic acid in high doses by mouth. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1983;287(6384):23–24. doi: 10.1136/bmj.287.6384.23.

17. Balunov P.A. Pharmacoeconomic evluation of 5-asa application in light and medium grave disseminated (recurring) ulcerative colitis. Meditsinskiy sovet = Medical Council. 2017;(15):122-129. (In Russ.) doi: 10.21518/2079-701X-2017-15-122-129.

18. D’Haens G., Sandborn W.J., Feagan B.G., Geboes K., Hanauer S.B., Irvine E.J., Lemann M., Marteau P., Rutgeerts P., Scholmerich J., Sutherland L.R. A review of activity indices and efficacy end points for clinical trials of medical therapy in adults with ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132(2):763-786. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.12.038.

19. Schroeder K.W., Tremaine W.J., Ilstrup D.M. Coated oral 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. A randomized study. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(26):1625-1629. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198712243172603.


Review

For citations:


Knyazev OV, Kagramanova AV, Lishchinskaya AA, Parfenov AI. The effectiveness of mesalazine therapy of ulcerative colitis of moderate severity in real clinical practice. Meditsinskiy sovet = Medical Council. 2019;(14):80-86. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21518/2079-701X-2019-14-80-86

Views: 1635


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2079-701X (Print)
ISSN 2658-5790 (Online)