Abstract
Background
Patients with refractory-ulcerative colitis (UC) require therapy escalation. Sulfasalazine (SASP) could deliver a high concentration of 5-aminosalicylic acid to the colon. The usefulness of SASP for refractory-UC patients, however, is unclear.
Aim
The aim was to evaluate the usefulness of SASP for refractory-UC patients.
Method
We retrospectively analysed 36 (11.4%) of 316 patients with refractory-UC who had been treated with SASP. Clinical and endoscopic activities were evaluated with Lichtiger index and Mayo score, respectively. We analysed the induction-remission rate, predictive factors for the efficacy of SASP, and adverse events.
Results
Of 36 refractory-UC patients, 14 (38.9%) were treated with concomitant mesalazine enemas, 10 (27.8%) with azathiopurine, 4 (11.1%) with tacrolimus and 6 (16.7%) with an antitumour necrosis factor-α agent. After initiating SASP treatment, 25 patients (69.4%) achieved clinical remission. In 9 (64.3%) of 14 patients with UC treated with mesalazine enemas, mesalazine enemas could be discontinued with SASP. In all patients treated with tacrolimus, tacrolimus could be discontinued with SASP. Clinical activity score upon the initiation of SASP was significantly lower (p=0.024) and the number of patients treated with thiopurine was significantly higher (p=0.016) in the clinical remission group than in the non-clinical remission group. These factors might be predictive for the efficacy of SASP, although multivariate analysis demonstrated no statistically significant effect. Adverse events occurred in 7 patients (19.4%), and reduction or discontinuation of SASP led to improvement.
Conclusions
SASP appears to be more effective for refractory-UC patients with low clinical-activity and/or thiopurine-use.
Trial registration number
UMIN000021615; Results.
Keywords: ULCERATIVE COLITIS, AZATHIOPRINE, 5-AMINOSALICYLIC ACID (5-ASA), 6-MERCAPTOPURINE
Summary box.
What is already known about this subject?
-
▸
Mesalazine is the mainstay for treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC).
-
▸
Sulfasalazine could deliver a high concentration of 5-aminosalicylic acid to the colon compared with that of controlled-release mesalazine agents.
-
▸
However, sulfasalazine could have more serious adverse events than for controlled-release mesalazine agents.
What are the new findings?
-
▸
Treatment with sulfasalazine could induce clinical remission even in refractory-UC patients.
-
▸
Sulfasalazine treatment could contribute to discontinuing combination therapy, such as mesalazine enema and concomitant tacrolimus in our study.
-
▸
Sulfasalazine would be much more suitable for UC patients with low clinical activity and/or thiopurine use.
How might it impact on clinical practice in the foreseeable future?
-
▸
In the era of biologics, our data reaware the usefulness of sulfasalazine for induction of remission in patients with low clinical activity and/or thiopurine-use resulting in discontinuing combination therapy and avoiding excessive therapy escalation.
Introduction
Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic-relapsing inflammatory colonic disorder.1 Although recent basic studies demonstrated several factors involved in the pathophysiology of UC, such as environmental, genetic, immunological and microbial factors, the pathophysiology of UC has not been elucidated.2 Despite the development of new agents for UC based on basic research, such as anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α agents, calcineurin inhibitors and α4β7 integrin inhibitors, a promising therapeutic strategy has not yet been established.3–6 Developing and evaluating the efficacy of new agents is important, but is associated with several problems, such as safety concerns and economic load for patients due to high medical costs.7–9 Therefore, re-evaluation and optimisation of conventional therapies for UC should be considered.
