A New Method to Evaluate Lower Esophageal Distension Capacity in Eosinophilic Esophagitis by Using Functional Lumen Imaging Probe (EndoFLIP™).

Endoluminal functional lumen impedance planimetry (EndoFLIPTM) has become the gold standard to evaluate esophageal distensibility, although the study itself and its analysis present challenges. We propose here a new method to assess lower esophageal distension capacity that overcomes several limitations of prior approaches, including incomplete and corrupted EndoFLIPTM recordings. Esophageal distension capacity was evaluated with a 16-channel EndoFLIPTM in 10 controls and 14 patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Controls were evaluated once. EoE patients were evaluated at baseline and after at least six weeks of treatment with orodispersible budesonide tablets, 1 mg bd. Balloon volumes were increased by 5 mL stepwise, either reaching a maximum volume of 60 mL or a maximum balloon pressure of 60 mmHg. Recordings were analyzed with a homemade R script. The mean esophageal diameter at 60 mL, D (60 mL), was calculated or extrapolated depending on whether the 60 mL volume was reached. By fitting a Michaelis-Menten curve across all measured diameters throughout all constant volume steps, the mean D (60 mL) was estimated. For control subjects, the mean ± SD value of D (60 mL) was 17.08 ± 1.69 mm, and for EoE patients at baseline, D (60 mL) was 14.51 ± 2.68 mm. After six weeks of treatment of EoE patients, D (60 mL) significantly increased to 16.22 ± 1.86 mm (paired Wilcoxon signed test: p = 0.0052), although the values for control subjects were not reached. The estimated mean esophageal diameter at 60 mL is a good proxy for esophageal distension capacity, which correlates with clinical outcomes in EoE. The method presented in this study overcomes difficulties encountered during the standard measurement protocol, allowing the analysis of recordings from incomplete and corrupted registries.

Modified-Release Phosphatidylcholine (LT-02) for Ulcerative Colitis: Two Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of LT-02, a novel modified-release phosphatidylcholine (PC) formulation, for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis (UC) and inadequate response to mesalamine. METHODS: LT-02 was evaluated in a multicenter double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study comprising a 12-week induction trial (PCG-2), followed by a 48-week maintenance trial (PCG-4). In PCG-2, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to treatment with 0.8 g LT-02 4 times daily (QID), 1.6 g LT-02 twice daily (BID), or placebo, respectively. All patients continued to take a standard dose of oral mesalamine (≥2.4 g/day). The primary end point in PCG-2 was deep remission. Patients achieving remission at week 12 were randomly assigned 2:1:1 to 1.6 g LT-02 BID, placebo, or 500 mg mesalamine (3 times daily), respectively, in PCG-4; the primary end point was remission at 48 weeks. RESULTS: PCG-2 was terminated early for futility after a prespecified interim analysis; 466 patients (of 762 planned) were randomized. There was no statistically significant difference in deep remission at week 12 (placebo, 13.5%; LT-02 BID, 14.2%; LT-02 QID, 9.7%). In PCG-4, 150 patients (of approximately 400 planned) were randomized. There was no statistically significant difference in remission rates at week 48 (LT-02 BID, 49.3%; mesalamine, 50.0%; placebo, 43.2%). LT-02 was safe. CONCLUSIONS: Despite prior evidence of beneficial effects of PC in phase 2 trials, our induction study with LT-02 in patients with mild to moderate UC was terminated prematurely for futility. Signals of efficacy in maintenance therapy require confirmation in an adequately powered maintenance trial. LT-02 was safe and well-tolerated. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT02280629, NCT02142725.

Eosinophil Distribution in Eosinophilic Esophagitis and its Impact on Disease Activity and Response to Treatment.

Although mostly accentuated in the distal esophagus, distribution of esophageal eosinophilia in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) seems to be nonuniform.1 Disease extent has been associated with disease severity and disease progression in inflammatory bowel disease.2,3 Whether the same holds true for EoE remains largely unknown. One recent EoE study looked at the distribution of eosinophilia, but without analyzing its potential association with treatment outcomes.4 Here, we characterize the different inflammatory patterns of EoE and investigate their impact on disease presentation and disease outcome, with a particular focus on therapeutic response.

