The risk of cardiac failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine whether patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) arthroplasties of the hip have an increased risk of cardiac failure compared with those with alternative types of arthroplasties (non-MoM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A linkage study between the National Joint Registry, Hospital Episodes Statistics and records of the Office for National Statistics on deaths was undertaken. Patients who underwent elective total hip arthroplasty between January 2003 and December 2014 with no past history of cardiac failure were included and stratified as having either a MoM (n = 53 529) or a non-MoM (n = 482 247) arthroplasty. The primary outcome measure was the time to an admission to hospital for cardiac failure or death. Analysis was carried out using data from all patients and from those matched by propensity score. RESULTS: The risk of cardiac failure was lower in the MoM cohort compared with the non-MoM cohort (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.901; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.853 to 0.953). The risk of cardiac failure was similar following matching (aHR 0.909; 95% CI 0.838 to 0.987) and the findings were consistent in subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: The risk of cardiac failure following total hip arthroplasty was not increased in those in whom MoM implants were used, compared with those in whom other types of prostheses were used, in the first seven years after surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:20-7.

Prevalence, glucose control and relative survival of people with Type 2 diabetes in the UK from 1991 to 2013.

AIMS: To characterize the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes between 1991 and 2013 in the UK and to determine whether corresponding glucose control and survival had changed in the diabetic population during this period. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, people diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes between 1991 and 2013 were identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and the annual point prevalence calculated. Mean HbA1c by year was estimated. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate the risk of all-cause mortality by year for incident cases of Type 2 diabetes treated with glucose-lowering therapy. RESULTS: Crude prevalence of diagnosed Type 2 diabetes increased from 1.32% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.30% to 1.34%] in 1991 to 4.54% (4.52% to 4.56%) in 2013. Mean HbA1c for people with diagnosed Type 2 diabetes was 71 mmol/mol (8.6%) in 1991, 59 mmol/mol (7.5%) in 2003 and 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) in 2013. For diagnosed Type 2 diabetes treated with glucose-lowering therapy, when compared with 1991, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.33 (0.27-0.41) in 2013. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of diagnosed Type 2 diabetes trebled in the UK between 1991 and 2013. Improved survival in people with diagnosed Type 2 diabetes is likely to account, at least in part, for the increase in prevalence observed.

High daily insulin exposure in patients with type 2 diabetes is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events.

AIMS: Intensive glucose control, often involving insulin treatment, failed to improve cardiovascular outcomes in several clinical trials. Observational studies reported an association between insulin use and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. It has therefore been suggested that insulin adversely affects CVD risk. To investigate the feasibility of this hypothesis, we studied the association between insulin dose and CVD risk in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted of new users of oral antidiabetics who were prescribed insulin, using the Dutch Pharmo database. Cases were hospitalized for a cardiovascular event (CVE) and matched 1:2 to patients who were not hospitalized for a CVE, by sex, age, duration of diabetes and type of oral antidiabetic. Patients were divided into tertiles according to mean daily insulin dose. Conditional logistic regression analyses were used to explore the association between insulin exposure and CVE risk. RESULTS: We included 836 patients (517 (62%) male, mean age 66 years). After adjusting for available potential confounders, including HbA1c and triglycerides, insulin exposure was positively related to CVE risk (odds ratios for high (≥53.0 U/day) and intermediate (24.3-52.9 U/day) vs. low exposure (≤24.2 U/day): 3.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.70 to 5.28] and 2.03 [95% CI 1.17 to 3.52]. CONCLUSION: Our findings are in line with the suggestion that high-dose insulin therapy adversely affects CVD risk, but need to be interpreted with caution due to the observational nature of the study. The role of particularly high-dose insulin in the progression of CVD warrants further investigation.

Glucose-lowering with exogenous insulin monotherapy in type 2 diabetes: dose association with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events and cancer.

