Labetalol Ameliorates Experimental Colitis in Rat Possibly Through its Effect on Proinflammatory Mediators and Oxidative Stress.

BACKGROUND: Members of beta blockers drugs possess significant antioxidant activities. The current research is to assess the effect of the labetalol on acetic acid (AA-induced) colitis in rat model. METHODS: Forty adult Wistar rats were separated into 4 groups, including the negative control group, AA group, AA + sulfasalazine (100 mg/kg/day) group, and AA + labetalol (300 mg/kg/day) group. Colitis was induced in rats by the interrectal installation of 2 mL of 4% (v/v) AA. Sulfasalazine and labetalol were administered orally for 7 days after 2 hours of induction. The following parameters were measured: disease activity index (DAI), histopa-thological changes and colon tissue homogenate concentrations of proinflammatory mediators IL-1ß, adhesion molecules ICAM-1, and oxidative stress marker myeloperoxidase (MPO). RESULTS: The treatment with labetalol significantly reduced DAI and histopathological changes induced by AA. Also, labetalol markedly decreased the concentrations of IL-1ß, ICAM-1, and MPO in colonic tissue that were increased by AA. The effects of labetalol were significantly lower than that produced by sulfasalazine as standard drug. CONCLUSIONS: Labetalol exerts ameliorative effects on disease activity and histopathological features of AA-induced colitis in rats possibly through antioxidant effects and inhibition of inflammatory mediators.

Efficacy and Safety of Sulfasalazine Suspension in Children With Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Sulfasalazine (SZ) is commonly used to treat pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC). SZ can be compounded into a suspension form which is beneficial for children with difficulty swallowing a pill. Despite being utilized for over 40 years, there is a lack of published data on the efficacy and safety of SZ suspension in children with UC. Recently, third-party payors have begun refusing to pay for SZ suspension due to lack of data. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we reviewed the electronic medical records of patients ages <18 years diagnosed with UC from June 1999 to December 2019 at Boston Children's Hospital and treated with SZ suspension as a first-line agent. We obtained demographics, clinical, and endoscopic data to measure outcomes at 1 year and long term. RESULTS: Of 57 patients treated with SZ suspension, 52 (91%) had a follow-up and 26 of 52 (50%) remained in steroid-free remission at 1 year. Two patients were switched to SZ tablets due to nonmedical reasons and 11 (21%) required rescue treatment (2 infliximab, 1 tacrolimus, 8 6-mercaptopurine/azathioprine) within a year. Three required colectomy within a year and 5 in long term. Four (8%) developed nonserious adverse reactions and switched to 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) by 1 year. The median duration of long-term follow-up was 36 months (range, 2-205 months) with 28 requiring treatment escalation in long term. CONCLUSIONS: SZ suspension is a safe and effective treatment for UC in children with difficulty swallowing a pill. The 1-year remission rate on this treatment is comparable to 5-ASA utilized in children.

Development of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Children With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Treated With Biologics.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to describe the distinct features of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients and to identify risk factors for its development. METHODS: Data from the German biologics in pediatric rheumatology registry (Biologika in der Kinderrheumatologie) collected between 2001 and 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: In 5009 JIA patients, 28 developed confirmed IBD before the age of 18 years: 23 (82.1%) with Crohn disease (CD), 4 (14.3%) with ulcerative colitis (UC), and 1 (3.6%) with IBD-unclassified (IBD-U). The incident rate of IBD during 20 years of observation was 0.56% (0.46% for CD, 0.08% for UC, and 0.02% for IBD-U), of whom 20.3% were HLA-B27 positive, 25% had enthesitis-related arthritis, and 14.3% psoriatic arthritis. Within 90 days before IBD diagnosis, 82.1% (n = 23) received treatment with etanercept (ETA), 39.3% (n = 11) non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 17.9% (n = 5) systemic corticosteroids, 8 (28.6%) methotrexate (MTX), 14.3% (n = 4) sulfasalazine, 10.7% (n = 3) leflunomide, and 3.6% (n = 1) adalimumab and infliximab, respectively. The incidence of IBD was lower in patients treated with MTX, but higher in patients treated with ETA except if ETA was combined with MTX. Also in patients on leflunomide or sulfasalazine, the IBD incidence was higher. CONCLUSIONS: In our JIA cohort, an increased IBD incidence is observed compared to the general population, and the ratio of CD to UC is markedly higher hinting at a distinct phenotype of IBD. Pretreatment with MTX seems to be protective. Treatment with ETA does not prevent IBD development and JIA patients treated with leflunomide and sulfasalazine may be at an increased risk for IBD development.