Mesalazine granules promote disease clearance in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, treatment targets for ulcerative colitis (UC) have become more stringent, incorporating multiple parameters. Recently, the concept of 'disease clearance'-defined as combined clinical, endoscopic, and histological remission-has been proposed as an ultimate endpoint in treating UC. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of disease clearance in patients with mild-to-moderate UC treated with different doses of mesalazine granules as induction therapy. METHODS: In a post hoc analysis, data were pooled from four randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trials in patients with mild-to-moderate UC receiving 8-week induction therapy with mesalazine granules at daily doses of 1.5, 3.0 or 4.5 g. Rates of clinical, endoscopic, and histological remission were determined using stringent criteria and used to calculate rates of the composite endpoints of clinical plus endoscopic remission, endoscopic plus histological remission, and disease clearance (clinical plus endoscopic plus histological remission). RESULTS: A total of 860 patients were included in the analysis. Among the total population, 20.0% achieved disease clearance with mesalazine granules: 13.1% in patients receiving 1.5 g mesalazine granules/day, 21.8% in those receiving 3.0 g/day and 18.9% in those receiving 4.5 g/day. Among patients with moderate UC, 16.8% achieved disease clearance: 7.1% with 1.5 g/day, 18.8% with 3.0 g/day and 16.2% with 4.5 g/day. CONCLUSION: Disease clearance, proposed to be predictive of improved long-term outcomes, can be achieved in a clinically meaningful proportion of mild-to-moderate UC patients treated with mesalazine granules. A daily dose of 3.0 g appears optimal to reach this target.

Novel Budesonide Suppository and Standard Budesonide Rectal Foam Induce High Rates of Clinical Remission and Mucosal Healing in Active Ulcerative Proctitis: a Randomised, Controlled, Non-inferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Proctitis is the least extensive type of ulcerative colitis, for which rectal therapy is rarely studied and is underused. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and patient's preference of a novel formulation of budesonide suppository 4 mg, compared with a commercially available budesonide rectal foam 2 mg, for the treatment of mild to moderate ulcerative proctitis. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either budesonide 4 mg suppository or budesonide 2 mg foam once daily for 8 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were changes from baseline to Week 8 in clinical symptoms, for which clinical remission was defined as having a modified Ulcerative Colitis-Disease Activity Index [UC-DAI] subscore for stool frequency of 0 or 1 and a subscore for rectal bleeding of 0, and mucosal healing, defined as having a modified UC-DAI subscore for mucosal appearance of 0 or 1. Using a more stringent criterion, we additionally analysed deepened mucosal healing, which was defined as a mucosal appearance subscore of 0. Patient's preference, physician's global assessment, and quality of life were also assessed and analysed. RESULTS: Overall, 286 and 291 patients were included in the 4 mg suppository and 2 mg foam groups, respectively. Budesonide 4 mg suppository met the prespecified criterion for non-inferiority to the 2 mg foam in both co-primary endpoints of clinical remission and mucosal healing. Secondary endpoints consistently supported the non-inferiority of the suppository. Trends in favour of the suppository were observed in the subgroup of mesalazine non-responders. More patients reported a preference for the suppository over rectal foam. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ulcerative proctitis, budesonide 4 mg suppository was non-inferior to budesonide 2 mg foam in efficacy, and both were safe and well tolerated.

Budesonide orodispersible tablets for induction of remission in patients with active eosinophilic oesophagitis: A 6-week open-label trial of the EOS-2 Programme.

BACKGROUND: A novel budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) has been proven effective in adult patients with active eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) in a 6-week placebo-controlled trial (EOS-1). AIMS: To report the efficacy of an open-label induction treatment with BOT in a large prospective cohort of EoE patients within the EOS-2 study. METHODS: Patients with clinico-histological active EoE were treated with BOT 1 mg BID for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinico-histological remission (≤2 points on numerical rating scales [0-10] each for dysphagia and odynophagia, and peak eosinophil count <16 eos/mm2 hpf (corresponds to <5 eos/hpf)). Further study endpoints included clinical and histological remission rates, change in the EEsAI-PRO score, change in peak eosinophil counts, and deep endoscopic remission using a modified Endoscopic Reference Score. RESULTS: Among 181 patients enrolled, 126 (69.6%) achieved clinico-histological remission (histological remission 90.1%, clinical remission 75.1%). The mean peak eosinophil counts decreased by 283 eos/mm2 hpf (i.e., by 89.0%). Mean EEsAI-PRO score decreased from baseline by 29 points and deep endoscopic remission was achieved in 97 (53.6%) patients. The majority of patients judged tolerability as good or very good (85.6%) and compliance was high (96.5%). Local candidiasis was suspected in 8.3% of patients; all were of mild severity, resolved with treatment and none led to premature withdrawal from the study. CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective trial, a 6-week open-label treatment with BOT 1 mg BID was highly effective and safe in achieving clinico-histological remission of active EoE and confirmed the results of the placebo-controlled EOS-1 trial.

