Predictive factors of relapse after dose reduction of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid in patients with ulcerative colitis in the remission phase.

OBJECTIVES: Useful indices to determine whether to reduce the dose of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) during remission remain unclear. We aimed to analyze the rate and risk factors of relapse after reducing the dose of oral 5-ASA used for maintenance therapy of UC.
METHODS: UC patients whose 5-ASA dose was reduced in clinical remission (partial Mayo score of ≤ 1) at our institution from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed. Various clinical variables of patients who relapsed after reducing the dose of oral 5-ASA were compared with those of patients who maintained remission. Risk factors for relapse were assessed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Cumulative relapse-free survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
RESULTS: A total of 70 UC patients were included; 52 (74.3%) patients maintained remission and 18 (25.7%) patients relapsed during the follow-up period. Multivariate analysis indicated that a history of acute severe UC (ASUC) was an independent predictive factor for clinical relapse (p = 0.024, odds ratio: 21, 95% confidence interval: 1.50-293.2). Based on Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the cumulative relapse-free survival rate within 52 weeks was 22.2% for patients with a history of ASUC, compared with 82.0% for those without. the log-rank test showed a significant difference in a history of ASUC (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Dose reduction of 5-ASA should be performed carefully in patients who have a history of ASUC.

Introduction

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting the colon, which is characterized by an unpredictable course, usually involving periods of flare-up and remission. The pathogenesis of UC involves a variety of factors, including genetic predisposition, epithelial barrier defects, dysregulated immune responses, and environmental factors [1]. Although the incidence of UC remains stable in Western countries, it is increasing worldwide [2]. Previous studies have demonstrated that 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) is effective for UC, regarding both the induction of and maintenance of remission [3, 4], and is the first-line therapy for patients with mild to moderate UC [5]. Since the disease is chronic and intermittently relapses, treatment with 5-ASA should be continued not only when symptoms flare up, but also when symptoms are not present.

As 5-ASA is an expensive drug, its cumulative use is likely to have considerable financial burden on patients and healthcare agencies. However, the existing guidelines state that because of limited evidence, no recommendations can be made on when and in whom a reduction in the dose of 5-ASA can be performed after obtaining clinical remission. In the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization (ECCO) guidelines, there is a statement the effective dose of oral mesalamine to maintain remission is 2 g/day [5]. Several studies have reported the dose-response data of 5-ASA for the maintenance of remission. Giaffer et al. investigated the efficacy of two doses of balsalazide for maintaining remission of UC, and found that the relapse rate at 12 months on 2 g/day balsalazide was higher (55%) than that on 4 g/day (37%) (RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45–0.97) [6]. Kruis et al. compared different doses of Salofalk granules (3 g/day vs 1.5 g /day) and reported that the relapse rate was lower for patients treated with 3 g/day than 1.5 g/day (RR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.49–0.86) [7]. On the other hand, other studies showed that there was no significantly difference in the rate of relapse among patients receiving 5-ASA doses of more than 2 g/day. Pica et al. compared patients treated with 4.8 g/day versus 2.4 g/day of Asacol, and found no significant difference in efficacy, with a 29% relapse rate for 4.8 g/day and a 36% relapse rate for 2.4 g/day (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.46–1.38) [8]. Green et al. reported that 32% of patients treated with 6 g/day and 23% of patients treated with 3 g/day of Balsalazide experienced a relapse, demonstrating no significant difference in efficacy [9]. In clinical practice, the decision of whether to continue a high dose of 5-ASA or reduce the dose in UC patients who are in remission is still based on the judgement of individual doctors.

Therefore, in this study, we retrospectively investigated the clinical outcomes of UC patients during the 52 weeks after reducing the dose of 5-ASA, and the clinical characteristics of the patients who relapsed after reducing the 5-ASA dose after achieving remission, at a single center in Japan. The aim of this study was to assess the rate and risk factors of relapse after reducing the dose of oral 5-ASA for maintenance therapy.

