Comparison between high dose 5-aminosalicylic acid and 6-methylprednisolone in active Crohn's ileocolitis. A multicenter randomized double-blind study. German 5-ASA Study Group. European Cooperative Crohn's Disease Study (ECCDS): results of drug treatment. National Cooperative Crohn's Disease Study: study design and conduct of the study. National Cooperative Crohn's Disease Study: adverse reactions to study drugs. Mesalamine in the treatment of mild to moderate active Crohn's ileitis: results of a randomized, multicenter trial. National Cooperative Crohn's Disease Study: results of drug treatment.
The value of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) in Crohn's disease (CD) is still under discussion. In a previous study 2 g 5-ASA per day were inferior to a standard glucocorticoid treatment with 6-methylprednisolone (6-MPred) (Can J Gastroenterol 1990; 4: 446-51). In the present study we tested whether in active CD response rates to 4.5 g 5-ASA/day were not different from those to 6-MPred.
                Multicenter randomized double-blind double-dummy trial. 34 patients with active CD (CDAI > 150) were included. 17 patients were in the 5-ASA group (Salofalk, 4.5 g/day), 17 patients in the 6-MPred group (Urbason, initial dose 48 mg/day, weekly tapering). Duration of treatment was 8 weeks. Main outcome measure was remission of CD (CDAI < 150) and decrease of at least 60 points.
                Both groups were comparable with respect to demographic and clinical parameters. The median CDAI decrease in the 5-ASA group was 85, in the 6-MPred group 122 (p = 0.7437). The median AUC of the CDAI in the 5-ASA group was 1027, in the 6-MPred group 950 (p = 0.137). The median AUC of the CDAI per treatment day was 22.94 in the 5-ASA group, and 17.33 in the 6-MPred group (p = 0.0555). On an intention-to-treat basis remission rates after 8 weeks were 40.0% in the 5-ASA group and 56.3% in the 6-MPred group (p = 0.5867).
                Response rates to 5-ASA or 6-MPred were not significantly different although there was a trend towards a higher efficacy of 6-MPred. 5-ASA may be considered as alternative treatment in patients with activer CD who are intolerant to or refuse glucocorticoids. A multicenter double-blind study of the effectiveness of sulfasalazine and 6-methylprednisolone, alone and in combination, was conducted on 452 patients with Crohn's disease. One hundred sixty patients were previously untreated; 292 patients were previously treated. The Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) was used to determine whether a patient had active (CDAI greater than or equal to 150, n = 215) or quiescent disease (CDAI less than 150, n = 237). Treatment of active disease consisted of high-dose 6-methylprednisolone, 6-methylprednisolone combined with 3 g of sulfasalazine, 3 g of sulfasalazine alone, or placebo, and lasted 6 wk. Patients in remission received maintenance doses of one of these drug regimens for periods of up to 2 yr. One hundred ninety-two patients completed the 2-yr study period. Results were evaluated using life-table analysis and outcome ranking. These methods showed 6-methylprednisolone to be the most effective drug in overall comparison of all patients (p less than 0.001); in previously treated patients (p less than 0.001); and in subgroups: active disease (p less than 0.001), only small bowel disease (p less than 0.05), and both small bowel and colon disease (p less than 0.05). Combination of 6-methylprednisolone and sulfasalazine was the most effective regimen in previously untreated patients (p less than 0.05) and when disease was localized in the colon (p less than 0.001). Sulfasalazine alone was least effective in overall comparison of all patients (p less than 0.05) and in all strata. Drug treatment was of no significant benefit to patients with quiescent disease. Continuous administration of low doses of 6-methylprednisolone, or the combination regimen, was beneficial in patients who responded initially to treatment of active disease. The addition of sulfasalazine, however, offered no advantage. The design and execution of the National Cooperative Crohn's Disease Study are described in this paper. The Study incorporated several noteworthy features developed to meet specific demands of the disease and its therapy. A standard clinical grading system, the Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) was developed to allow uniform decentralized clinical evaluation and decision-making throughout the 5 yr of the study. All three drugs in widespread clinical use in Crohn's disease were studied both for suppressive and prophylactic efficacy and for toxicity. The study employed a scheme for double-blind evaluation of patient progress which allowed adjustment of prednisone dose according to the degree of illness and ensured continuous monitoring for serious toxicity of any study drug. Results were analyzed primarily by ranking the clinical outcome of every patient according to a uniform and detailed scheme and applying Wilcoxon nonparametric statistics. Outcome was also analyzed by life-table methods. Eleven hundred nineteen patients were entered and 604 patients were randomized at 14 study centers during the 5-yr duration of the study. Twenty patients were eliminated from analysis as not meeting diagnostic criteria for Crohn's disease, and another 15 patients were eliminated as not