Distribution of histopathological features along the colon in microscopic colitis.

PURPOSE: The diagnosis microscopic colitis (MC) consisting of collagenous colitis (CC) and lymphocytic colitis (LC) relies on histological assessment of mucosal biopsies from the colon. The optimal biopsy strategy for reliable diagnosis of MC is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the distribution of histopathological features of MC throughout the colon. METHODS: Mucosal biopsies from multiple colonic segments of patients with MC who participated in one of the three prospective European multicenter trials were analyzed. Histological slides were stained with hematoxylin-and-eosin, a connective tissue stain, and CD3 in selected cases. RESULTS: In total, 255 patients were included, 199 and 56 patients with CC and LC, respectively. Both groups exhibited a gradient with more pronounced inflammation in the lamina propria in the proximal colon compared with the distal colon. Similarly, the thickness of the subepithelial collagenous band in CC showed a gradient with higher values in the proximal colon. The mean number of intraepithelial lymphocytes was > 20 in all colonic segments in patients within both subgroups. Biopsies from 86 to 94% of individual segments were diagnostic, rectum excluded. Biopsies from non-diagnostic segments often showed features of another subgroup of MC. CONCLUSION: Conclusively, although the severity of the histological changes in MC differed in the colonic mucosa, the minimum criteria required for the diagnosis were present in the random biopsies from the majority of segments. Thus, our findings show MC to be a pancolitis, rectum excluded, questioning previously proclaimed patchiness throughout the colon.

Budesonide Orodispersible Tablets Maintain Remission in a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disorder. Swallowed topical-acting corticosteroids are effective in bringing active EoE into remission. However, it is not clear whether these drugs are effective for long-term maintenance of remission. METHODS: We performed a double-blind trial to compare the efficacy and safety of 2 dosages of a budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) vs placebo in maintaining remission of EoE. Maintenance of remission was defined as absence of clinical and histologic relapse and no premature withdrawal for any reason. Two hundred and four adults with EoE in clinical and histologic remission, from 29 European study sites, were randomly assigned to groups given BOT 0.5 mg twice daily (n = 68), BOT 1.0 mg twice daily (n = 68), or placebo twice daily (n = 68) for up to 48 weeks. RESULTS: At end of treatment, 73.5% of patients receiving BOT 0.5 mg twice daily and 75% receiving BOT 1.0 mg twice daily were in persistent remission compared with 4.4% of patients in the placebo group (P < .001 for both comparisons of BOT with placebo). Median time to relapse in the placebo group was 87 days. The frequency of adverse events was similar in the BOT and placebo groups. Morning serum levels of cortisol were in the normal range at baseline and did not significantly change during treatment. Four patients receiving BOT developed asymptomatic, low serum levels of cortisol. Clinically manifested candidiasis was suspected in 16.2% of patients in the BOT 0.5 mg group and in 11.8% of patients in the BOT 1.0 mg group; all infections resolved with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In a phase 3 trial, up to 48 weeks of treatment with BOT (0.5 mg or 1.0 mg twice daily) was superior to placebo in maintaining remission of EoE. Both dosages were equally effective and well tolerated. EudraCT number; 2014-001485-99; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02434029.