The mainstay of treatment for inducing and maintaining remission in patients with UC is 5-aminosalicylate (ASA)-based medications, particularly mesalazine.10 A number of studies have demonstrated the efficacy of controlled-release mesalazine for inducing and maintaining remission in patients with mildly to moderately active UC.11–14 Patients with UC who are refractory to mesalazine often require therapy escalation, such as granulocyte monocyte adsorption apheresis (GMAA) and corticosteroids.15 16 On the other hand, therapy escalation, particularly corticosteroid use, could be related with the induction of UC refractoriness, such as corticosteroid resistance and dependence.17 18 To avoid therapy escalation, optimising treatment with 5-ASA is therefore important. Sulfasalazine (SASP), which is a combination of 5-ASA azo-bound to the antibiotic sulfapyridine, is effective for treating UC.19–22 Systemic absorption of sulfapyridine, however, is associated with a high rate of adverse events, such as headache, skin rash, hepatic disorder, folate deficiency and male infertility.23 24 Although more serious adverse events are reported for SASP than for controlled-release mesalazine agents, SASP delivers a high concentration of 5-ASA to the colon, which could contribute to better clinical outcome in patients with UC.25–27 Therefore, SASP might be effective for patients with UC refractory to controlled-release mesalazine, allowing them to avoid therapy escalation. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of SASP for refractory-UC patients and the clinical factors associated with the efficacy of SASP to identify those patients most likely to benefit from SASP.
Methods
Patients
From April 2010 to August 2015, 316 patients with UC treated at Kitano hospital were retrospectively analysed. The diagnosis of UC was confirmed by endoscopic and pathologic findings. We defined eligible patients for our study as those diagnosed with active UC based on endoscopic examination despite oral administration of more than 4 g of sustained-release mesalazine or 3.6 g of delayed-release mesalazine for two or more consecutive weeks, that had clinical symptoms relevant to UC with a clinical activity score greater than 5 points. UC patients treated concomitantly with a 1 g mesalazine enema were also included in the study. Moreover, UC patients treated with mesalazine who obtained a clinical response but had sustained-active UC after concomitant treatment with thiopurine, GMAA, tacrolimus, or an anti TNF-a agent, were enrolled in the study. All UC patients enrolled in the study were considered to have so-called refractory UC. Exclusion criteria included fulminant UC requiring urgent surgery, Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel disease unclassified, and infectious or ischemic colitis. Of the 316 patients with UC, 36 (11.4%) with refractory-UC who were treated with SASP were enrolled in the study. This retrospective, observational, single-centre study was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at Kitano Hospital (P16-04-003, UMIN000021615).
Treatment
For patients with refractory-UC, treatment with SASP was initiated. Based on patient's characteristics and the physician's decision, controlled-release mesalazine was changed to SASP at a dose of 4 g/day in 25 patients with UC. In the remaining 11 patients with UC, SASP at a dose of 1–2 g/day was added to the controlled-release mesalazine therapy.
Evaluation of disease activity of UC
Clinical and endoscopic activities were evaluated according to the Lichtiger index and Mayo score, respectively.28 29 Clinical remission was defined as a Lichtiger index of <4 under corticosteroid-free and GMAA-free conditions. Relapse of UC was defined as any recurrence of UC-related symptoms that required additional treatments.30
Assessment and statistics
The primary outcome was the induction-remission rate of patients with UC refractory to mesalazine after initiating treatment with SASP. The secondary outcome included discontinuing combination therapy, identifying clinical factors associated with SASP efficacy and reporting adverse events related to SASP. Categorical and continuous data were compared using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test, Wilcoxon t-test or Mann-Whitney U test. To perform multivariate analysis to identify the clinical factors associated with SASP efficacy, the clinical factors suggested by the univariate analysis to be associated with SASP efficacy were analyzed by Cox regression. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Patient's characteristics
The characteristics of the 36 patients with UC refractory to mesalazine are shown in table 1. Of the 36 patients, 27 (75.0%) were men and 9 (25.0%) were women. Median age was 41 years (range 18–85 years), and median disease duration was 2.0 years (range 0–20.3 years). The UC type was extensive colitis type in 21 (58.3%), left-sided type in 13 (36.1%) and proctitis type in 2 (5.6%). UC patients enrolled in this study were divided into four groups according to the clinical course, as previous reported;31 initial attack type (n=8, 22.2%), chronic active type (n=13, 36.1%), chronic intermittent type (n=11, 30.6%) and acute severe type (n=4, 11.1%). Upon initiation of SASP treatment, the median clinical activity score and endoscopic Mayo score of the 36 patients with UC were 6 (range 5–16) and 2 (range 2–3), respectively. The median serum level of C-reactive protein (CRP) was 0.58 mg/dl at initiation of SASP treatment. Upon initiation of SASP treatment, 9 (25.0%) and 27 (75.0%) of the 36 UC patients were being treated with 4 g of sustained-release mesalazine and 3.6 g of delayed-release mesalazine, respectively, and 14 (38.9%) were being treated concomitantly with 1 g of mesalazine enema foam. Additional drugs included corticosteroids in 2 (5.6%), thiopurine in 10 (27.8%), GMAA in 4 (11.1%), tacrolimus in 4 (11.1%) and an anti-TNF-α agent in 6 (16.7%). The proportion of patients with a history of corticosteroid therapy was 47.2%. Furthermore, 33.3%, 27.8%, 22.2%, and 27.8% of the UC patients enrolled in this study had a history of treatment with thiopurine, GMAA, tacrolimus, or anti TNF-a agent, respectively. In UC patients who had been treated with mesalazine, corticosteroid, thiopurine, GMAA, tacrolimus, or anti TNF-a agent, the median treatment duration was 20.8 months, 11.7 months, 11.2 months, 2.1 months, 2.1 months, or 16.5 months, respectively.