Materials and methods

Patients

Population and definition of inclusion criteria

This retrospective cohort study analyzed consecutive UC patients in remission, who were treated with reduced doses of 5-ASA for at least some of the period from February 2012 and November 2017, at the Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University (Tokyo, Japan). To ensure the inclusion of all patient, electronic medical records and the established database of UC were reviewed. Patients who were prescribed 5-ASA (Pentasa®, the extended-release form of mesalamine; Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, or Asacol®, the delayed-release form of mesalamine; Zeria Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) were extracted. All patients were at least 18 years of age and had an established UC diagnosis based on standard clinical, endoscopic, and historical criteria, according to the criteria of the Japanese Research Committee on Inflammatory Bowel Disease [10].

Patients who had received a high dose of oral 5-ASA for maintenance therapy and who maintained remission for more than 3 months were included in the study. All patients were in clinical remission at the time of starting the reduction of oral 5-ASA, and were also in corticosteroid-free remission for more than 3 months prior to their inclusion in the study. Patients who received combination therapy (topical therapies, immunomodulators, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, anti- tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α agents, and granulocyte apheresis) for at least 3 months prior to dose reduction of oral 5-ASA, whose internal medicine adherence was estimated to be less than 80% by interview by the attending physician, whose observation period was less than 52 weeks, and who were pregnant were excluded.

Clinical disease activity was assessed using the partial Mayo (pMayo) score [11]. Clinical remission was defined as pMayo score of ≤ 1, and clinical relapse was defined as pMayo score of ≥ 3 [12]. Acute severe UC (ASUC) was defined as the passage of six or more bloody stools per day with the presence of one or more additional Truelove and Witts (TW) criteria (pulse > 90 bpm; temperature > 37.8 °C; hemoglobin < 105 g/L; erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR] >30 mm/h) [13]. Because ESR is less frequently used than C-reactive protein (CRP) in current practice, CRP > 30 mg/L was used instead of ESR. This marker is often used and has been reported in other studies [14, 15] and in the ECCO consensus [16]. A high dose of 5-ASA was defined as 3,000 to 4,000 mg of Pentasa or 3,600 mg of Asacol. A low dose of 5-ASA was defined as 2,000 mg of Pentasa or 2,400 mg of Asacol. Data were collected on the patients’ demographic details (sex and age) and clinical parameters (age at diagnosis, duration of disease at admission, and date of admission). After patient identification, a complete chart review was performed by two gastroenterologists (AM and MF). Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion with the senior author. The flow diagram of this study is shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1

Flow diagram of this study.

Endpoints

The primary endpoint of the study was the identification of predictive factors for relapse during the 52 weeks after reducing the dose of oral 5-ASA. Secondary endpoints were the relapse rate until 52 weeks, the cumulative relapse-free survival rates during the follow-up period, and reinduction therapy for the relapse.

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics of the patients were summarized as the mean (standard deviation) or median (range) for continuous variables, and as frequency (%) for categorical variables. Statistical differences in patient characteristics between the patients who relapsed and those who maintained remission were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the chi-squared test (or Fisher exact test) for categorical variables. Logistic regression was used to perform multivariate analysis of risk factors for relapse, including sex, age, age at diagnosis, duration of disease, duration to disease remission, pMayo score, type of 5-ASA, location of disease, history of thiopurine use, history of steroid use, and history of ASUC. At our institution, a CRP level of < 3 mg/L could not be accurately measured in most of the patients. Therefore, CRP was analyzed as a categorical variable for < 3 mg/L and ≥ 3mg/L. In Japan, fecal calprotectin has been available for measurement since June 2017. Therefore, it was almost impossible to measure fecal calprotectin in this study. The cumulative relapse-free survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). Two-sided p-values of less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistically significant differences between the patients who relapsed and those who maintained remission.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tokyo Medical University School of Medicine (study approval no.: T2019-0186), and was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Because this study was a retrospective cohort study, the Ethics Committee of our hospital waived the requirement for informed consent. Information about this study was posted in Tokyo Medical University Hospital. Patient records and information were anonymized and de-identified before analysis.