Significance of 5-Aminosalicylic Acid Intolerance in the Clinical Management of Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Two major types of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA)-containing preparations, namely, mesalazine/5-ASA and sulfasalazine (SASP), are currently used as first-line therapy for ulcerative colitis. Recent reports show that optimization of 5-ASA therapy is beneficial for both patient outcomes and healthcare costs. Although 5-ASA and SASP have good efficacy and safety profiles, clinicians occasionally encounter patients who develop 5-ASA intolerance. SUMMARY: The most common symptoms of acute 5-ASA intolerance syndrome are exacerbation of diarrhea, fever, and abdominal pain. Patients who discontinue 5-ASA therapy because of intolerance have a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, such as hospital admission, colectomy, need for advanced therapies, and loss of response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologics. When patients develop symptoms of 5-ASA intolerance, the clinician should consider changing the type of 5-ASA preparation. Recent genome-wide association studies and meta-analyses have shown that 5-ASA allergy is associated with certain single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Although there are no modalities or biomarkers for diagnosing 5-ASA intolerance, the drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test can be used to assist in the diagnosis of acute 5-ASA intolerance syndrome with high specificity and low sensitivity. This review presents a general overview of 5-ASA and SASP in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and discusses the latest insights into 5-ASA intolerance. KEY MESSAGES: 5-ASA is used as first-line therapy for ulcerative colitis. Optimization of 5-ASA may be beneficial for patient outcomes and healthcare systems. Acute 5-ASA intolerance syndrome is characterized by diarrhea, fever, and abdominal pain. Periodic renal function monitoring is recommended for patients receiving 5-ASA.

Effects of sulfasalazine in axial spondyloarthritis on COVID-19 outcomes: real-life data from a single center.

INTRODUCTION: Compared to biological agents, little is known about the impact of sulfasalazine therapy on COVID-19 outcomes in patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis (AxSpA). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the COVID-19 severity in AxSpAs receiving sulfasalazine and biologic-agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 219 SARS-CoV-2 positive AxSpA patients were retrospectively analyzed. COVID-19 pneumonia, hospitalization rate, and length of stay were used to determine COVID-19 severity. AxSpA patients were mainly grouped and compared as sulfasalazine and non-sulfasalazine. Afterward, we excluded no-treatment patients to reveal the drug's effects more clearly and regrouped AxSpA patients as sulfasalazine-monotherapy (34.3%), biologic-monotherapy (33.7%), and sulfasalazine + biologic (7.3%). RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent of the patients were male and the mean age was 45.0 years. Peripheral arthritis was 35% and uveitis 15%. In total, 41.5% of them have received sulfasalazine and 41.0% biologic agents, and the remaining patients with no AxSpA-specific treatment. In the first comparison, the sulfasalazine group had a higher age, more frequent COVID-19 pneumonia, hospitalization, and longer hospitalization than a non-sulfasalazine group. In the pairwise comparison of 3 treatment groups, the demographic and clinical features, the hospitalization rate and the length of hospital stay were similar but the sulfasalazine-monotherapy group had a higher frequency of COVID-19 pneumonia than the biologic-monotherapy group (23% vs. 7%, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Our results imply sulfasalazine may be related to more severe COVID-19 in AxSpA patients. These patients should be followed more carefully in the presence of COVID-19, regardless of reasons such as age, comorbidity, and extra-axial disease, and consideration of discontinuing sulfasalazine maybe even thought.