AIMS: To evaluate the association between insulin exposure and all-cause mortality, incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and incident cancer in people with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin monotherapy. METHODS: For this retrospective study, people with type 2 diabetes who progressed to insulin monotherapy from the year 2000 were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The risks of progression to serious adverse outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards models. In the main analysis, insulin exposure was introduced into the model as prescribed international units per kilogram per day, as a cumulative, continuous, annually updated, time-dependent covariable. RESULTS: A total of 6484 subjects with type 2 diabetes who progressed to treatment with insulin monotherapy from the year 2000 onwards were followed for a mean of 3.3 years. The event numbers were as follows: deaths, n = 1110; incident MACE, n = 342; incident cancers, n = 382. Unadjusted event rates were 61.3 deaths per 1000 person-years, 26.4 incident MACE per 1000 person-years and 24.6 incident cancers per 1000 person-years. The adjusted hazard ratios in relation to 1-unit increases in insulin dose were 1.54 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-1.78] for all-cause mortality, 1.37 (95% CI 1.05-1.81) for MACE and 1.35 (95% CI 1.04-1.75) for cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There was an association between increasing exogenous insulin dose and increased risk of all-cause mortality, MACE and cancer in people with type 2 diabetes. The limitations of observational studies mean that this should be further investigated using an interventional study design.

Can people with type 2 diabetes live longer than those without? A comparison of mortality in people initiated with metformin or sulphonylurea monotherapy and matched, non-diabetic controls.

AIMS: Clinical and observational studies have shown an increased risk of cardiovascular events and death associated with sulphonylureas versus metformin. However, it has never been determined whether this was due to the beneficial effects of metformin or detrimental effects of sulphonylureas. The objective of this study was therefore to compare all-cause mortality in diabetic patients treated first-line with either sulphonylurea or metformin monotherapy with that in matched individuals without diabetes. METHODS: We used retrospective observational data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) from 2000. Subjects with type 2 diabetes who progressed to first-line treatment with metformin or sulphonylurea monotherapy were selected and matched to people without diabetes. Progression to all-cause mortality was compared using parametric survival models that included a range of relevant co-variables. RESULTS: We identified 78,241 subjects treated with metformin, 12,222 treated with sulphonylurea, and 90,463 matched subjects without diabetes. This resulted in a total, censored follow-up period of 503,384 years. There were 7498 deaths in total, representing unadjusted mortality rates of 14.4 and 15.2, and 50.9 and 28.7 deaths per 1000 person-years for metformin monotherapy and their matched controls, and sulphonylurea monotherapy and their matched controls, respectively. With reference to observed survival in diabetic patients initiated with metformin monotherapy [survival time ratio (STR) = 1.0], adjusted median survival time was 15% lower (STR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90) in matched individuals without diabetes and 38% lower (0.62, 0.58-0.66) in diabetic patients treated with sulphonylurea monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with type 2 diabetes initiated with metformin monotherapy had longer survival than did matched, non-diabetic controls. Those treated with sulphonylurea had markedly reduced survival compared with both matched controls and those receiving metformin monotherapy. This supports the position of metformin as first-line therapy and implies that metformin may confer benefit in non-diabetes. Sulphonylurea remains a concern.

Association between first-line monotherapy with sulphonylurea versus metformin and risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events: a retrospective, observational study.

AIMS: To evaluate the risk of all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) for patients exposed to first-line monotherapy with sulphonylurea or metformin. METHODS: Data were from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Patients with type 2 diabetes were selected if initiated with metformin or sulphonylurea monotherapy as their first-line glucose-lowering regimen 2000-2012. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality; the secondary endpoint was MACE (myocardial infarction or stroke). Times to endpoints were compared using Cox proportional hazards models. Additional analyses were performed on subsets matched directly on key characteristics and by propensity score. RESULTS: In the main analysis, 76 811 patients were prescribed metformin monotherapy (mean follow-up 2.9 years) and 15 687 sulphonylurea monotherapy (mean follow-up 3.1 years). A total of 2604 patients were included in each arm of the directly matched cohorts and 8836 in the propensity-matched. With respect to all-cause mortality, using all three analytical approaches the hazard ratio (HR) was significantly increased for sulphonylurea compared with metformin: adjusted HR = 1.580 (95% CI 1.483-1.684) for the main analysis, 1.902 (1.733-2.088) for those matched on propensity score, and 1.272 (1.021-1.584) for the directly matched cohort analysis. For MACE, the respective HRs were 1.196 (1.090-1.313), 1.202 (1.001-1.442) and 0.814 (0.578-1.148), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause mortality was significantly increased in patients prescribed sulphonylurea compared with metformin monotherapy. Whilst residual confounding and confounding by indication may remain, this study indicates that first-line treatment with sulphonylurea monotherapy should be reconsidered.