Results

Patients and baseline characteristics

Between February 2012 and November 2017, 360 patients at our hospital were treated with oral 5-ASA to maintain clinical remission of UC. There were 102 patients who underwent a dose reduction of 5-ASA and had a pMayo score of ≤ 1 at the start of the observation period. Among them, 24 patients who underwent combination therapy for UC (topical therapies, immunomodulators, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, anti-TNF agents, and granulocyte apheresis), seven who did not complete follow-up to 52 weeks, and one who was pregnant were excluded from the study, and a total of 70 patients were eligible for inclusion. Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of the 70 patients fitting the inclusion criteria. The patients had a median age of 44 (range: 20–81) years, and 61% were men. The median disease duration and median duration of remission were 4.5 (0–37) years and 1 (1–10) year, respectively. Regarding previous use of medication, there were 16 patients with a history of corticosteroid use and three with a history of thiopurine use. The cumulative dose of corticosteroids was available in 14 of 16 patients, with a median of 2555 mg (1120–4970 mg). Two patients received medication of steroids at other hospitals, so details were not available (S1 Appendix). There were no patients with a history of use of anti-TNF agents or calcineurin inhibitors. Eight patients had a history of ASUC. 43 patients were prescribed Pentasa, of which 34 were on 3000 mg/day and 9 were on 4000 mg/day before dose reduction. 27 patients were prescribed Asacol, of which all were on 3600 mg/day before dose reduction. Patients prescribed Pentasa were reduced to 2000 mg/day, and patients prescribed Asacol were reduced to 2400 mg/day.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of the 70 patients.

5-ASA: 5-aminosalicylic acids.

	No. or median	% or interquartile range
Total number of patients	70
Male gender	43	61.4%
Age, years	44	20–81
Age at diagnosis, years	34.5	17–78
Duration of disease, years	4.5	0–37
Duration of disease remission, years	1	0–10
Extension of disease
Pancolitis	28	40.0%
Left-side colitis	19	27.1%
Proctitis	23	38.6%
Partial mayo score	0	0–1
Type of oral 5-ASA
Pentasa	43	61.4%
Asacol	27	38.6%
White blood cell count, 103/μl	5.6	3.7–14.2
Hemoglobin, g/dl	14	8.9–16.7
Platelet, 103/μl	225	115–553
Albumin, g/dl	4.4	3.7–5.2
C-reactive protein ≥ 3mg/L	5	7.1%
History
Thiopurines use	3	4.3%
Corticosteroids use	16	22.9%
Acute severe ulcerative colitis	8	11.4%

Risk factors for clinical relapse after dose reduction of 5-ASA

As shown in Table 2, univariate analysis (the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the chi-squared test [or the Fisher exact test] for categorical variables) indicated that a history of steroid use (p = 0.02) and ASUC (p = 0.001) were risk factors for clinical relapse. Sex, age, duration of disease remission, extent of disease, and laboratory findings, such as white blood cell, hemoglobin, platelet, C-reactive protein, and albumin were not associated with clinical relapse. On multivariate analysis that included significant variables from the univariate analysis, ASUC was identified as an independent predictive factor for clinical relapse (p = 0.024, Odds Ratio- OR-: 21, 95% Confidence Interval- CI-: 1.50–293.2) (Table 3). Based on Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, the cumulative relapse-free survival rate within 52 weeks was 22.2% for patients with a history of ASUC, compared with 82.0% for those without. The log-rank test showed a statistically significant difference between patients with a history of ASUC and those without (p < 0.001) (Fig 2).

Table 2

Univariate comparison between the patients who relapsed and those who maintained remission.