Table 1.
Patient's characteristics
| n=36 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Gender (M/F) | 27/9 | |
| Age (year) (Median) | 41 (18-85) | |
| Disease Duration (year) (Median) | 2.0 (0-20.3) | |
| Extent of Disease (%) | Extensive colitis | 21 (58.3) |
| Left-sided type | 13 (36.1) | |
| Proctitis | 2 (5.6) | |
| Clinical Course (%) | Initial attack type | 8 (22.2) |
| Chronic active type | 13 (36.1) | |
| Chronic intermittent type | 11 (30.6) | |
| Acute severe type | 4 (11.1) | |
| Clinical Activity score (Median) | 6 (5-16) | |
| Endoscopic Mayo score (Median) | 2 (2-3) | |
| CRP (mg/dl) (Median) | 0.58 (0.02-13.44) | |
| Medication at initiating SASP treatment (%) | Sustained release mesalazine | 9 (25.0) |
| Delayed release mesalazine | 27 (75.0) | |
| Enema foam | 14 (38.9) | |
| Corticosteroid | 2 (5.6) | |
| Thiopurine | 10 (27.8) | |
| GMAA | 4 (11.1) | |
| Tacrolimus | 4 (11.1) | |
| Anti TNF-α agent | 6 (16.7) | |
| History of Medication (%) | Corticosteroid | 17(47.2) |
| Thiopurine | 12 (33.3) | |
| GMAA | 10 (27.8) | |
| Tacrolimus | 8 (22.2) | |
| Anti TNF-α agent | 10 (27.8) | |
| Duration of Medication (months) (Median)* | Mesalazine | 20.8 (0.5-247.2) |
| Corticosteroid | 11.7 (3.1-48.8) | |
| Thiopurine | 11.2 (1.8-205.7) | |
| GMAA | 2.1 (0.9-17.6) | |
| Tacrolimus | 2.1 (0.3-17.2) | |
| Anti TNF-α agent | 16.5 (0.3-61.0) |
*The median duration of medication in UC patients who had a history of treatment with mesalazine, corticosteroid, thiopurine, GMAA, tacrolimus and anti TNF-α agent, respectively.
CRP, C-reactive protein; SASP, Salazosulfapyridine; GMAA, Granulocyte monocyte adsorption apheresis; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.
Differences in patient characteristics after initiating SASP treatment
The patient's characteristics between pre-SASP and post-SASP treatment are shown in table 2. After initiating treatment with SASP, the median clinical activity score decreased from 6 (range 5–16) to 2 (range 0–16; p<0.001). The median CRP level also decreased from 0.58 mg/dl (range: 0.02–13.44) to 0.16 mg/dl (range: 0.02–7.64; p=0.021). Clinical remission was achieved in 25 (69.4%) of the 36 patients with UC, although adverse events occurred in 2 of these 25 patients. The median time to clinical remission was 1.1 months (range 0.4–7.3) after initiating SASP treatment. The remaining 11 patients with UC required therapy escalation, including GMAA, corticosteroid or an anti-TNF-α agent, because active UC was sustained after SASP treatment. In 9 (64.3%) of the 14 patients with UC treated with concomitant mesalazine enema prior to induction of SASP, the mesalazine enemas could be discontinued because the patients achieved clinical remission. In all four patients treated with tacrolimus prior to induction of SASP, the tacrolimus could be tapered off completely after beginning SASP treatment. In 20 of the 26 UC patients who could achieve clinical remission with SASP treatment, moreover, endoscopic examination was performed before and after initiating treatment with SASP. In the 20 UC patients evaluated with endoscopic examination, 15 (75%) patients could achieve mucosal healing, such as Mayo-0, 1, after administrating SASP (Supplemental Figure 1).