Efficacy of Budesonide Orodispersible Tablets as Induction Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis in a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Swallowed topical-acting corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Asthma medications not optimized for esophageal delivery are sometimes effective, although given off-label. We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of a budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT), which allows the drug to be delivered to the esophagus in adults with active EoE. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, parallel study of 88 adults with active EoE in Europe. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that received BOT (1 mg twice daily; n = 59) or placebo (n = 29) for 6 weeks. The primary end point was complete remission, based on clinical and histologic factors, including dysphagia and odynophagia severity ≤2 on a scale of 0-10 on each of the 7 days before the end of the double-blind phase and a peak eosinophil count <5 eosinophils/high power field. Patients who did not achieve complete remission at the end of the 6-week double-blind phase were offered 6 weeks of open-label treatment with BOT (1 mg twice daily). RESULTS: At 6 weeks, 58% of patients given BOT were in complete remission compared with no patients given placebo (P < .0001). The secondary end point of histologic remission was achieved by 93% of patients given BOT vs no patients given placebo (P < .0001). After 12 weeks, 85% of patients had achieved remission. Six-week and 12-week BOT administration were safe and well tolerated; 5% of patients who received BOT developed symptomatic, mild candida, which was easily treated with an oral antifungal agent. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of adults with active EoE, we found that budesonide oral tablets were significantly more effective than placebo in inducing clinical and histologic remission. Eudra-CT number 2014-001485-99; ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02434029.

A Randomised, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial of Trichuris suis ova in Active Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To investigate the efficacy and safety of three different dosages of embryonated, viable eggs of Trichuris suis [TSO] versus placebo for induction of remission in mildly-to-moderately active ileocolonic, uncomplicated Crohn's disease [CD]. METHODS: Adults with active CD [n = 252] randomly received six fortnightly doses of 250, 2500, or 7500 TSO/15 ml suspension/day [TSO 250, TSO 2500, TSO 7500], or 15 ml placebo solution/day, in a double-blind fashion, with 4 weeks' follow-up. Primary endpoint was the rate of clinical remission [Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI] < 150] at end of treatment, ie at Week 12 or withdrawal. Secondary endpoints included the course of clinical remission, rate of clinical response, change in CDAI, change in markers of inflammation, mucosal healing, and Physician's Global Assessment. RESULTS: Clinical remission at Week 12 occurred in 38.5%, 35.2%, and 47.2% of TSO 250, TSO 2500, and TSO 7500 patients, respectively, and in 42.9% of placebo recipients. TSO induced a dose-dependent immunological response. There was no response regarding laboratory markers of inflammation. Other secondary efficacy variables also showed no advantage of TSO over placebo for treatment of active CD. Administration of TSO did not result in any serious adverse drug reaction. Review of non-serious suspected adverse drug reactions following TSO did not reveal any safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of 250-7500 TSO fortnightly over 12 weeks was safe and showed a dose-dependent immunological response, but no TSO dose showed a clinically relevant effect over placebo for induction of clinical remission or response in mildly-to-moderately active, ileocolonic CD.

Smoking Status Influences Clinical Outcome in Collagenous Colitis.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between clinical and histological parameters in collagenous colitis (CC) is poorly understood. Smoking is a risk factor for CC, whereas its impact on clinical activity and outcome is not well known. METHODS: In a post hoc analysis of pooled data from two randomized controlled trials we assessed the association between demographic data (gender, age, smoking habits, family history of inflammatory bowel disease), clinical variables (duration of symptoms, mean number of stools/watery stools per day, abdominal pain, clinical remission) and histological data (thickness of the collagen band, inflammation of the lamina propria, total numbers of intraepithelial lymphocytes, degeneration). Moreover, we analysed the predictive value of baseline parameters for clinical outcome in a logistic regression model. RESULTS: Pooled data were available from 202 patients with active CC, of whom 36% were current smokers, 29% former smokers and 35% non-smokers. Smoking status was associated with decreased ability to achieve clinical remission (current smokers vs non-smokers: odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10-0.98, p = 0.045; former smokers vs non-smokers: OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05-0.73, p = 0.016). Current smokers had an increased mean number of watery stools at baseline compared with non-smokers (p = 0.051) and increased mean number of watery stools per se was associated with decreased likelihood of obtaining clinical remission (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47-0.86, p = 0.003). Patient characteristics and histology at baseline had no association with clinical parameters and no predictive value for clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: Smoking worsens clinical symptoms in CC and is associated with an increased number of watery stools and decreased likelihood of achieving clinical remission. There is no significant association between histology and clinical data.

Low-dose budesonide for maintenance of clinical remission in collagenous colitis: a randomised, placebo-controlled, 12-month trial.