Combination therapy with metformin plus sulphonylureas versus metformin plus DPP-4 inhibitors: association with major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality.

AIMS: To compare the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality for combination therapies with metformin and either sulphonylurea (SU) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i). METHODS: Data were from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Patients with type 2 diabetes were selected if initiated with combination therapies comprising metformin plus SU or DPP-4i 2007-2012. The co-primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and MACE (myocardial infarction or stroke). Times to endpoints were compared using Cox proportional hazards models. Additional analyses were performed on subsets matched directly on key characteristics and by propensity score. RESULTS: A total of 33 983 patients were prescribed SU and 7864 DPP-4i, and 5447 patients in each cohort could be matched directly and 6901 by propensity score. In the main analysis, there were 716 MACE events and 1217 deaths. Crude event rates for MACE were 11.3 events per 1000 person-years (pkpy) for SU, versus 5.3 pkpy for DPP-4i. For all-cause mortality, rates were 16.9 versus 7.3 pkpy, respectively. Following adjustment, there was a significant increase in the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality in those exposed to SU across all analytical models: aHR = 1.357 (95% CI 1.076-1.710) for all subjects, 1.850 (1.245-2.749) directly matched and 1.497 (1.092-2.052) propensity-matched. For MACE, aHR was 1.710 (1.280-2.285) for all subjects, 1.323 (0.832-2.105) directly matched and 1.547 (1.076-2.225) propensity-matched. CONCLUSIONS: There was a reduction in all-cause mortality for patients treated with metformin combined with DPP-4i versus metformin plus SU, and a similar trend for MACE.

Mortality risk with sulphonylureas compared to metformin.

Current clinical guidelines in the USA and the UK recommend first-line glucose-lowering treatment with metformin monotherapy for glucose control in type 2 diabetes, where not contraindicated. Consequently, the proportion of people treated with sulphonylureas is decreasing. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss the risks and benefits associated with sulphonylurea monotherapy versus metformin monotherapy and the evidence that, in comparison with metformin, sulphonylureas cause increased harm to people with type 2 diabetes.

How many people inject insulin? UK estimates from 1991 to 2010.

AIMS: We set out to estimate the prevalence rate of insulin use in the UK population, the total number of people in the UK who use insulin, the proportion of users with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and changes between 1991 and 2010. METHODS: Patients receiving prescriptions for insulin were identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and attributed a diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The annual prevalence of insulin use was calculated and applied to population data. RESULTS: The crude prevalence rate of insulin use increased from 2.43 (95% CI 2.38-2.49) per 1000 population in 1991 to 6.71 (6.64-6.77) per 1000 in 2010. The largest change was an increase in the prevalence of insulin users with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes from 0.67 (0.64-0.70) to 4.34 (4.29-4.39) per 1000 population. The absolute number using insulin increased from 137 000 people (121 000-155 000) in 1991 to 421 000 (400 000-444 000) in 2010. The proportion taking insulin alone (as against combination with oral agents) decreased from 97% in the first decade to 37% in the second. CONCLUSION: The number of people using insulin trebled between 1991 and 2010, largely due to a considerable increase in the number of people with type 2 diabetes using insulin.

The incidence of type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom from 1991 to 2010.

