Mesalazine granules are superior to Eudragit-L-coated mesalazine tablets for induction of remission in distal ulcerative colitis - a pooled analysis

BACKGROUND: Different oral formulations of 'mesalazine (mesalamine)' may have different efficacy in distal ulcerative colitis. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of mesalazine granules (Salofalk granules) vs. mesalazine tablets (Salofalk tablets) as induction therapy in patients with distinct extensions of ulcerative colitis. METHODS: A pooled analysis of 705 patients from four prospective, randomised, double-blind phase III trials was performed. The efficacy of 8 weeks' induction with 3 g/day mesalazine granules [3 g once daily (o.d.) or 1 g three times daily (t.d.s)] vs. 3 g/day mesalazine tablets (1 g t.d.s.) was compared in terms of clinical remission (CR: CAI ≤ 4) and endoscopic remission (ER: EI ≤ 3) (both according to Rachmilewitz) in subgroups with pancolitis, left-sided colitis, or proctosigmoiditis. RESULTS: Mesalazine granules were equipotent to mesalazine tablets in pancolitis regarding CR (72% vs. 71%, P = 0.909) and ER (58% vs. 49%, P = 0.338). In left-sided colitis, both mesalazine formulations were equipotent regarding CR (66% vs. 67%; P = 0.843) but mesalazine granules were superior regarding ER (56% vs. 37%; P = 0.025). In proctosigmoiditis, mesalazine granules were significantly more effective than mesalazine tablets regarding CR (78% vs. 55% P < 0.001) and ER (67% vs. 43% P < 0.001). Furthermore, o.d. application of mesalazine granules was more effective than t.d.s. dosing in left-sided colitis (CR 73% vs. 62%, P = 0.181; ER 71% vs. 48% P = 0.005) and proctosigmoiditis (CR 86% vs. 73%, P = 0.020; ER 75% vs. 61%, P = 0.021), but not in pancolitis. CONCLUSION: This pooled analysis supports the hypothesis that mesalazine granules are superior to mesalazine tablets in induction of remission in distal colitis and should be taken once daily.