Mesalazine is a safe drug, although adverse events may be seen in a minority of patients. This applies also to pregnant women and children. The role of mesalazine in combination therapy to improve efficacy and con- co...Mesalazine is a safe drug, although adverse events may be seen in a minority of patients. This applies also to pregnant women and children. The role of mesalazine in combination therapy to improve efficacy and con- comitant drug pharmacokinetics, or in chemoprevention against inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related co- lonic carcinoma has not yet been completely elucidated. Therapeutic success of mesalazine may be optimized by a combination of high dose and low frequency of dos- age to improve compliance. Therefore, due to its supe- rior safety profile and pharmacokinetic characteristics, mesalazine is preferable to sulphasalazine. This paper reviews the literature concerning mechanisms of action, indications and off-label use, pharmacokinetic properties and formulations, therapeutic efficacy, compliance, pae- diatric indications, chemoprevention, and safety issues and adverse event profile of mesalazine treatment versus sulphasalazine. It also highlights these controversies in order to clarify the potential benefits of mesalazines in IBD therapy and evidence for its use.展开更多
The development of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) therapy as a life long treatment for ulcerative colitis is reviewed from its origins in the 1940s to the present day. The drug was designed to treat rheumatoid arthriti...The development of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) therapy as a life long treatment for ulcerative colitis is reviewed from its origins in the 1940s to the present day. The drug was designed to treat rheumatoid arthritis,but was found helpful in the management of nine patients with ulcerative colitis. This discovery preceded the emergence of the clinical trial as a tool for assessing a new drug's efficacy; as a result it lacked scientific rigour and was selective in its presentation of results. Nevertheless it identified the future cornerstone of therapy in ulcerative colitis. In 1962,the first double blind controlled trial of sulphasalazine was conducted on 40 patients. Outcome measures were subjective and included symptoms and an assessment of the rectal mucosa. In 1973,the first two papers on the role of sulphasalazine in maintenance of remission were published. Both used placebo controls and had a stratified design. Outcomes were measured using "an intention to treat" approach. The British study of 64 patients used both subjective and objective criteria to assess outcomes. Patients on placebo had a relapse rate four times patients on active treatment and this founded the basis for a life long approach to therapy with 5-ASA compounds in ulcerative colitis. However,in 1985,a small "on demand" study of 32 patients suggested this approach might be as effective as continuous treatment. Some support for this view came from an Italian study which showed no benefit to continued treatment for those in remission for two years or more. The central problem these studies identify is that of adherence to treatment in the long-term. Few studies have considered patients' attitudes to continuous therapy and it is an area that needs further investigation.展开更多
基金Supported by research grants from Astrazeneca (Zoetermeer, The Netherlands), Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands), P and G Pharmaceuticals (Cincinnati, United States), ALTANA Pharma BV (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands), and Tramedico BV (Weesp, The Netherlands), Falk Company (Freiburg, Germany), and Ferring International (Copenhagen, Denmark)
文摘Mesalazine is a safe drug, although adverse events may be seen in a minority of patients. This applies also to pregnant women and children. The role of mesalazine in combination therapy to improve efficacy and con- comitant drug pharmacokinetics, or in chemoprevention against inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related co- lonic carcinoma has not yet been completely elucidated. Therapeutic success of mesalazine may be optimized by a combination of high dose and low frequency of dos- age to improve compliance. Therefore, due to its supe- rior safety profile and pharmacokinetic characteristics, mesalazine is preferable to sulphasalazine. This paper reviews the literature concerning mechanisms of action, indications and off-label use, pharmacokinetic properties and formulations, therapeutic efficacy, compliance, pae- diatric indications, chemoprevention, and safety issues and adverse event profile of mesalazine treatment versus sulphasalazine. It also highlights these controversies in order to clarify the potential benefits of mesalazines in IBD therapy and evidence for its use.
文摘The development of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) therapy as a life long treatment for ulcerative colitis is reviewed from its origins in the 1940s to the present day. The drug was designed to treat rheumatoid arthritis,but was found helpful in the management of nine patients with ulcerative colitis. This discovery preceded the emergence of the clinical trial as a tool for assessing a new drug's efficacy; as a result it lacked scientific rigour and was selective in its presentation of results. Nevertheless it identified the future cornerstone of therapy in ulcerative colitis. In 1962,the first double blind controlled trial of sulphasalazine was conducted on 40 patients. Outcome measures were subjective and included symptoms and an assessment of the rectal mucosa. In 1973,the first two papers on the role of sulphasalazine in maintenance of remission were published. Both used placebo controls and had a stratified design. Outcomes were measured using "an intention to treat" approach. The British study of 64 patients used both subjective and objective criteria to assess outcomes. Patients on placebo had a relapse rate four times patients on active treatment and this founded the basis for a life long approach to therapy with 5-ASA compounds in ulcerative colitis. However,in 1985,a small "on demand" study of 32 patients suggested this approach might be as effective as continuous treatment. Some support for this view came from an Italian study which showed no benefit to continued treatment for those in remission for two years or more. The central problem these studies identify is that of adherence to treatment in the long-term. Few studies have considered patients' attitudes to continuous therapy and it is an area that needs further investigation.