[A case of ulcerative colitis with mesalazine intolerance complicated with agranulocytosis and septic shock during salazosulfapyridine administration].

A 73-year-old woman developed ulcerative colitis with mesalazine intolerance a year ago. She relapsed 10 months later. Although she was in clinical remission with salazosulfapyridine (SASP) and prednisolone administration, she developed agranulocytosis 53 days following SASP administration. She went into septic shock;however, she recovered with antibiotics, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and cardiotonic agents. Drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test was positive for both mesalazine and SASP. Drug selection should be carefully determined in patients with 5-aminosalicylic acid intolerance.

The synbiotic mixture of Bacillus licheniformis and Saccharomyces cerevisiae extract aggravates dextran sulfate sodium induced colitis in rats.

BACKGROUND: Uncertain effects of probiotics and/or prebiotics have been reported in experimental and clinical colitis. This study aims to examine the effects of a synbiotic combination comprising Bacillus licheniformis DSM 17236 and Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell wall extract on dextran sulfate sodium (DSS)-induced colitis in Sprague Dawley rats. METHODS: Acute colitis was induced in rats by oral administration of DSS 3.5% for 7 days. Fifty rats were divided equally into five groups; one control group and the other groups were induced with colitis and treated with or without the tested synbiotic, mixed with diet, for 28 days and sulfasalazine (100 mg/kg) via intragastric tube once daily for 14 days. RESULTS: Symptomatically, the synbiotic administration raised the disease activity index (DAI) to comparable scores of the DSS group, specially from the 2nd to 7th days post DSS intoxication. It also induced a significant (p < 0.05) amplification of WBCs, myeloperoxidase (MPO), malondialdehyde (MDA), nuclear factor kappa B (NF-kB) expression and proinflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), interferon gamma (INFγ), and interleukin-1 beta (IL-1ß) while depressed the antioxidant enzymes glutathione peroxidase (GPx), catalase (CAT), and superoxide dismutase (SOD) when compared with the DSS and control groups. The DSS intoxicated and Synbiotic+DSS groups showed desquamations of the covering epithelium, noticeable diffuse leukocytic infiltrations, sever catarrhal enteritis, ischemic colitis with diffuse coagulative necrosis of the entire colonic mucosa. Contrarily, sulfasalazine proved to be effective in the reduction of the tested inflammatory markers and the pathological degenerative changes of the DSS ulcerative colitis. CONCLUSION: The examined synbiotic did not ameliorate but aggravated the DSS-induced colitis, so it should be subjected to intensive experimental and clinical testing before their use in animals and human.

Adverse reaction profile of sulfasalazine and its persistence in chronic therapy of rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis: A multicentric observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Sulfasalazine has been widely used in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis. This study aims to assess persistence with sulfasalazine and also frequency and severity of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) encountered with this very well-established disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was done in 1,114 patients from medicine and rheumatology outpatient departments of six centers across India. The inclusion criteria was patients taking sulfasalazine. Patients receiving sulfasalazine for rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis were selected and details on drugs used, duration of taking sulfasalazine, ADRs to sulfasalazine and whether sulfasalazine had to be stopped due to ADRs were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the total of patients included in the study, 10.1% had ADRs with sulfasalazine, and stopped the drug. Gastritis, deranged liver enzymes, hepatitis, skin rashes were the most commonly encountered ADRs. Of the total number of patients recruited for the study, 11% were lost to follow-up, as most of the centers were army hospitals and the officers and staff were posted to other places. Sulfasalazine was taken for less than 1 month by 3.8% patients while 12.5% had taken the drug for less than 6 months. Of the study patients, 28.6% had taken the drug for 24 - 60 months and 4.6% (51 patients) had taken it for more than 5 years. It was found that ADRs were most commonly encountered within the first year of using the drug, and persistence was seen in patients on long-term therapy. CONCLUSION: Sulfasalazine is a safe option in chronic therapy of rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis. Although frequency of ADRs with patients taking sulfasalazine is minimal, it did necessitate the stoppage of drug. If not well tolerated, sulfasalazine would not have been continued for more than 12 months as evidenced from this study.