AIMS: To characterize the incidence of type 2 diabetes in the UK over the previous 20 years; and determine if there has been an increase in people aged 40 years or less at diagnosis. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes between 1991 and 2010 were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Patient data were grouped into 5-year intervals by year of diagnosis and age at diagnosis. A standardized incidence ratio (SIR) was determined (1991-1995 = 100). The percentage of newly diagnosed patients for each age group and aged ≤40 years was calculated for each 5-year calendar period. The incidence rate by age and 5-year calendar period was also determined. RESULTS: In 2010, the crude incidence rate of type 2 diabetes was 515 per 100,000 population. The overall SIR increased to 158 (95% CI 157-160, p < 0.001), 237 (235-238, p < 0.001) and 275 (273-276, p < 0.001) for 1996-2000, 2001-2005 and 2006-2010, respectively. For those ≤40, the respective values were 217 (209-226, p < 0.001), 327 (320-335, p < 0.001) and 598 (589-608, p < 0.001). An increase in incidence occurred with increasing 5-year calendar period. The incidence of type 2 diabetes was higher for males after the age of 40 and higher for females aged ≤40. The percentage of patients aged ≤40 years at diagnosis increased with each increasing 5-year calendar period (5.9, 8.4, 8.5 and 12.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant increase in the incidence of diagnosed type 2 diabetes between 1991 and 2010 and the proportion of people diagnosed at a relatively early age has increased markedly.

The safety profile of exogenous insulin in people with type 2 diabetes: justification for concern.

There is no doubt about the value of exogenous insulin for people with type 1 diabetes. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss emerging evidence that this may not be the case for the majority of people with type 2 diabetes.

Weight change in people with type 2 diabetes: secular trends and the impact of alternative antihyperglycaemic drugs.

AIM: This study aimed to describe the pattern of weight change in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) over time and when using alternative treatment regimens. METHODS: Data were from routine clinical practice in the UK. The weight trend was determined for each year from 1995 to 2010 for both prevalent and incident cases. Baseline weight was compared to absolute (mean Δ) and relative weights (% Δ) at 6, 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: Mean, standardized weight in prevalent cases increased from 83.4 to 92.1 kg for males and from 73.5 to 79.9 kg for females between 1995 and 2010 (p < 0.0001). For incident cases, the respective figures were 86.7 to 93.6 kg for males and 76.0 to 80.7 kg for females (p < 0.001). Between baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months, there were significant changes in weight for the majority of the treatment regimens selected for analysis. The largest weight increase at 12 months was for the patients who were prescribed a combination therapy with insulin and a thiazolidinedione, with a median increase of 4.1 kg (95% CI -0.60 to 8.0, p < 0.001). The largest weight decrease at 12 months was for the patients who were prescribed a combination therapy of metformin and exenatide, with a median decrease of -7.0 kg (95% CI -12.0 to -2.0, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a continual increase in body weight in people with T2DM over time, and considerable differences in the impact on weight using alternative treatment regimens. At the same time, glycaemic control remained relatively unchanged.

Estimated costs of acute hospital care for people with diabetes in the United Kingdom: a routine record linkage study in a large region.

AIMS: Diabetes represents a notable burden to health payers. The purpose of this study was to estimate acute hospital care costs of treating people with diabetes with reference to the costs of treating those without. METHODS: This was a retrospective study. Data from routine hospital practice were available from a large health region (439 000 people), with an estimated prevalence of diabetes of 3.4%. Common records were identified using probabilistic record linkage. Cost estimates were attributed to admissions using healthcare resource group software. Outpatient costs were attributed using published values. Data described are for 2004, and prices in pounds sterling for 2005. Standardised cost ratios were estimated to compare the costs observed in the diabetes population with those expected from the non-diabetic reference population. RESULTS: The total annual cost of admissions was pound28 944 811 per 100 000 people, of which pound3 650 869 per 100 000 (12.6%) was diabetes related. The standardised cost rate of inpatient treatment was 2.9. The total cost of outpatient attendances was pound6 589 971 per 100 000, of which pound711 431 per 100 000 (10.8%) was diabetes related. The standardised cost ratio for outpatient care was 4.1. The total cost of hospital care for patients with diabetes was pound11 206 986 per 100 000, or 12.3% of acute hospital expenditure. The combined standardised cost ratio was 3.1. Costs of care for inpatient treatment increased from 8.7% of revenue in 1994 to 12.3% in 2004. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of acute hospital care for treating people with diabetes increased markedly over a decade, and now exceed 12% of revenue.

