Mesalamine did not prevent recurrent diverticulitis in phase 3 controlled trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: No therapy has been proven to prevent the recurrence of diverticulitis. Mesalamine has shown efficacy in preventing relapse in inflammatory bowel disease, and there is preliminary evidence that it might be effective for diverticular disease. We investigated the efficacy of mesalamine in preventing recurrence of diverticulitis in 2 identical but separate phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trials (identical confirmatory trials were conducted for regulatory reasons). METHODS: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of multimatrix mesalamine vs placebo in the prevention of recurrent diverticulitis in 590 (PREVENT1) and 592 (PREVENT2) adult patients with ≥1 episodes of acute diverticulitis in the previous 24 months that resolved without surgery. Patients received mesalamine (1.2 g, 2.4 g, or 4.8 g) or placebo once daily for 104 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of recurrence-free patients at week 104. Diverticulitis recurrence was defined as surgical intervention at any time for diverticular disease or presence of computed tomography scan results demonstrating bowel wall thickening (>5 mm) and/or fat stranding consistent with diverticulitis. For a portion of the study, recurrence also required the presence of abdominal pain and an increase in white blood cells. RESULTS: Mesalamine did not reduce the rate of diverticulitis recurrence at week 104. Among patients in PREVENT1, 53%-63% did not have disease recurrence, compared with 65% of those given placebo. Among patients in PREVENT2, 59%-69% of patients did not have disease recurrence, compared with 68% of those given placebo. Mesalamine did not reduce time to recurrence, and the proportions of patients requiring surgery were comparable among treatment groups. No new adverse events were identified with mesalamine administration. CONCLUSIONS: Mesalamine was not superior to placebo in preventing recurrent diverticulitis. Mesalamine is not recommended for this indication. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00545740 and NCT00545103.

Role of pharmacoepidemiology studies in addressing pharmacovigilance questions: a case example of pancreatitis risk among ulcerative colitis patients using mesalazine.

PURPOSE: Well-designed pharmacoepidemiology studies address several limitations of postmarketing spontaneous reports in regard to signal evaluation. This study evaluated a signal of disproportionate reporting of acute pancreatitis cases observed in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) treated with MMX Multi Matrix System® (MMX®) mesalazine and demonstrated how inherent limitations of postmarketing reports were overcome. METHODS: Adults with UC who were new users of MMX mesalazine or another branded mesalazine (controlled-release, delayed-release, or extended-release mesalazine; balsalazide disodium; olsalazine sodium; sulfasalazine; or sulfasalazine delayed-release) were identified from a large US administrative healthcare claims database. Acute pancreatitis incidence rates were compared between patients on MMX mesalazine versus comparator therapies. Propensity scores were used to match patients on MMX mesalazine with patients on comparator drugs to achieve a balance of baseline patient factors. RESULTS: Crude incidence rates [95 % confidence interval (CI)] of acute pancreatitis among patients on MMX mesalazine were similar to those of patients on comparator therapies [8.55 (5.54-13.21) vs 10.05 (7.54-13.41) per 1000 person-years]; the resulting incidence rate ratio (IRR) was [0.85 (0.48-1.47)]. Propensity score-matching had little influence on the IRR [0.84 (0.46-1.55)]; nor did further adjustment by demographic characteristics, daily dose, and causes of acute pancreatitis [0.76 (0.41-1.43)]. CONCLUSION: Findings of no increase in pancreatitis risk with MMX mesalazine demonstrate the value of pharmacoepidemiology studies for evaluating a drug's postmarket safety profile when confronted with spontaneous reporting data suggestive of a safety issue.

Once-daily MMX(®) mesalamine for endoscopic maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment with mesalamine to maintain endoscopic remission (mucosal healing) of ulcerative colitis (UC) has been shown to reduce the risk of relapse and is the recommended first-line maintenance therapy. To improve treatment adherence, a mesalamine formulation that can be administered once-daily, MMX(®) mesalamine (Lialda; Shire Pharmaceuticals LLC, Wayne, PA), was developed. This study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of once-daily MMX mesalamine compared with twice-daily delayed-release mesalamine (Asacol; Warner Chilcott, Dublin, Ireland) for maintaining endoscopic remission in patients with UC. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 6-month, active-control trial was conducted to assess the non-inferiority of once-daily MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day compared with twice-daily delayed-release mesalamine at a total daily dose of 1.6 g/day in patients with UC in endoscopic remission. The primary end point was maintenance of endoscopic remission at month 6 in the per-protocol (PP) population. RESULTS: Overall, 826 patients were randomized and dosed. The primary objective (non-inferiority) was met. At month 6, 83.7 and 77.8% of patients receiving MMX mesalamine in the PP and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, respectively, had maintained endoscopic remission compared with 81.5% (PP) and 76.9% (ITT) of patients receiving delayed-release mesalamine (95% confidence interval for difference: -3.9%, 8.1% (PP); -5.0%, 6.9% (ITT)). Time to relapse was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (log-rank test, P=0.5116 (PP); P=0.5455 (ITT)). The proportion of patients with adverse events was 37.1 and 36.0% in patients receiving MMX mesalamine and delayed-release mesalamine, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily dosing of MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day was shown to be well tolerated and non-inferior to twice-daily dosing with delayed-release mesalamine 1.6 g/day for maintenance of endoscopic remission in patients with UC.

Expanding applications: the potential usage of 5-aminosalicylic acid in diverticular disease.

Diverticular disease is a common bowel condition, the pathogenesis of which is incompletely understood. Acute exacerbations of diverticular disease usually require dietary changes, antibiotic therapy, and may necessitate urgent surgery. Approximately 25-33% of patients experience symptomatic and acute inflammatory disease recurrence, suggesting that current long-term management is inadequate. Because inflammatory complications of diverticular disease, including diverticulitis, are similarities to inflammatory bowel diseases, evidence suggests that patients may respond to anti-inflammatory therapies used in these conditions. Here, we explore the rationale and evidence for use of inflammatory bowel disease treatment, namely 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; mesalamine), in diverticular disease, and review clinical data on the efficacy of mesalamine either alone or in combination with other agents for the treatment of diverticular disease. PubMed and conference abstracts were searched for clinical studies examining the use of mesalamine in treating diverticular disease. Studies were evaluated for treatment efficacy in symptom reduction, recurrence prevention, or improving quality of life. The results of our search suggest that single-agent mesalamine can reduce diverticular disease symptoms and improve quality of life more effectively than antibiotic treatment alone. Mesalamine in combination with antibiotics can also reduce symptoms and improve quality of life with greater efficacy than either treatment alone. Combining mesalamine and probiotics treatments may reduce recurrent attacks of diverticular disease. Further randomized, well-controlled studies are required for validation; however, it seems that mesalamine is an important agent in future diverticular disease management.