Comparison between leflunomide and sulfasalazine based triple therapy in methotrexate refractory rheumatoid arthritis: an open-label, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

To compare efficacy and safety of two different combination csDMARD therapy in Methotrexate-failed Rheumatoid arthritis patients. In this 24-week open-label, parallel-group non-inferiority, single-center clinical trial, Methotrexate-failed Rheumatoid arthritis patients with disease duration < 2 years, were randomized to either of the two treatment regimens-Methotrexate + Leflunomide + Hydroxychloroquine or Methotrexate + Sulfasalazine + Hydroxychloroquine. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients achieving EULAR good response at 12 weeks. Non-inferiority of Leflunomide based therapy was confirmed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of treatment difference between the 2 groups was lower than the selected non-inferiority margin of (- 20%) in primary endpoint at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints were improvement in DAS28, functional outcome and adverse events at 24 weeks. 136 eligible patients were randomized to either Leflunomide or Sulfasalazine group (68 in each group).63 and 59 patients in Leflunomide and 66 and 61 patients in Sulfasalazine group completed 12 and 24 weeks of trial, respectively. In Intension-to-treat analysis, EULAR good response was achieved by 58.8% and 54.4% patients (p = 0.7) at the end of 12 weeks, and 61.7% and 64.7% patients (p = 0.8) at the end of 24 weeks-in Leflunomide and Sulfasalazine group respectively. At 12 weeks, the difference in EULAR good response with 2-sided 95% confidence interval between 2 groups was 4.4% (- 12%, 20%) in intention-to-treat and 5.8% (- 11%, 23%) in perprotocol analysis.15 and 21 adverse events were recorded in Leflunomide and Sulfasalazine group respectively. Parenteral Methotrexate was required more in Sulfasalazine group due to gastrointestinal intolerance. Leflunomide based csDMARD therapy is non-inferior to Sulfasalazine based csDMARD therapy in Methotrexate-failed Rheumatoid arthritis patients with comparable safety profile. Trial registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02930343) dated 10.09.2016.

Corticosteroids, But Not TNF Antagonists, Are Associated With Adverse COVID-19 Outcomes in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Results From an International Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The impact of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is unknown. We sought to characterize the clinical course of COVID-19 among patients with IBD and evaluate the association among demographics, clinical characteristics, and immunosuppressant treatments on COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) is a large, international registry created to monitor outcomes of patients with IBD with confirmed COVID-19. We calculated age-standardized mortality ratios and used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with severe COVID-19, defined as intensive care unit admission, ventilator use, and/or death. RESULTS: 525 cases from 33 countries were reported (median age 43 years, 53% men). Thirty-seven patients (7%) had severe COVID-19, 161 (31%) were hospitalized, and 16 patients died (3% case fatality rate). Standardized mortality ratios for patients with IBD were 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-2.6), 1.5 (95% CI, 0.7-2.2), and 1.7 (95% CI, 0.9-2.5) relative to data from China, Italy, and the United States, respectively. Risk factors for severe COVID-19 among patients with IBD included increasing age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02), ≥2 comorbidities (aOR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.1-7.8), systemic corticosteroids (aOR, 6.9; 95% CI, 2.3-20.5), and sulfasalazine or 5-aminosalicylate use (aOR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-7.7). Tumor necrosis factor antagonist treatment was not associated with severe COVID-19 (aOR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.4-2.2). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing age, comorbidities, and corticosteroids are associated with severe COVID-19 among patients with IBD, although a causal relationship cannot be definitively established. Notably, tumor necrosis factor antagonists do not appear to be associated with severe COVID-19.