Estimation of primary care treatment costs and treatment efficacy for people with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007*.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to characterize the financial cost and efficacy of primary care treatment for diabetes in the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007. METHODS: Retrospective data were analysed for people with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes along with matched control subjects using data from The Health Improvement Network. Costs were attributed from published sources and adjusted for price inflation. Type 2 diabetes was analysed by five commonly used treatment regimens. RESULTS: It was possible to identify 126 052 people for inclusion: 11 300 (8.9%) with Type 1 diabetes and 114 752 (91.1%) with Type 2. The overall mean prescribing costs per person per year (pppy) increased markedly for people with diabetes from 1997 to 2007: for Type 1, from 573 pounds to 1014 pounds pppy (+77%), and for Type 2, from 39 pounds to 740 pounds pppy (+89%). In 2007, diabetes-treatment-specific prescribing represented 57% of prescribing costs in Type 1 diabetes and 28% in Type 2 diabetes. In Type 2 diabetes there was a mean of 5.4 primary care consultations in 1997, increasing to 11.5 pppy in 2007 (+112%). In 1997 the total mean cost of primary care treatment for Type 2 diabetes was 602 pounds pppy, increasing to 1080 pounds in 2007. In Type 1 diabetes, the mean glycated haemoglobin decreased by 0.1% from 8.8% in 2001 to 8.7% in 2007; the corresponding change using insulin in Type 2 diabetes was also 0.1%. Greater improvement in blood pressure and lipids was evident. CONCLUSIONS: Over the 10 year period to 2007, diabetes-related primary care adjusted costs increased considerably, whereas glycated haemoglobin values did not improve at all over the same period.

Dispensing patterns and financial costs of glucose-lowering therapies in the UK from 2000 to 2008.

INTRODUCTION: A variety of influences determine prescribing behaviour. The purpose of this study was to characterize the pattern of dispensing for glucose-lowering and monitoring in the UK from 2000 to 2008, inclusively. METHODS: Open source data were used from the four UK prescription pricing agencies. Historical patterns of dispensing change were analysed in England, thus data are for England unless otherwise stated. Costs were adjusted for price inflation and reported in UK pound at 2008 prices. RESULTS: The total cost in the UK in 2008 was 702 239 000 UK pounds: 22 897 000 pounds (3.2%) for Northern Ireland, 37 681 000 pounds (5.3%) for Wales, 57 146 000 pounds (8.1%) for Scotland and 590 514 000 pounds (83.4%) for England. As a per cent of the overall primary care drug budget for each region, this represented 6.9% overall and then 5.8, 6.5, 5.9 and 7.1%, respectively. In England, diabetes-related dispensing costs increased from 290m to 591m UK pounds. All glucose-lowering drug classes increased in volume, except the alpha-glucoside inhibitors and the prandial glucose regulators. Insulin costs increased from 128m to 286m UK pounds. Insulin glargine metrics increased year-on-year, whereas neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) declined. Analogue insulin increased (2.6 million to 33.9 million prescription items), whereas human insulin declined (21.0 million to 10.3 million). DISCUSSION: The costs of dispensing for diabetes increased markedly between 2000 and 2008 to represent an annual cost to the NHS of 708m UK pounds, or 7% of budget. Costs increased at a higher rate than volume. Changes in prescribing appeared to reflect commercial factors more than clinical evidence. Diabetes dispensing patterns need to be better controlled and costs contained.

