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

Abstract

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.