Table 2.
Differences in the patient characteristics after initiating SASP treatment
| Pre-SASP treatment |
Post-SASP treatment |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical Activity score (median) | 6 (5-16) | Clinical Activity score (median) | 2 (0-16) | ||
| Clicnial Remission (%) | 25 (69.4) | ||||
| CRP (median) | 0.58 (0.02-13.44) | CRP (median) | 0.16 (0.02-7.64) | ||
| Medications (%) | Sustained release mesalazine | 9 (25.0) | Medications (%) | Sustained release mesalazine | 3 (9.4) |
| Delayed release mesalazine | 27 (75.0) | Delayed release mesalazine | 8 (22.2) | ||
| Enema foam | 14 (38.9) | Enema foam | 5 (13.9) | ||
| SASP | 0 | SASP | 29 (80.6) | ||
| Corticosteroid | 2 (5.6) | Corticosteroid | 1 (2.8) | ||
| Thiopurine | 10 (27.8) | Thiopurine | 10 (27.8) | ||
| GMAA | 4 (11.1) | GMAA | 2 (5.6) | ||
| Tacrolimus | 4 (11.1) | Tacrolimus | 0 (0) | ||
| Anti TNF-α agent | 6 (16.7) | Anti TNF-α agent | 4 (11.1) | ||
CRP, C-reactive protein; SASP, Sulfasalazine; GMAA, Granulocyte monocyte adsorption apheresis; TNF: tumor necrosis factor.
Clinical factors associated with the efficacy of SASP in refractory-UC patients
To investigate the clinical factors associated with the efficacy of SASP in refractory-UC patients, we evaluated patient characteristics, such as sex, age, disease duration, extent of disease, clinical course of UC, clinical activity score, endoscopic Mayo score, CRP level, SASP treatment, medication prior to initiating SASP, and history of medication, between the clinical remission and non-clinical remission groups. The clinical activity score and the CRP level at the initiation of SASP treatment were significantly lower (p=0.024 and p=0.012, respectively) and the number of patients treated with thiopurine was significantly higher (p=0.016) in the clinical remission group than in the non-clinical remission group (table 3). Although all UC patients treated with thiopurine had a history of corticosteroid treatment (data not shown), the ratio of UC patients with a history of corticosteroid treatment was not significantly different between the clinical remission and non-clinical remission groups (p=0.481). Regarding treatment with SASP, the ratio of patients who added low-dose SASP treatment to their mesalazine regimen tended to be higher in the clinical remission group than in the non-remission group, but the difference was not significant (p=0.116). To evaluate the impact of clinical factors such as clinical activity of UC and thiopurine use on the efficacy of SASP, the difference in the clinical remission rate based on the clinical activity score was also evaluated between thiopurine use and non-use. Of 26 patients with UC with a low Lichtiger index score (≦7), 21 (80.8%) achieved clinical remission (table 4). In the thiopurine non-use group, the clinical remission rate was significantly higher in those with a low disease activity score than in those with a high disease activity score (p=0.038).
Table 3.