Multicenter survey on mesalamine intolerance in patients with ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although oral mesalamine is the first-choice drug for treating mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC), some patients show symptoms of intolerance, including exacerbation of diarrhea and abdominal pain. The present study clarified the current state and clinical courses of patients with mesalamine intolerance. METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed with UC and administered oral mesalamine at eight hospitals in Japan with a follow-up period exceeding 1 year were analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-seven (11%) of 633 patients showed intolerance to at least one formulation of oral mesalamine. The frequency of mesalamine intolerance has increased in recent years, rising from 5.3% in 2007-2010 to 9.1% in 2011-2013 and 16.2% in 2014-2016. The most common complications were the exacerbation of diarrhea (n = 29), a fever (n = 25), and abdominal pain (n = 22). Readministration of mesalamine/sulfasalazine was attempted in 43 patients, mostly with other types of formulation of mesalamine, and more than half of these patients proved to be tolerant. The risk factors for mesalamine intolerance were female gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-3.12), age < 60 years old (OR = 2.82; CI, 1.19-8.33), and pancolitis (OR = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.23-3.60). There were no significant differences in the use of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents, colectomy, or steroid-free remission at the last visit between patients with and without mesalamine intolerance. CONCLUSIONS: Mesalamine intolerance is not rare, and its frequency has been increasing recently. The prognosis of patients with mesalamine intolerance did not differ significantly from that of those without intolerance.

Men With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Sexual Function, Fertility, Medication Safety, and Prostate Cancer.

Half of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are men, yet less attention has been focused on their sexual issues despite higher rates of sexual dysfunction and infertility than the general population. Depression and IBD disease activity are the most consistently reported risk factor for sexual dysfunction among men with IBD. Methotrexate and sulfasalazine have been rarely associated with impotence. Sulfasalazine reversibly reduces male fertility. No other medications used in IBD significantly affect fertility in humans. There is no increase in adverse fetal outcomes among offspring of fathers with IBD. Patients with IBD seem to be at a higher risk for prostate cancer; therefore, screening as recommended for high-risk patients should be considered.

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms may occur within 2 weeks of drug exposure: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is challenging. Some clinicians reject this diagnosis when the delay of onset is less than 15 days after drug intake. OBJECTIVES: To assess the delay of DRESS occurrence and culprit drugs. METHODS: All patients hospitalized in 3 dermatology departments with a first occurrence of DRESS for which a drug was highly suspected were included in this retrospective study. Based on the delay in DRESS occurrence, cases were classified into 2 groups: a rapid-onset group (≤15 days after exposure) and a delayed-onset group (>15 days). RESULTS: A total of 41 patients with DRESS were included: 14 in the rapid-onset and 27 in delayed-onset groups. In the rapid-onset group, antibiotics (n = 6/14) and iodinated contrast media (n = 5/5) were the predominant culprits. Carbamazepine (n = 4/4), lamotrigine (n = 6/6), allopurinol (n = 8/8), and sulfasalazine (n = 2/2) were exclusively found in the delayed-onset group. LIMITATIONS: The retrospective nature, limited number of participants, and lack of detailed information on previous exposure to sensitizing drugs in some instances. CONCLUSIONS: DRESS is frequently related to drugs introduced 15 or fewer days before the occurrence of cutaneous adverse reactions. The time of onset of DRESS may differ depending on the medications involved.