	Remission	Relapse	Odds ratio	95% CI	p value
Total number of patients	52 (74.3%)	18 (25.7%)
Male gender	31 (44.3)	12 (17.1%)	0.74	0.24–2.28	0.78
Age, years	44 (21–81)	44 (20–76)			0.989
Age at diagnosis, years	35 (17–78)	34.5 (21–66)			0.682
Duration of disease, years	3 (0–37)	6 (0–28)			0.184
Duration of disease remission, years	1 (0–10)	1 (0–9)			0.594
Extension of disease
Pancolitis	23 (32.9%)	5 (7.1%)	0.41	0.11–1.49	0.207
Left-side colitis	14 (20.0%)	5 (7.1%)	0.67	0.18–2.54	0.739
Proctitis	15 (21.4%)	8 (11.4%)	Reference
Partial mayo score:1	4 (5.7%)	1 (1.4%)	0.71	0.074–6.77	1
Type of oral 5-ASA
Pentasa	32 (45.7%)	11 (15.7%)	1.02	0.34–3.05	1
Asacol	20 (28.6%)	7 (10.0%)	Reference
White blood cell count, 103/μl	5.7 (3.7–11.3)	5.6 (4.5–14.2)			0.31
Hemoglobin, g/dl	13.95 (9.7–16.5)	14.5 (8.9–16.7)			0.377
Platelet, 103/μl	225 (115–553)	216.5 (147–354)			0.895
Albumin, g/dl	4.4 (3.7–5.2)	4.5 (3.9–5)			0.239
C-reactive protein ≥ 3mg/L	4 (5.7%)	1 (1.4%)	0.69	0.71–6.62	1
History
Thiopurines use	1 (1.4%)	2 (2.9%)	6.38	0.54–75.01	0.16
Corticosteroids use	8 (11.4%)	8 (11.4%)	4.4	1.33–14.55	0.02
Acute severe ulcerative colitis	2 (2.9%)	7 (10.0%)	15.91	2.90–87.23	0.001

Table 3

Multivariable logistic regression analysis of independent variables associated with relapse during the 52 weeks after reducing the dose of oral 5-ASA.

	Odds ratio	95% CI	p value
History
Corticosteroids use	0.733	0.08–6.79	0.785
Acute severe ulcerative colitis	21	1.50–293.2	0.024

Fig 2

Cumulative relapse-free survival rate with and without a history of ASUC.

Relapse after oral 5-ASA dose reduction

Patients were followed up for a median of 105 weeks (range: 5–298 weeks) after reducing the dose of 5-ASA (Fig 3). In total, 31 (44.3%) of the 70 patients relapsed at a median of 46 weeks (range: 5–266 weeks) after dose reduction. On Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, the estimated overall cumulative relapse-free survival rate was 74.3% at 52 weeks.

Fig 3

Overall cumulative relapse-free survival rate after reducing the dose of oral 5-ASA.

Reinduction therapy

Of the 18 patients who experienced a relapse, 11 were treated with a high dose of oral 5-ASA, six with a high dose of oral 5-ASA and topical therapy, and one with oral corticosteroids as induction therapy. All patients subsequently achieved remission. None of the patients were hospitalized.

Discussion

As shown in a meta-analysis, 5-ASA is safe and useful as maintenance therapy for UC [4], although there was insufficient evidence regarding the optimal dose of 5-ASA, and the risk factors for relapse after reducing the dose of 5-ASA were unknown. In the present study, 78% of patients with a history of ASUC relapsed at 52 weeks, compared with 18% of patients without a history of ASUC, indicating that patients with a history of ASUC are at a higher risk of relapse after a reduction in the dose of 5-ASA than those without a history of ASUC.