meeting other preestablished criteria for analysis. Nine percent of randomized patients, equally distributed in the four treatment groups, withdrew as noncompliant. Ninety percent of patients completed all or all but one protocol-specified visits, and 95% completed the final radiologic and sigmoidoscopic evaluation. Adverse reactions to the drugs employed in the National Cooperative Crohn's Disease Study were sought prospectively at each patient visit and by retrospective review of all patient charts. Prednisone caused evident side effects in over 50% of patients on high-dose suppressive therapy and in approximately one-third of patients on prophylactic dose. Thirty-two percent of patients on high-dose, and 26% on prophylactic-dose prednisone required dose reduction or withdrawal because of side effects. Comparable figures for sulfasalazine were 14% and 12%, and for azathioprine 32% and 20%. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, or anorexia among patients taking sulfasalazine was 46% and 34%, on high and low dose respectively; however, this incidence was no different than that observed among patients taking placebo. These symptoms occasioned withdrawal from the study of only 4% and 3% of patients on high and low doses of sulfasalazine, respectively. Azathioprine produced leukopenia at a dose of 2.5 mg/kg body weight in 15% of patients and the mean white cell count, lymphocyte count, granulocyte count, and hematocrit all fell significantly in patients on this dose. Pancreatitis occurred in 5% of patients taking azathioprine but in no other patients. Sulfasalazine proved to be the safest effective suppressive drug for Crohn's disease. Prednisone toxicity, though substantial, is acceptable in view of its demonstrated suppressive efficacy. Azathioprine was approximately as toxic as prednisone but no more effective than placebo in suppressing active disease. None of the drugs was effective prophylactically, and all showed appreciable long-term toxicity. The efficacy of 5-aminosalicylic acid (mesalamine) in the treatment of flare-ups of Crohn's disease is controversial. In previous studies, different locations and pathological behavior of Crohn's disease could have obscured the efficacy of these drugs that deliver their substance in different intestinal sites. The present study tested two different mesalamine formulations with 6-methylprednisolone in mild to moderate active Crohn's ileitis.
                Ninety-four patients with Crohn's ileitis (Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI], 180-350) were randomly assigned to receive for 12 weeks mesalamine tablets, 4 g (35 patients); mesalamine microgranular preparation, 4 g (28 patients); and 6-methylprednisolone, 40 mg (31 patients). Mesalamine microgranular preparation was a gelatin capsule containing 400 mg of mesalamine microgranules coated with Eudragit S, which has been shown to deliver the drug in the terminal ileum.
                Patients taking mesalamine tablets experienced a decrease of CDAI median score value of 113.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 33-149) compared with 123 (95% CI, 77-155) in the mesalamine microgranular group and 154 (95% CI, 99-197) in the 6-methylprednisolone group (P = 0.07 [NS]). Remission at the final visit occurred in 19 of 31 (61%) patients taking steroids compared with 21 of 35 (60%) patients taking mesalamine tablets and 22 of 28 (79%) patients taking microgranular mesalamine (NS). Five patients on steroids were withdrawn because of side effects, and a case of pancreatitis was related to microgranular mesalamine.
                Mesalamine in microgranular formulation seems to be equally as effective as a standard dosage of steroids in the treatment of the mild to moderate form of Crohn's ileitis. The response of active and quiescent Crohn's disease to prednisone, sulfasalazine, or azathioprine has been studied in 569 patients in a placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter cooperative trial. The response of active symptomatic disease to prednisone or sulfasalazine was significantly better than to placebo. Response to azathioprine was better than to placebo, but the difference did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance. Patients with colonic involvement were especially responsive to sulfasalazine, and those with small bowel involvement were especially responsive to prednisone. Patients' drug therapy immediately before entry to the study significantly affected subsequent response. For patients with quiescent disease, none of the drugs was superior to placebo in prophylaxis against flare-up or recurrence. There is less than a 5% risk that a clinically significant prophylactic effect of any of the drug regimens was missed.
Corticosteroids are effective for induction of remission in patients with CD, particularly when used for more than 15 weeks. Although corticosteroids cause more adverse events than either placebo or low-dose 5-ASA, these adverse events did not lead to increased study withdrawal in the included studies. Further information is required to determine the optimal duration of treatment and tapering protocol to maximize the efficacy of treatment with corticosteroids. Additionally, further study is required to determine whether corticosteroids are more effective in patients with certain phenotypes or when administered intravenously.