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. It was previously found that 5-ASA drugs in doses of at least 2 g/day were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP for inducing remission in ulcerative colitis (UC). This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators (i.e. other formulations of 5-ASA) for induction of remission in active UC. A secondary objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of oral 5-ASA versus conventional dosing regimens (two or three times daily). SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library on 11 June 2019. We also searched references, conference proceedings and study registers to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (aged 18 years or more) with active UC for inclusion. We included studies that compared oral 5-ASA therapy with placebo, SASP, or other 5-ASA formulations. We also included studies that compared once-daily to conventional dosing as well as dose-ranging studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Outcomes include failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, adherence, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), withdrawals due to AEs, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. We analyzed five comparisons: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once-daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA (e.g. MMX mesalamine, Ipocol, Balsalazide, Pentasa, Olsalazine and 5-ASA micropellets) versus comparator 5-ASA (e.g. Asacol, Claversal, Salofalk), and 5-ASA dose-ranging. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for each outcome. We analyzed data on an intention-to-treat basis, and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We include 54 studies (9612 participants). We rated most studies at low risk of bias. Seventy-one per cent (1107/1550) of 5-ASA participants failed to enter clinical remission compared to 83% (695/837) of placebo participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89; 2387 participants, 11 studies; high-certainty evidence). We also observed a dose-response trend for 5-ASA. There was no difference in clinical remission rates between 5-ASA and SASP. Fifty-four per cent (150/279) of 5-ASA participants failed to enter remission compared to 58% (144/247) of SASP participants (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04; 526 participants, 8 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no difference in remission rates between once-daily dosing and conventional dosing. Sixty per cent (533/881) of once-daily participants failed to enter clinical remission compared to 61% (538/880) of conventionally-dosed participants (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 1761 participants, 5 studies; high-certainty evidence). Eight per cent (15/179) of participants dosed once daily failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 6% (11/179) of conventionally-dosed participants (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.86; 358 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Fifty per cent (507/1022) of participants in the 5-ASA group failed to enter remission compared to 52% (491/946) of participants in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.02; 1968 participants, 11 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, once-daily and conventionally-dosed 5-ASA, and 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulation studies. Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache and worsening UC. SASP was not as well tolerated as 5-ASA. Twenty-nine per cent (118/411) of SASP participants experienced an AE compared to 15% (72/498) of 5-ASA participants (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.63; 909 participants, 12 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is superior to placebo, and moderate-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is not more effective than SASP. Considering relative costs, a clinical advantage to using oral 5-ASA in place of SASP appears unlikely. High-certainty evidence suggests 5-ASA dosed once daily appears to be as efficacious as conventionally-dosed 5-ASA. There may be little or no difference in efficacy or safety among the various 5-ASA formulations.

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; also known as mesalazine or mesalamine) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. In an earlier version of this review, we found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis (UC), but had a significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. In this version, we have rerun the search to bring the review up to date. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness, and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC and to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a literature search for studies on 11 June 2019 using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. In addition, we searched review articles and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. We considered studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of participants with quiescent UC compared with placebo, SASP, or other 5-ASA formulations. We also included studies that compared once-daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose-ranging studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes were adherence, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), withdrawals due to AEs, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus SASP, once-daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA (balsalazide, Pentasa, and olsalazine) versus comparator 5-ASA formulation (Asacol and Salofalk), and 5-ASA dose-ranging. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome. We analyzed data on an intention-to-treat basis, and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 44 studies (9967 participants). Most studies were at low risk of bias. Ten studies were at high risk of bias. Seven of these studies were single-blind and three were open-label. 5-ASA is more effective than placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. About 37% (335/907) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 12 months compared to 55% (355/648) of placebo participants (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.76; 8 studies, 1555 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication was not reported for this comparison. SAEs were reported in 1% (6/550) of participants in the 5-ASA group compared to 2% (5/276) of participants in the placebo group at six to 12 months (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.84; 3 studies, 826 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18; 5 studies, 1132 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). SASP is more effective than 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. About 48% (416/871) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 43% (336/784) of SASP participants (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27; 12 studies, 1655 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication and SAEs were not reported for this comparison. There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.40; 7 studies, 1138 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in clinical or endoscopic remission rates between once-daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. About 37% (717/1939) of once-daily participants relapsed over 12 months compared to 39% (770/1971) of conventional-dosing participants (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; 10 studies, 3910 participants; high-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in medication adherence rates. About 10% (106/1152) of participants in the once-daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 8% (84/1154) of participants in the conventional-dosing group (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.93; 9 studies, 2306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). About 3% (41/1587) of participants in the once-daily group experienced a SAE compared to 2% (35/1609) of participants in the conventional-dose group at six to 12 months (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.87; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in the incidence of AEs at six to 13 months' follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 8 studies, 3497 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the efficacy of different 5-ASA formulations. About 44% (158/358) of participants in the 5-ASA group relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 41% (142/349) of participants in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28; 6 studies, 707 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in UC. There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is inferior compared to SASP. There is probably little or no difference between 5-ASA and placebo, and 5-ASA and SASP in commonly reported AEs such as flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, and dyspepsia. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily has a similar benefit and harm profile as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC.

