Current opinion on the management of iron deficiency anaemia in gastrointestinal diseases.

Iron deficiency is the most common cause of anaemia in the world. Despite frequently weak and masked clinical presentation of iron deficiency anaemia (IDA), this disease is very serious with complications leading to early mortality. In the developed countries IDA is predominantly diagnosed as the complication of another disease or as the result of major bleeding events. Diagnosis of IDA should be based on laboratory findings i.e. haemoglobin, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration and ferritin. Latter is the most sensitive marker for iron deficiency. Anaemia of chronic disease should be taken into an account as a potential differential diagnosis or coexisting state. For women in fertility age with IDA, gynaecological disorders should be ruled out first. Males and postmenopausal women with IDA should undergo upper, lower and in certain cases capsule endoscopy and/or enteroscopy to find a plausible cause of IDA. The ultimate goal of therapy is to find out and treat the primary cause of IDA. Iron body stores should be restored using either oral or parenteral iron preparations. The use of parenteral iron preparations in patients with gastrointestinal pathologies is often clinically substantiated for the treatment of IDA. Red blood cell transfusion should be administered in emergency cases only.

Efficacy and safety of prolonged release budesonide granules in mesalazine-refractory ulcerative colitis: A multi-centre Phase IIa study (TOPICAL-1).

BACKGROUND: In patients with mesalazine-refractory ulcerative colitis, systemic corticosteroids are the treatment of choice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prolonged release budesonide granules for the induction of remission in patients with mesalazine-refractory ulcerative colitis. METHODS: Patients with mesalazine-refractory ulcerative colitis discontinued mesalazine at baseline and received 9 mg prolonged release budesonide granules daily for 8 weeks in this open-label, phase IIa study, followed by a 2-week follow-up phase wherein patients continued treatment on alternate days (EudraCT number 2014-005635-14; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02550418). The primary endpoint was clinical remission (Clinical Activity Index ≤4; stool frequency <18 per week; absence of rectal bleeding) at Week 8. Secondary endpoints included clinical, endoscopic and histological measures of disease at Week 8. A post hoc analysis assessed histo-endoscopic mucosal healing. Treatment-emergent adverse events and morning cortisol levels were assessed throughout the treatment and follow-up phases. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients were included in the intention-to-treat population; 50 were included in the follow-up analysis set. Clinical remission was achieved in 29 patients (47.5%; 95% confidence interval: 34.6-60.7%) by Week 8. Mean stool and bloody stool frequency decreased significantly from 32.5 to 22.9 per week (p<0.0001) and from 17.6 to 8.1 per week (p<0.0001), respectively. Rates of mucosal healing, endoscopic remission and histological remission were 58.0%, 54.0% and 36.0%, respectively. Histo-endoscopic mucosal healing was achieved by 34.0% of patients. Twenty-four patients (39.3%) experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, of which gastrointestinal disorders (16.4%) were the most common. Mean morning cortisol levels were not significantly suppressed by Week 8. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with prolonged release budesonide granules for 8 weeks was associated with clinical, endoscopic and histological remission and demonstrated a favourable safety profile in patients with mesalazine-refractory ulcerative colitis. These results warrant further investigation into the potential of prolonged release budesonide granules as an alternative treatment for this patient population.

Efficacy and safety of a novel high-dose mesalazine tablet in mild to moderate active ulcerative colitis: a double-blind, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to mesalazine treatment is essential for the successful treatment of ulcerative colitis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and preference of a novel high-dose 1000 mg mesalazine tablet versus conventional treatment for ulcerative colitis remission. METHODS: This pivotal phase III trial compared one 1000 mg mesalazine tablet (M1000 group) versus two registered 500 mg mesalazine tablets (M2x500 group), both taken three times daily, in patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. The primary efficacy variable was clinical remission at week 8. RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were considered for intent-to-treat analysis. Clinical remission was achieved in 45.0% of the patients in the M1000 group versus 41.9% in the M2x500 group (P < 0.001 for non-inferiority). Mucosal healing was achieved by 68.9% of the patients in the M1000 group and 68.4% in the M2x500 group. The majority of patients preferred the intake of one high-dose tablet (47.7%) over two low-dose tablets (10.5%). Oral treatment with high-dose 1000 mg mesalazine tablets was well tolerated without new safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: The novel high-dose 1000 mg mesalazine tablet is effective, non-inferior to the registered 500 mg mesalazine tablet, and safe for ulcerative colitis treatment. It was preferred by a majority of patients and may improve ulcerative colitis treatment adherence.

3g mesalazine granules are superior to 9mg budesonide for achieving remission in active ulcerative colitis: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Budesonide may be an effective therapy for mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority for oral 9mg budesonide once daily (OD) versus 3g mesalazine granules OD. METHODS: This was an eight-week randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study in which patients with mild-to-moderately active UC, defined as Clinical Activity Index (CAI) ≥6 and Endoscopic Index (EI) ≥4, received budesonide (Budenofalk® 3mg capsules×3) or mesalazine (Salofalk® 1000mg granules×3). The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 8 (CAI ≤4 with stool frequency and rectal bleeding subscores of "0"). RESULTS: 343 patients were randomised (177 budesonide, 166 mesalazine). Fewer patients achieved the primary endpoint with budesonide versus mesalazine (70/177 [39.5%] versus 91/166 [54.8%]) with a difference in proportions of -15.3% (95% CI [-25.7%, -4.8%]; p=0.520 for non-inferiority). The median time to first resolution of symptoms was 14.0 days (budesonide) and 11.0 days (mesalazine) (hazard ratio 1.19; 95% CI [0.94, 1.51]). Mucosal healing was observed in 54/177 (30.5%) budesonide patients versus 65/166 (39.2%) mesalazine patients, a difference of -8.6% (95% CI [-18.7%, 1.4%]; p=0.093). The incidences of adverse events (budesonide 26.6%, mesalazine 25.3%) and serious adverse events (budesonide 1.7%, mesalazine 1.2%) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily 3g mesalazine administered as granules is superior to 9mg budesonide OD administered as capsules for achieving remission in mild-to-moderately active UC. However, it is noteworthy that remission of UC was attained in about 40% of budesonide-treated patients with a rapid onset of resolution.