Quality of life and health-related utility analysis of adults with moderate and severe atopic dermatitis treated with tacrolimus ointment vs. topical corticosteroids.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to measure change in quality of life (QoL) and estimate health-related utility in adults with moderate and severe atopic dermatitis (AD) following the use of either tacrolimus ointment or topical corticosteroids. METHODS: Data were analysed from a double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing the treatment of adults with moderate and severe AD with either tacrolimus ointment or a standard corticosteroid regimen. Following randomisation, patients applied their medication twice-daily for 6 months. Monthly assessments determined response and QoL. Health-related utility (EQ5Dindex) was estimated by Monte Carlo simulation from SF-12 responses via a published mapping algorithm. RESULTS: At baseline, estimated utility data were available for 926 (95%) of the intention-to-treat patients, 57% of whom had AD of moderate severity (43% severe). The mean age at baseline was 32.5 years (SD +/- 11.8), 46.2% were male, with a mean EQ5Dindex for moderate cases of 0.770 (SD +/- 0.157), and 0.665 (SD +/- 0.225) for those with severe disease (P < 0.001). Patients treated with tacrolimus ointment showed significantly greater improvement in all but one domain of the SF-36. At baseline, there was no difference in estimated utility between the two groups; however, a difference in utility in favour of tacrolimus ointment emerged after 1 month's treatment (0.849 vs. 0.820; P = 0.004). Over the 6-month study period, the mean, marginal utility difference between the study arms was 0.032 U (utility) in favour of tacrolimus (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Treatment with 0.1% tacrolimus ointment rather than a standard topical corticosteroid ointment regimen was associated with clinically significant, incremental improvement in QoL, sustained over a 6-month period. A within-trial cost-utility estimate based on study medication cost alone suggests that tacrolimus ointment is highly cost-effective given existing willingness-to-pay thresholds.

The changing prevalence of diagnosed diabetes and its associated vascular complications in a large region of the UK.

AIMS: To characterize the prevalence of diabetes in a large health district in 2004 and compare it with a previous estimate made in 1996. METHODS: The study population comprised the resident population of Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. Routine record linkage was used to identify patients from various sources of hospital and mortality data. Patients with diabetes were identified according to biochemistry test results, coding on routine data or attendance at a diabetes-related clinic. Diabetes-related complications were ascribed according to coding on routine data. RESULTS: It was possible to identify 17 088 people with diabetes alive on 1 January 2005. Of these patients, 9064 (53.0%) were male and 8024 (47.0%) were female. Mean age (+/- sd) was 59.6 +/- 18.9 years for males and 61.2 +/- 20.4 years for females. The crude prevalence of diabetes in 2005 was 3.9% (3.4% adjusted) compared with 2.5% in 1996 (2.3% adjusted). With the exception of females aged > or = 75 years, the prevalence of diabetes increased in all age- and sex-specific subgroups. Within the 2005 cohort, over two-thirds has no recorded complications compared with approximately one half of the 1996 cohort. The prevalence of individual complications decreased, with the exception of renal complications. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of identified diabetes appears to have increased substantially over a relatively short period of 9 years to 2004. The increase in prevalence was 46%, with an increase in numbers of patients with diabetes of 53%. A number of factors are likely to have contributed to this, including an increase in case ascertainment.

Quality of life improvements attributed to combination therapy with oral and topical mesalazine in mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: To investigate patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in data collected from a multinational randomized double-blind controlled trial comparing oral mesalazine (4 g) + topical mesalazine enema (1 g) to oral mesalazine alone (4 g). METHODS: HRQoL was collected using the EQ-5D at baseline and weeks 2, 4 and 8. The EQ-5D assesses mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Scores from each dimension were reported individually, and converted into a weighted health state which reflects an individual's perception of their health condition. RESULTS: At week 4, a significant HRQoL improvement was observed for patients on mesalazine enemas compared to placebo enemas, with EQ-5D scores of 0.906 and 0.838, respectively (p < 0.05). Mesalazine enema was found to reduce the probability of impairment at week 4 for mobility (p = 0.049) and anxiety/depression (p = 0.048), and was of borderline significance for pain/discomfort (p = 0.053); there was also an increased probability of influencing HRQoL changes for mobility (p < 0.005), usual activities (p < 0.005), pain/discomfort (p < 0.005) and anxiety/depression (p < 0.005), based on reported HRQoL problems at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Including 1 g mesalazine enemas with 4 g oral mesalazine significantly improved HRQoL in patients with active ulcerative colitis. The improvement in QoL of patients with UC preceded clinical remission, and this underlines the importance of including QoL instruments in clinical studies.