Clinical factors associated with the efficacy of SASP in refractory-UC patients
| CR | Non-CR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n=25 | n=11 | p-value | ||
| Gender (M/F) | 19/6 | 8/3 | 1 | |
| Age (year) (Median) | 42 (18-76) | 31 (20-85) | 0.95 | |
| Disease Duration (year) (Median) | 2.0 (0.1-20.3) | 0.3 (0-18.8) | 0.174 | |
| Extent of Disease (%) | Extensive colitis | 13 (52.0) | 8 (72.7) | 0.583 |
| Left-sided | 11 (44.0) | 2 (18.2) | ||
| Proctitis | 1 (4.0) | 1 (9.1) | ||
| Clinical Course (%) | Initial attack type | 3 (12.0) | 5 (45.5) | 0.395 |
| Chronic active type | 10 (40.0) | 3 (27.3) | ||
| Chronic intermittent type | 9 (36.0) | 2 (18.2) | ||
| Acute severe type | 3 (12.0) | 1 (9.1) | ||
| Clinical Activity score (Median) | 6 (5-11) | 9 (5-16) | 0.024 | |
| Endoscopic Mayo score (Median) | 2 (2-3) | 2 (2-3) | 0.628 | |
| CRP (mg/dl) (Median) | 0.42 (0.02-7.56) | 0.89 (0.25-13.44) | 0.012 | |
| SASP (%) | Change to SASP | 15 (60.0) | 10 (90.9) | 0.116 |
| Addition of SASP | 10 (40.0) | 1 (9.1) | ||
| Medication prior to initiating SASP (%) | Corticosteroid | 1 (4.0) | 1 (9.1) | 0.524 |
| Thiopurine | 10 (40.0) | 0 | 0.016 | |
| GMAA | 2 (8.0) | 2 (18.2) | 0.57 | |
| Tacrolimus | 3 (12.0) | 1 (9.1) | 1 | |
| Anti TNF-α agent | 5 (20.0) | 1 (9.1) | 0.643 | |
| History of medication (%) | Corticosteroid | 13 (52.0) | 4 (36.4) | 0.481 |
| Thiopurine | 10 (40.0) | 2 (18.2) | 0.268 | |
| GMAA | 8 (32.0) | 2 (18.2) | 0.688 | |
| Tacrolimus | 6 (24.0%) | 2 (18.2) | 1 | |
| Anti TNF-α agent | 9 (36.0) | 1 (9.1) | 0.127 |
CR, clinical remission; CRP, C-reactive protein; SASP, sulphasalazine; GMAA, Granulocyte monocyte adsorption apheresis'; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.
Table 4.
The difference of clinical remission rate based on clinical activity score between thiopurine used and non-used group
| Thiopurine | CAI score | CR (n=25) | non-CR (n=11) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Use | ≦7 (%) | 8 | 0 | 1 |
| >8 (%) | 2 | 0 | ||
| Non-use | ≦7 (%) | 13 | 5 | 0.038 |
| >8 (%) | 2 | 6 |
CAI, clinical activity; CR, clinical remission.
Multivariate analysis for identifying predictive factors for efficacy of SASP
To evaluate whether the clinical activity score and thiopurine use could be predictive factors for the efficacy of SASP in refractory-UC patients, we performed a multivariate analysis using the Cox regression. Cox regression analysis suggested that a low clinical activity score (≦7) and thiopurine use were predictive factors for the efficacy of SASP in refractory-UC patients, although there was no statistical significance (table 5; clinical activity score: HR 1.708; 95% CI 0.577 to 5.061, p=0.334; thiopurine use: HR 1.151, 95% CI 0.506 to 2.618, p=0.737). Therefore, these data suggest that SASP treatment is more useful for UC patients with a low clinical activity score and/or thiopurine use.
Table 5.
Multivariate analysis for the efficacy of SASP
| Hazard Ratio | p-value | 95% CI |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical Activity ≦7 | 1.708 | 0.334 | 0.577 | 5.061 |
| Thiopurine use | 1.151 | 0.737 | 0.506 | 2.618 |
CI, confidence interval.
Adverse events
In total, 7 (19.4%) of the 36 patients with refractory-UC experienced adverse events, including allergy (n=3), hepatic dysfunction (n=2) and exacerbation of UC (n=2; table 6). The adverse events improved after reducing or discontinuing SASP. Moreover, the adverse event rate tended to be higher in patients without thiopurine treatment than in those with thiopurine treatment, although the difference was not statistically significant (thiopurine use: 10.0%, thiopurine non-use: 23.1%, p=0.645).
Table 6.
Adverse events
| Total n=36 | Thiopurine+(n=10) | Thiopurine −(n=26) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allergy | 3 (8.3) | 1 (10.0) | 2 (7.7) | 1 |
| Hepatic dysfunction | 2 (5.6) | 0 (0) | 2 (7.7) | 1 |
| Exacerbation of UC | 2 (5.6) | 0 (0) | 2 (7.7) | 1 |
| Total | 7 (19.4) | 1 (10.0) | 6 (23.1) | 0.645 |
UC, ulcerative colitis.
