AIM: To compare the mucosal concentrations of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) resulting from different pharmaceutical formulations and analyse the influence of inflammation on the mucosal concentrations. METHODS: The study included 130 inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients receiving 5-ASA as pH-dependent-release formulations (73 patients), time-dependent-release formulations (11 patients), or pro-drugs (18 patients). In addition, 28 patients were receiving topical treatment (2-4 g/d) with pH-dependent-release formulations. Endoscopic biopsies were obtained from the sigmoid region during the colonoscopy. The 5-ASA concentrations (ng/mg) were measured in tissue homogenates using high-pressure liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection. The t test and Mann-Whitney test, when appropriate, were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Patients receiving pH-dependent-release formulations showed significantly higher mucosal concentrations of 5-ASA (51.75 ± 5.72 ng/mg) compared with patients receiving pro-drugs (33.35 ± 5.78 ng/mg, P = 0.01) or time-dependent-release formulations (38.24 ± 5.53 ng/mg, P = 0.04). Patients with endoscopic remission had significantly higher mucosal concentrations of 5-ASA than patients with active disease (60.14 ± 7.95 ng/mg vs 35.66 ± 5.68 ng/mg, P = 0.02). Similar results were obtained when we compared patients with the histological appearance of remission and patients with active histological inflammation (67.53 ± 9.22 ng/mg vs 35.53 ± 5.63 ng/mg, P < 0.001). Significantly higher mucosal concentrations of 5-ASA were detected in patients treated with both oral and topical treatments in combination compared with patients who received oral treatment with pH-dependent-release formulations alone (72.33 ± 11.23 ng/mg vs 51.75 ± 5.72 ng/mg, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: IBD patients showed significant variability in mucosal 5-ASA concentrations depending on the type of formulation, and the highest mean concentration was achieved using pH-dependent-release formulations.
AIM: To compare the mucosal concentrations of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) resulting from different pharmaceutical formulations and analyse the influence of inflammation on the mucosal concentrations. METHODS: The study included 130 inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients receiving 5-ASA as pH-dependent-release formulations (73 patients), time-dependent-release formulations (11 patients), or pro-drugs (18 patients). In addition, 28 patients were receiving topical treatment (2-4 g/d) with pH-dependent-release formulations. Endoscopic biopsies were obtained from the sigmoid region during the colonoscopy. The 5-ASA concentrations (ng/mg) were measured in tissue homogenates using high-pressure liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection. The t test and Mann-Whitney test, when appropriate, were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS:Patients receiving pH-dependent-release formulations showed significantly higher mucosal concentrations of 5-ASA (51.75 ± 5.72 ng/mg) compared with patients receiving pro-drugs (33.35 ± 5.78 ng/mg, P = 0.01) or time-dependent-release formulations (38.24 ± 5.53 ng/mg, P = 0.04). Patients with endoscopic remission had significantly higher mucosal concentrations of 5-ASA than patients with active disease (60.14 ± 7.95 ng/mg vs 35.66 ± 5.68 ng/mg, P = 0.02). Similar results were obtained when we compared patients with the histological appearance of remission and patients with active histological inflammation (67.53 ± 9.22 ng/mg vs 35.53 ± 5.63 ng/mg, P < 0.001). Significantly higher mucosal concentrations of 5-ASA were detected in patients treated with both oral and topical treatments in combination compared with patients who received oral treatment with pH-dependent-release formulations alone (72.33 ± 11.23 ng/mg vs 51.75 ± 5.72 ng/mg, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION:IBDpatients showed significant variability in mucosal 5-ASA concentrations depending on the type of formulation, and the highest mean concentration was achieved using pH-dependent-release formulations.
Authors: G Frieri; M T Pimpo; G C Palumbo; L Onori; A Viscido; G Latella; B Galletti; G C Pantaleoni; R Caprilli Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: D Jenkins; M Balsitis; S Gallivan; M F Dixon; H M Gilmour; N A Shepherd; A Theodossi; G T Williams Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: G Frieri; M Pimpo; B Galletti; G Palumbo; G Corrao; G Latella; M Chiaramonte; R Caprilli Journal: Dig Liver Dis Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 4.088
Authors: G Frieri; M T Pimpo; A Andreoli; V Annese; M Comberlato; G Corrao; G Palumbo; G C Sturniolo; F Tonelli; R Caprilli Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: W Kruis; J W Brandes; S Schreiber; D Theuer; B Krakamp; E Schütz; P Otto; H Lorenz-Mayer; K Ewe; G Judmaier Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: C Stevens; M Lipman; S Fabry; M Moscovitch-Lopatin; W Almawi; S Keresztes; M A Peppercorn; T B Strom Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 1995-01 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Reidar Fossmark; Maya Olaisen; Tom Christian Martinsen; Hans Olav Melberg Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 4.409