[DRESS syndrome induced by sulfasalazine. Report of one case]. / Síndrome de DRESS inducido por sulfasalazina. ¿Consideramos esta reacción adversa grave al indicar el fármaco? Caso clínico.

DRESS syndrome (Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms) is a severe, rare and potentially lethal idiosyncratic condition associated with the use of some drugs. Given its broad spectrum of presentation, clinical suspicion is essential for management, since it requires the immediate withdrawal of the culprit drug, support measures and the use of corticosteroids as the first line of treatment. We report a 24-year-old woman with a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis with joint involvement despite the use of infliximab, who presented symptoms, signs and laboratory compatible with DRESS syndrome on the third week after indicating sulfasalazine for her baseline disease.

Efficacy of iguratimod vs. salazosulfapyridine as the first-line csDMARD for rheumatoid arthritis.

Objectives: We retrospectively evaluated the retention rate and clinical responses following treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with iguratimod (IGU) vs. salazosulfapyridine (SASP) as the first-line conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD).Methods: We analyzed 197 RA patients who were treated with IGU or SASP as the initial treatment in the 3-year study period. The retention rate, clinical response, the dosage and percent user of prednisolone (PSL), and safety profiles were evaluated.Results: At month 36, the retention rates of the IGU and SASP groups were 52.4 vs. 32.1%. The rate of responders (good or moderate response) at month 36 was 85.8 vs. 65.2% in the IGU and SASP groups, respectively. At month 36 for the IGU and SASP groups, the percentages of PSL users were 16.7 vs. 46.7%, and the PSL dosage was 0.3 mg/d vs. 2.0 mg/d, respectively. The cumulative rates of any adverse event (AE) at month 36 were 19.8 vs. 29.2% in the IGU and SASP groups, respectively.Conclusion: IGU is a useful first-line csDMARD treatment for RA patients, showing a high retention rate and good efficacy without an increased risk of serious AEs, including serious infections. Our findings also indicate a PSL dose-sparing effect of IGU treatment.

Effects of sulfasalazine combined with moxibustion methods on patients with cold-dampness obstruction type ankylosing spondylitis.

Twenty-four patients with cold, dampness, obstructive ankylosing spondylitis were treated with sulfasalazine and sulfasalazine in combination with moxibustion for 3 weeks. The results showed that the combined treatment of traditional Chinese and western medicine was significantly higher than those of western medicine treatment, meanwhile, the scoreofsymptoms quantification, C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate of the integrated Chinese and western medicine treatment were significantly lower than those of western medicine treatment, and the level of physical signs was significantly higher than that of western medicine treatment, and there were no significant differences in adverse reactions. Moxibustion combined with sulfasalazine in the treatment of cold and damp obstructive ankylosing spondylitis can effectively improve the characteristics of the body, relieve pain symptoms and improve the prognosis.

Sulfasalazine-induced generalized vitiligo in a patient with dermatitis herpetiformis and celiac disease.

Vitiligo is an acquired idiopathic pigmentary skin disorder characterized by the development of white macules and patches due to the loss of functioning melanocytes. In this report, we describe a case of a patient with a longstanding history of dermatitis herpetiformis (DH) and celiac disease that developed rapidly progressing, biopsy-confirmed generalized vitiligo after 11 months of treatment with anti-inflammatory medication sulfasalazine, prescribed for the patient's DH. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report which has demonstrated the possible biochemical pathways, triggered by sulfasalazine, in the development of vitiligo.