Discussion
Our findings demonstrated that 69.4% of refractory-UC patients achieved clinical remission after initiating treatment with SASP. Moreover, low UC disease activity as indicated by a low clinical activity score and low CRP level, and thiopurine use might be predictive factors for the efficacy of SASP. Therefore, our data suggested that SASP is more effective and more suitable for UC patients with a low disease activity score and/or thiopurine use, and may allow these UC patients to avoid therapy escalation.
When considering treatment with SASP for patients with UC, gastroenterologists should pay attention to adverse events, including headache, nausea, skin rash, fever, hepatic dysfunction, aplastic anaemia, leucopenia, folate deficiency, pancreatitis, systemic lupus syndrome, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, pulmonary dysfunction and male infertility.23 24 Adverse events occurred in 21.9% of patients with UC treated with SASP. Therefore, SASP, an agent with positive and negative attributes, should be used for appropriate patients with intensive follow-up, and identifying those patients with UC most likely to benefit from SASP treatment is important. Our data, including a multivariate analysis, suggested that a low UC disease activity score and thiopurine use are predictive factors for the efficacy of SASP treatment in patients with UC. SASP has synergistic effects with immunosuppressive therapies including thiopurine agents.32 33 Moreover, the adverse event rate of patients with UC with concomitant thiopurine therapy was lower than in those without it. Therefore, SASP treatment might be more suitable for patients with UC treated with immunosuppressive therapies, although intensive follow-up is required.
Several papers have reported that SASP at a dose of 2–4 g/day is effective for 40–80% of patients with mildly to moderately active UC.21 22 34 35 SASP acts largely as a prodrug delivery system.19 Almost 10% of SASP appears to be absorbed in the small bowel, and the remaining 90% reaches the colon.19 This prodrug permits the release of 5-ASA in the colonic lumen with destruction of an azo-bound by azoreductases from luminal microflora.36 The anti-inflammatory effect of 5-ASA is based on the mucosal concentration of 5-ASA in patients with UC, because the mucosal concentration of 5-ASA is inversely proportional to the disease activity of UC.27 Moreover, SASP delivers a high concentration of 5-ASA to the colonic lumen compared with controlled-release mesalazine.25 26 According to the present study, SASP was effective in 69.4% of patients with UC despite previous treatment with 3.6–4 g of oral mesalazine. Thus, SASP would be useful for patients with UC who are refractory to mesalazine because it delivers a high concentration of 5-ASA to the colonic lumen. On the other hand, it is unclear whether the therapeutic effect of SASP is based on the mucosal concentration of 5-ASA alone. In our study, the number of patients with UC who added SASP to their existing medication was higher in the clinical remission group than in the non-clinical remission group. This finding suggests that increasing the mucosal concentration of 5-ASA by adding SASP contributes to a more positive clinical outcome of patients with UC. SASP was also effective in patients with UC treated concomitantly with mesalazine enemas, which could deliver a high concentration of 5-ASA to the colonic mucosa. Tacrolimus could be tapered off completely after the induction of SASP treatment in patients with UC treated with tacrolimus prior to the induction of SASP, thereby avoiding therapy escalation with compounds such as anti-TNF-α agents. SASP, but not mesalazine, was recently reported to have novel therapeutic effects related to oxidative stress.37 Furthermore, SASP exerts its effects mainly by the active antimicrobial component sulphapyridine,38 which would alter the microbiota in UC patients, resulting in a better clinical outcome. These data suggests that SASP has additional anti-inflammatory effects that mesalazine does not have.
Our study has several limitations in terms of the methodology used; for example, this was a single-centre study, a very heterogeneous population of patients with different history of medications and different clinical course of disease was included, and it was a retrospective study. The number of UC-patients was too small to draw scientific conclusions. Furthermore, there was no control group in this retrospective study. The indication criteria of SASP for UC patients were also unclear. Moreover, we could not evaluate the concentration of 5-ASA in the colonic mucosa before or after initiating SASP treatment. Therefore, our data should be carefully interpreted, and further prospective studies with a larger number of patients are required for clarifying the efficacy of SASP for UC patients.
