The effectiveness of mesalazine therapy of ulcerative colitis of moderate severity in real clinical practice

• Published in: Medicinskij sovet no. 14; pp. 80 - 86
• Main Authors: Knyazev, O. V., Kagramanova, A. V., Lishchinskaya, A. A., Parfenov, A. I.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Remedium Group LLC 11.10.2019
• Subjects: inflammatory bowel disease; mayo index; mesalazine; ulcerative colitis
• ISSN: 2079-701X; 2658-5790
• DOI: 10.21518/2079-701X-2019-14-80-86

Aim of the study. To compare the efficacy of treatment of patients with moderate left-sided and overall affection ulcerative colitis (UC) receiving equivalent doses of mesalazines – Mesacol and Salofalk. Materials and methods. 90 UC patients of medium severity who received mesalazine Salofalk (group 1) were included, of which 41 (45.5%) were males and 49 (54.5%) females, mean age 35.8 ± 2.5 years, and 96 UC patients of medium severity who received mesalazine Mesacol (group 2), of whom 42 (43.75%) were males and 54 (56.25%) females, mean age 37.1 ± 3.1 years. Patient follow-up time was 12 weeks. The efficacy of the therapy was assessed taking into account 1) response to therapy in 2 weeks from the beginning of therapy; 2) achievement and maintenance of clinical remission (persistent remission) within 12 weeks after the beginning of therapy . Results and discussions. After 2 weeks 78 (86,7%) patients of the 1st group responded to the therapy with mesalazine Salofalc (stool frequency decreased to 4–6 t/day, presence of pathological impurities in the stool decreased, according to laboratory indices anemia and leukocytosis decreased, and the level of CRP and ESR decreased). Twelve patients (13.3%) did not have a proper response to therapy. In the 2nd group of patients receiving Mesacol mesalazine, 80 (83,4%) out of 96 patients responded to the therapy, and 16 patients (16,6%) did not respond. After 12 weeks, 78 (86.7%) of the 90 UC Group 1 patients who responded to mesalazine Salofalk treatment still had clinical remission. The Mayo index in the group decreased from an average of 7.98 ±0.11 to 2.9 ±0.24 points. After 12 weeks, in group 2 UC patients (n = 96), 80 patients (83.4%) who responded to Mesalazine Mesacol therapy also had clinical remission. The Mayo Index in Group 2 decreased on average from 7.8 ± 0.1 to 2.8 ± 0.25 points. One year after the start of Salofalk mesalazine therapy, clinical remission remained in 76 (84.4%) of the 90 UC patients who responded to therapy, of whom 32 (35.5%) had clinical endoscopic remission. In the second group of UC patients receiving Mesacol, clinical remission remained in 78 (82.0%) out of 96 patients who responded to therapy, clinical endoscopic remission in 32 (35.5%) patients with UC. When comparing the duration of remission among UC patients receiving mesalazine Salofalk and patients receiving mesalazine Mesacol, there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.45). Conclusion. Mesalazines remain the first line of treatment for mild and moderate UC patients. Treatment of moderately active UC should start with oral mesalazine >2 g/day in combination with local mesalazine. Prolonged continuous use of Mesacol and Salofalk mesalazines for a year is comparable in efficacy.