A total of 15% to 25% of patients with UC develop ASUC, which is a life-threatening condition, and require hospitalization [14, 17]. Very few studies to date have analyzed the long-term outcomes of patients with ASUC, particularly with respect to maintenance therapy [18, 19]. The ECCO recently considered that ASUC was an indicator of disabling disease, and that there was a need for accelerated step-up treatment strategies, i.e., thiopurine should be used for patients who are naïve to immunomodulators, and for patients who are refractory to thiopurine, and biological agents should then be used [5]. In this study, all patients with a history of ASUC were treated with intravenous steroids (IVS), whereas none of them were treated with anti-TNF agents or cyclosporine. The Toronto consensus recommends 5-ASA or immunomodulators as maintenance therapy for ASUC after induction therapy with IVS [20]. Several studies have reported the long-term prognosis of maintenance therapy for ASUC responding to IVS. Lotte et al. found that 39.8% (74/186) of patients experiencing one or more episodes of ASUC underwent a colectomy (OR: 11.81, 95% CI: 6.95–20.08, p < 0.0001) [14]. Salameh et al. reported relapse-free survival in 142 patients with ASUC on various maintenance therapy regimens who responded to IVS. After discharge from hospital, 90 (63.4%) of the patients experienced a relapse during their maintenance therapy, including 41 (69.5%), 37 (61.7%), and 9 (39.1%) patients who were treated with 5-ASA, immunomodulators, and biological agents, respectively. In addition, an early response to IVS and maintenance therapy with anti-TNF agents rather than 5-ASA or immunomodulators were associated with a lower rate of relapse [21].

Several studies reported that a history of steroid treatment was associated with a poor prognosis in UC patients [22-24]. Assessing the Safety and Clinical Efficacy of a New Dose of 5-ASA III trial, a multicenter, randomized, and double-blind study, assessed the efficacy and safety of treatment with 2.4 g/day and 4.8 g/day of mesalamine for 6 weeks in 772 patients with moderately active UC. A therapeutic advantage of 4.8 g/day was found in patients previously treated with corticosteroids, oral mesalamine, rectal therapy, or multiple UC medications. [24]. Fukuda et al. reported that the risk factors for clinical relapse in the low-dose mesalamine group were shorter duration to disease remission (p = 0.003, OR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.13–1.89) and history of steroid use (p = 0.048, OR: 4.73, 95% CI: 1.01–22.2) [12]. Our results suggest that patients with a history of ASUC tend to have a higher rate of relapse than patients with a history of steroid use.

Duration of disease remission was not a risk factor for relapse. Although the overall recurrence rate of UC after 52 weeks was 25.7% in patients treated with oral 5-ASA in this study, the Cochrane review of 2016 reported that 41% of patients had experienced a relapse [4]. The reason for the low relapse rate in our study may be because many patients achieved long-term maintenance of remission or had high treatment adherence. Fukuda et al. emphasized that patients with frequent relapse should maintain remission with a high dose of oral 5-ASA [12]. In a prospective cohort study of 92 patients with UC during remission, Riley et al. reported that predictors of relapse were a shorter time from the previous relapse and a higher previous relapse rate [25]. The second reason is that the patients enrolled in this study, although including patients with ASUC, were not treated with anti-TNF agents or calcineurin inhibitors. In this regard, we considered that patients with refractory UC were not included in this analysis. Therefore, the relapse rate with dose reduction may not be so high.

Reducing the dose of 5-ASA may lead to an improvement of medication adherence and a reduction in medical expenses. Problems such as a high dose of 5-ASA and decreased adherence to medication may result in a higher rate of relapse [26, 27]. Khan et al. reported that there was no significant difference in the risk of relapse between a high and a low mesalamine dose in patients with high and moderate adherence [28]. The adherence rate for 5-ASA was found to be generally low in clinical practice, which likely resulted in the five-fold increase in the risk of recurrence, an increased risk of colorectal cancer, lower quality of life, and higher health care costs in both inpatient and outpatient setting [29, 30]. On the other hand, the relapse rate may increase due to lower doses of 5-ASA. The annual cost per patient was estimated to be £1,693 for UC patients in remission, £2,903 for patients with mild to moderate UC, and £10,760 in patients with severe UC [31]. In addition to cost, relapses reduce patients’ quality of life and productivity. 5-ASA has fewer side effects than other treatments for UC, so 5-ASA dose reductions should be used with caution.