In conclusion, our data suggested the possibility of combination treatment with SASP and thiopurine as the alternative option for refractory-UC patients, particularly those with a low clinical activity score.
Footnotes
Contributors: Enclosed is a manuscript by Yoshino et al entitled ‘The usefulness of sulphasalazine for patients with ulcerative colitis refractory to mesalazine’. All authors have approved submission of this manuscript, and the material has not been previously reported. TY extracted and analysed the clinical data, and drafted the manuscript. MS also participated in extracting and analysing the clinical data. SY revised this manuscript critically for important intellectual content, and gave final approval of the version to be published.
Funding: This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grants-in-aid for Scientific Research (25860532 to TY).
Competing interests: None declared.
Ethics approval: The Institutional Review Board at Kitano Hospital.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement: No additional data are available.
References
- 1.Danese S, Fiocchi C. Ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1713–25. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1102942 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Sartor RB. Mechanisms of disease: pathogenesis of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;3:390–407. doi:10.1038/ncpgasthep0528 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Rutgeerts P, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. . Infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2462–76. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa050516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Peyrin-Biroulet L, Laclotte C, Roblin X, et al. . Adalimumab induction therapy for ulcerative colitis with intolerance or lost response to infliximab: an open-label study. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13:2328–32. doi:10.3748/wjg.v13.i16.2328 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ogata H, Matsui T, Nakamura M, et al. . A randomised dose finding study of oral tacrolimus (FK506) therapy in refractory ulcerative colitis. Gut 2006;55:1255–62. doi:10.1136/gut.2005.081794 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Feagan BG, Greenberg GR, Wild G, et al. . Treatment of ulcerative colitis with a humanized antibody to the alpha4beta7 integrin. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2499–507. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa042982 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mackey AC, Green L, Liang LC, et al. . Hepatosplenic T cell lymphoma associated with infliximab use in young patients treated for inflammatory bowel disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2007;44:265–7. doi:10.1097/MPG.0b013e31802f6424 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Herrinton LJ, Liu L, Weng X, et al. . Role of thiopurine and anti-TNF therapy in lymphoma in inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:2146–53. doi:10.1038/ajg.2011.283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.van der Valk ME, Mangen MJ, Leenders M, et al. , COIN study group and the Dutch Initiative on Crohn and Colitis. Healthcare costs of inflammatory bowel disease have shifted from hospitalisation and surgery towards anti-TNFα therapy: results from the COIN study. Gut 2014;63:72–9. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303376 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Klotz U. The role of aminosalicylates at the beginning of the new millennium in the treatment of chronic inflammatory bowel disease. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000;56:353–62. doi:10.1007/s002280000163 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hanauer S, Schwartz J, Robinson M, et al. . Mesalamine capsules for treatment of active ulcerative colitis: results of a controlled trial. Pentasa Study Group . Am J Gastroenterol 1993;88:1188–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Miner P, Hanauer S, Robinson M, et al. . Safety and efficacy of controlled-release mesalamine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Pentasa UC Maintenance Study Group. Dig Dis Sci 1995;40:296–304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ, Dallaire C, et al. . Delayed-release oral mesalamine 4.8 g/day (800 mg tablets) compared to 2.4 g/day (400 mg tablets) for the treatment of mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis: The ASCEND I trial. Can J Gastroenterol 2007;21:827–34. doi:10.1155/2007/862917 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ, Kornbluth A, et al. . Delayed-release oral mesalamine at 4.8 g/day (800 mg tablet) for the treatment of moderately active ulcerative colitis: the ASCEND II trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:2478–85. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.00248.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Yoshino T, Nakase H, Minami N, et al. . Efficacy and safety of granulocyte and monocyte adsorption apheresis for ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis 2014;46:219–26. doi:10.1016/j.dld.2013.10.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Truelove SC, Witts LJ. Cortisone in ulcerative colitis; final report on a therapeutic trial. BMJ 1955;2:1041–8. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.4947.1041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Talar-Williams C, Sneller MC. Complications of corticosteroid therapy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1994;251:131–6. doi:10.1007/BF00181824 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Kusunoki M, Moeslein G, Shoji Y, et al. . Steroid complications in patients with ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:1003–9. doi:10.1007/BF02253508 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Das KM, Eastwood MA, Macmanus JP, et al. . Salazopyrin metabolism in ulcerative colitis. Gut 1972;13:840. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Svartz N. Treatment of ulcerative colitis with salazopyrin. Int Surg 1968;50:421–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Baron JH, Connell AM, Lennard-Jones JE, et al. . Sulphasalazine and salicylazosulphadimidine in ulcerative colitis. Lancet 1962;1:1094–6. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(62)92080-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Dick AP, Grayson MJ, Carpenter RG, et al. . Controlled trial of sulphasalazine in the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Gut 1964;5:437–42. doi:10.1136/gut.5.5.437 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Das KM, Eastwood MA, McManus JP, et al. . Adverse reactions during salicylazosulfapyridine therapy and the relation with drug metabolism and acetylator phenotype. N Engl J Med 1973;289:491–5. doi:10.1056/NEJM197309062891001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Taffet SL, Das KM. Sulfasalazine. Adverse effects and desensitization. Dig Dis Sci 1983;28:833–42. doi:10.1007/BF01296907 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Christensen LA, Fallingborg J, Jacobsen BA, et al. . Comparative bioavailability of 5-aminosalicylic acid from a controlled release preparation and an azo-bond preparation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1994;8:289–94. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.1994.tb00290.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Naganuma M, Iwao Y, Ogata H, et al. . Measurement of colonic mucosal concentrations of 5-aminosalicylic acid is useful for estimating its therapeutic efficacy in distal ulcerative colitis: comparison of orally administered mesalamine and sulfasalazine. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2001;7:221–5. doi:10.1097/00054725-200108000-00007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Frieri G, Giacomelli R, Pimpo M, et al. . Mucosal 5-aminosalicylic acid concentration inversely correlates with severity of colonic inflammation in patients with ulcerative colitis. Gut 2000;47:410–14. doi:10.1136/gut.47.3.410 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lichtiger S, Present DH, Kornbluth A, et al. . Cyclosporine in severe ulcerative colitis refractory to steroid therapy. N Engl J Med 1994;330:1841–5. doi:10.1056/NEJM199406303302601 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Schroeder KW, Tremaine WJ, Ilstrup DM. Coated oral 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. A randomized study. N Engl J Med 1987;317:1625–9. doi:10.1056/NEJM198712243172603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Höie O, Wolters F, Riis L, et al. , European Collaborative Study Group of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (EC-IBD). Ulcerative colitis: patient characteristics may predict 10-yr disease recurrence in a European-wide population-based cohort. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:1692–701. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01265.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Rothig T, Ochsenkuhn MA, Roik A, et al. . Long-term salinity tolerance is accompanied by major restructuring of the coral bacterial microbiome. Mol Ecol 2016;25:1308–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Gilissen LP, Bierau J, Derijks LJ, et al. . The pharmacokinetic effect of discontinuation of mesalazine on mercaptopurine metabolite levels in inflammatory bowel disease patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005;22:605–11. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02630.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Lowry PW, Franklin CL, Weaver AL, et al. . Leucopenia resulting from a drug interaction between azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine and mesalamine, sulphasalazine, or balsalazide. Gut 2001;49: 656–64. doi:10.1136/gut.49.5.656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Sutherland L, Roth D, Beck P, et al. . Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for inducing remission in ulcerative colitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;2:CD000543 doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000543 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Gisbert JP, Gomollón F, Maté J, et al. . Role of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) in treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review. Dig Dis Sci 2002;47:471–88. doi:10.1023/A:1017987229718 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Peppercorn MA, Goldman P. The role of intestinal bacteria in the metabolism of salicylazosulfapyridine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1972;181:555–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Wada T, Ishimoto T, Seishima R, et al. . Functional role of CD44v-xCT system in the development of spasmolytic polypeptide-expressing metaplasia. Cancer Sci 2013;104:1323–9. doi:10.1111/cas.12236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Pullar T, Hunter JA, Capell HA. Which component of sulphasalazine is active in rheumatoid arthritis? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985;290:1535–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]