OBJECTIVE: This 1-year study aimed to assess low-dose budesonide therapy for maintenance of clinical remission in patients with collagenous colitis. DESIGN: A prospective, randomised, placebo-controlled study beginning with an 8-week open-label induction phase in which patients with histologically confirmed active collagenous colitis received budesonide (Budenofalk, 9 mg/day initially, tapered to 4.5 mg/day), after which 92 patients in clinical remission were randomised to budesonide (mean dose 4.5 mg/day; Budenofalk 3 mg capsules, two or one capsule on alternate days) or placebo in a 12-month double-blind phase with 6 months treatment-free follow-up. Primary endpoint was clinical remission throughout the double-blind phase. RESULTS: Clinical remission during open-label treatment was achieved by 84.5% (93/110 patients). The median time to remission was 10.5 days (95% CI (9.0 to 14.0 days)). The maintenance of clinical remission at 1 year was achieved by 61.4% (27/44 patients) in the budesonide group versus 16.7% (8/48 patients) receiving placebo (treatment difference 44.5% in favour of budesonide; 95% CI (26.9% to 62.7%), p<0.001). Health-related quality of life was maintained during the 12-month double-blind phase in budesonide-treated patients. During treatment-free follow-up, 82.1% (23/28 patients) formerly receiving budesonide relapsed after study drug discontinuation. Low-dose budesonide over 1 year resulted in few suspected adverse drug reactions (7/44 patients), all non-serious. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide at a mean dose of 4.5 mg/day maintained clinical remission for at least 1 year in the majority of patients with collagenous colitis and preserved health-related quality of life without safety concerns. Treatment extension with low-dose budesonide beyond 1 year may be beneficial given the high relapse rate after budesonide discontinuation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01278082) and http://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu (EudraCT: 2007-001315-31).

A randomised, double-blind trial comparing budesonide formulations and dosages for short-term treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of two different budesonide formulations (effervescent tablet for orodispersible use (BET) and viscous suspension (BVS)) with different daily dosages for short-term treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE). DESIGN: Adults with active EoE (n=76) randomly received 14 days' treatment with either BET 2×1 mg/day (BET1, n=19) or BET 2×2 mg/day (BET2, n=19), or BVS 2×5 mL (0.4 mg/mL)/day (BVS, n=19) or placebo (n=19) in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion, with a 2-week follow-up. Primary end point was histological remission (mean of <16 eosinophils/mm(2 )hpf). Secondary end points included endoscopy score, dysphagia score, drug safety and patient's preference for drug formulation. RESULTS: Histological remission occurred in 100%, 94.7% and 94.7% of budesonide (BET1, BET2, BVS, respectively) and in 0% of placebo recipients (p<0.0001). The improvement in total endoscopic intensity score was significantly higher in the three budesonide groups compared with placebo. Dysphagia improved in all groups at the end of treatment; however, improvement of dysphagia persisted only in those treated with BET1 (p=0.0196 vs placebo). There were no serious adverse events. Local fungal infection (stained fungi) occurred in two patients of each budesonide group (10.5%). The effervescent tablet was preferred by 80% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: BET or BVS was highly effective and safe for short-term treatment of EoE. The 1 mg (twice daily) dosage was equally effective as the 2 mg twice daily dosage. The majority of patients preferred the effervescent tablet formulation. CLINICALTRIALSGOV NUMBER: NCT02280616; EudraCT number, 2009-016692-29.

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral budesonide for prophylaxis of acute intestinal graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (PROGAST).

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) is a potentially life-threatening complication after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT). Since therapeutic options are still limited, a prophylactic approach seems to be warranted. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind-phase III trial, we evaluated the efficacy of budesonide in the prophylaxis of acute intestinal GvHD after SCT. The trial was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00180089. RESULTS: The crude incidence of histological or clinical stage 3-4 acute intestinal GvHD until day 100 observed in 91 (n =48 budesonide, n =43 placebo) evaluable patients was 12.5% (95% CI 3-22%) under treatment with budesonide and 14% (95% CI 4-25%) under placebo (p = 0.888). Histologic and clinical stage 3-4 intestinal GvHD after 12 months occurred in 17% (95% CI 6-28%) of patients in the budesonide group and 19% (CI 7-32%) in the placebo group (p = 0.853). Although budesonide was tolerated well, we observed a trend towards a higher rate of infectious complications in the study group (47.9% versus 30.2%, p = 0.085). The cumulative incidences at 12 months of intestinal GvHD stage >2 with death as a competing event (budesonide 20.8% vs. placebo 32.6%, p = 0.250) and the cumulative incidence of relapse (budesonide 20.8% vs. placebo 16.3%, p = 0.547) and non-relapse mortality (budesonide 28% (95% CI 15-41%) vs. placebo 30% (95% CI 15-44%), showed no significant difference within the two groups (p = 0.911). The trial closed after 94 patients were enrolled because of slow accrual. Within the limits of the final sample size, we were unable to show any benefit for the addition of budesonide to standard GvHD prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide did not decrease the occurrence of intestinal GvHD in this trial. These results imply most likely that prophylactic administration of budenoside with pH-modified release in the terminal ileum is not effective.

Once versus three times daily dosing of oral budesonide for active Crohn's disease: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral budesonide 9 mg/day represents first-line treatment of mild-to-moderately active ileocolonic Crohn's disease. However, there is no precise recommendation for budesonide dosing due to lack of comparative data. A once-daily (OD) 9 mg dose may improve adherence and thereby efficacy. METHODS: An eight-week, double-blind, double-dummy randomised trial compared budesonide 9 mg OD versus 3mg three-times daily (TID) in patients with mild-to-moderately active ileocolonic Crohn's disease. Primary endpoint was clinical remission defined as CDAI <150 at week 8 (last observation carried forward). RESULTS: The final intent-to-treat population comprised 471 patients (238 [9 mg OD], 233 [3 mg TID]). The confirmatory population for the primary endpoint analysis was the interim per protocol population (n=377; 188 [9 mg OD], 189 [3mg TID]), in which the primary endpoint was statistically non-inferior with budesonide 9 mg OD versus 3 mg TID. Clinical remission was achieved in 71.3% versus 75.1%, a difference of -3.9% (95% CI [-14.6%; 6.4%]; p=0.020 for non-inferiority). The mean (SD) time to remission was 21.9 (13.8) days versus 21.4 (14.6) days with budesonide 9 mg OD versus 3 mg TID, respectively. In a subpopulation of 122 patients with baseline SES-CD ulcer score ≥1, complete mucosal healing occurred in 32.8% (21/64) on 9 mg OD and 41.4% (24/58) on 3mg TID; deep remission (mucosal healing and clinical remission) was observed in 26.6% (17/64) and 32.8% (19/58) of patients, respectively. Treatment-emergent suspected adverse drug reactions were reported in 4.6% of 9 mg OD and 4.7% of 3 mg TID patients. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide at the recommended dose of 9 mg/day can be administered OD without impaired efficacy and safety compared to 3mg TID dosing in mild-to-moderately active Crohn's disease.

Are endoscopic endpoints reliable in therapeutic trials of ulcerative colitis?

BACKGROUND: The consistency of endoscopic and histologic findings in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) has not been elucidated. Choice of assessment may affect study outcomes. METHODS: Post hoc analyses were performed using data from 2 randomized, controlled multicenter trials: (1) SAG-26, mesalazine granules for induction of remission in UC (n = 380), and (2) SAG-27, mesalazine granules for maintenance of UC remission (n = 647). Assessments included Clinical Activity Index, Endoscopic Index, modified Disease Activity Index, and Histology Index. RESULTS: In SAG-26, 52 of 380 patients (13.7%) with clinically (Clinical Activity Index >4) and endoscopically (Endoscopic Index ≥4) active UC showed no histological signs of active inflammation (Histology Index ≤1) at baseline. Among endoscopically and histologically active patients, 246 of 327 (75.2%) reached clinical remission versus 48 of 52 patients (92.3%) with active endoscopy but no inflammation on histology (difference, 17.1%; P = 0.006). The difference in the proportion of patients achieving clinical remission according to endoscopy and histology in clinically inactive (Clinical Activity Index ≤4) patients was 30.8% in SAG-26 (at the study end) and 28.1% in SAG-27 (at baseline). In SAG-27, clinical relapse occurred in 21.2% of patients with endoscopic and histologic remission at baseline and 27.1% of patients with some histological inflammation at baseline (P = 0.111). Using the modified Disease Activity Index ≤1 (mucosal healing) instead of the Endoscopic Index score, the difference was similar (21.2% versus 28.0%, P = 0.073). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic and histologic assessments differ in both active and inactive UC. Overdiagnosis of inflammation using endoscopy versus histology can significantly affect outcomes, at least in studies using induction of clinical remission as an endpoint. The assessment criteria for trials in UC should be reconsidered.

Mucosal improvement in patients with moderate to severe postoperative endoscopic recurrence of Crohn's disease and azathioprine metabolite levels.

BACKGROUND: The value of azathioprine metabolites (6-thioguanine nucleotides [6-TGN]) in monitoring clinical treatment response is still controversially discussed. Data regarding thiopurine metabolite levels and endoscopic improvement are lacking. METHODS: Data were analyzed post hoc from a 1-year, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial comparing azathioprine 2.0 to 2.5 mg/kg per day versus mesalamine 4 g/d in a subset of 23 postoperative patients with Crohn's disease (CD) treated with azathioprine and having moderate-to-severe endoscopic recurrence according to a modified 6-grade score. Red blood cell (RBC) concentrations of 6-TGN, 6-methyl-mercaptopurine ribonucleotides (6-MMPR), and 6-methyl-thioguanine nucleotides (6-MTGN) were indicated as follows: area under the concentration-time curve, average concentration (C av), and concentration at the final study visit. RESULTS: Overall, 74% of patients showed an improvement in the modified endoscopic score (P = 0.022). Median endoscopic score reduced from 4 at the baseline to 2 at the final visit. Patients with a high C av for 6-TGN (≥ 193 pmol/8 × 10(8) RBC; P = 0.017) or 6-MTGN (≥ 79.2 pmol/8 × 10(8) RBC; P = 0.035) significantly improved in endoscopic score, and the improvement in endoscopic score correlated with C av for 6-TGN (r = -0.51; P = 0.013). For concentration at the final visit, higher values for 6-TGN (≥ 142 pmol/8 × 10(8) RBC; P = 0.017) were associated with a better postoperative score. Sensitivity analysis revealed a significant correlation between 6-TGN (area under the concentration-time curve) and postoperative endoscopic improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Our post hoc analysis from a double-blind, randomized trial suggests that higher RBC 6-TGN levels are associated with endoscopic improvement in patients with severe postoperative endoscopic recurrence of CD. Thus, our study provides first evidence on the utility of monitoring of thiopurine metabolites to achieve mucosal response in CD.

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.

Azathioprine versus mesalazine for prevention of postoperative clinical recurrence in patients with Crohn's disease with endoscopic recurrence: efficacy and safety results of a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare azathioprine versus mesalazine tablets for the prevention of clinical recurrence in patients with postoperative Crohn's disease (CD) with moderate or severe endoscopic recurrence. METHODS: This was a 1 year, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised study which took place in 21 gastroenterology centres in Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany and Israel. The study participants were 78 adults with CD who had undergone resection with ileocolonic anastomosis in the preceding 6-24 months without subsequent clinical recurrence and with a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) score <200, but with moderate or severe endoscopic recurrence. The study drugs were azathioprine 2.0-2.5 mg/kg/day or mesalazine 4 g/day over 1 year. The primary end point was therapeutic failure during 1 year, defined as a CDAI score > or = 200 and an increase of > or = 60 points from baseline, or study drug discontinuation due to lack of efficacy or intolerable adverse drug reaction. RESULTS: Treatment failure occurred in 22.0% (9/41) of azathioprine-treated patients and 10.8% (4/37) of mesalazine-treated patients, a difference of 11.1% (95% CI -5.0% to 27.3%, p=0.19). Clinical recurrence was significantly less frequent with azathioprine versus mesalazine (0/41 (0%) vs 4/37 (10.8%), p=0.031), whereas study drug discontinuation due to adverse drug reactions only occurred in azathioprine-treated patients (9/41 (22.0%) vs 0%, p=0.002). The proportion of patients showing > or = 1 point reduction in Rutgeerts score between baseline and month 12 was 63.3% (19/30) and 34.4% (11/32) in the azathioprine and mesalazine groups, respectively (p=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: In this population of patients with postoperative CD at high risk of clinical recurrence, superiority for azathioprine versus mesalazine could not be demonstrated for therapeutic failure.