The present study has some limitations. First, our study was a single-center, retrospective cohort study. Second, colonoscopy was not done in many of the patients, so the mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) was not included. There were 29 patients who received colonoscopy within 3 months prior to dose reduction of oral 5-ASA and 48 patients within 1 year (S1 Appendix). We did not determine criteria for reducing the dose of 5-ASA, and left it to the judgment of the doctor in charge. In patients in whom colonoscopy data were unavailable, attending physicians often reduced the dose of 5-ASA during clinical remission. Several studies have shown that endoscopic mucosal healing was associated with long-term disease remission. A post-hoc analysis of the Active Ulcerative Colitis Trials 1 and 2 trials found that patients who achieved an endoscopy score of 0 in week 8 had a four-fold increase in the likelihood of remission in week 30 [32, 33]. A prospective randomized controlled trial multicenter study should be performed in the future to confirm our results. In addition, as this study was conducted only on Japanese patients, patients of other races should also be analyzed in the future.

Conclusion

Patients with a history of ASUC have an increased risk of relapse compared with patients without a history of ASUC. Therefore, 5-ASA doses should be reduced with caution in patients with a history of ASUC, as it is more likely to induce a relapse than in patients without a history of ASUC.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

7 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-04470

Predictive factors of relapse after dose reduction of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid in patients with ulcerative colitis in the remission phase

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Madarame,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We have revived the opinions of expert reviewers as agree with reviewers comments raised a few concerns about this study. We invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript, please consider and address each of the comments raised by the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 19 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Senthilnathan Palaniyandi, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please ensure that you have discussed whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data/samples from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3.  Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0187737

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This article is a study to determine the factors involved in the relapse in patients with ulcerative colitis in clinical remission when 5-ASA is reduced.

Although this is a fascinating retrospective study, there are several issues to be addressed.

1.Based on the current concept of T2T2, it is desirable to aim for mucosal healing (Mayo0) in maintaining long-term remission of ulcerative colitis. As the authors know, about 50% of patients present with endoscopic Mayo 1 or higher even when clinical remission is achieved. Thus, relapse may be related to endoscopic activity. Therefore, the endoscopic scores of the patients should have been shown in this study before starting the reduction of 5-ASA should be presented, although the author has described the limitation.

2. Patients enrolled in this study have not been treated with anti-TNF agents or calcineurin inhibitors, although patients with ASUC are included. In this regard, this reviewer considered that patients with refractory UC were not included in this analysis. Therefore, the relapse rate with dose reduction may not be so high. This reviewer speculates that patient-based factors may have contributed to no significant difference of duration of remission, etc., between relapser and non-relapser.

2 The authors should show fecal calprotectin before 5-ASA dose reduction.

3. The total amount of steroids used should be presented,

4. Exactly, the reduction of the 5-ASA dose can certainly reduce medical costs. However, the authors should consider the further increase in medical costs, decreased productivity, and decreased QOL of patients with UC if patients relapse after reducing 5-ASA. Therefore, the reduction of 5-ASA dose should be made with caution because 5-ASA has fewer side effects than other treatments. The authors should discuss the advantage and disadvantages of the 5-ASA reduction more and more.

Reviewer #2: The authors state that the patients who underwent combination therapy for UC, including corticosteroids, were excluded from the study. However, they also state that 22.9% of patients included in the study have used corticosteroids. Please explain.

Figures: Add Y-axes labels. Improve figure quality and appearance.

Typo: Last but one line: traial

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

20 Jun 2021

We have carefully considered the points raised and made corrections. For more information, see Response to Reviewers.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_Madarame.docx

Click here for additional data file.

21 Jul 2021

Predictive factors of relapse after dose reduction of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid in patients with ulcerative colitis in the remission phase

PONE-D-21-04470R1

Dear Dr. Madarame,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Senthilnathan Palaniyandi, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The author could not respond to all the comments of this reviewer. However, this reviewer judged that the author responded appropriately to the other contents. The quality of the English is somewhat poor, so this reviewer recommend that a native speaker check this manuscript again.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

26 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-04470R1

Predictive factors of relapse after dose reduction of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid in patients with ulcerative colitis in the remission phase

Dear Dr. Madarame:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Senthilnathan Palaniyandi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE