ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2019
Switching between Three Types of Mesalazine Formulation and Sulfasalazine in Patients with Active Ulcerative Colitis Who Have Already Received High-Dose Treatment with These Agents.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of 5-aminosalicylic acid intolerance on progression to difficult-to-treat ulcerative colitis: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Sulfasalazine Therapy Following Mesalazine Treatment Failure in Children with Ulcerative Colitis.Pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition · 2026Article
- Potential of pharmacogenetics in treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases - a danish report overview from 2000 - 2024.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2026Review
- Multidisciplinary management of acute osteoporotic vertebral fracture: results of a national Delphi consensus.Archives of osteoporosis · 2026Article
- Elevated Serum Protease 3 Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody in Mesalazine-Intolerant Ulcerative Colitis: A Potential Diagnostic Biomarker.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Fluorescent Properties of Mesalazine-Loaded Hydrogel Nanocomposites for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis.Journal of fluorescence · 2025Article
- Article
- Current Pharmacologic Options and Emerging Therapeutic Approaches for the Management of Ulcerative Colitis: A Narrative Review.Spartan medical research journal · 2024Review
- pH-dependent vs. constant release of mesalazine in the treatment of ulcerative colitis: Do drug delivery concepts determine therapeutic efficacy? (Review).Biomedical reports · 2021Review
- Real-World Adherence and Relapse Risk in Mesalamine Treatment for Ulcerative Colitis: Insights from a Large Japanese Medical Claims Database.Inflammatory intestinal diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimOral mesalazine and sulfasalazine (SASP) are key drugs for treating ulcerative colitis (UC). The efficacy of switching from one of the several mesalazine formulations to another is largely unknown. This study assessed the efficacy of switching among three types of mesalazine formulation and SASP for UC therapy.
methodsUC patients receiving high-dose mesalazine/SASP who switched to other formulations due to disease activity were considered eligible. Efficacy was evaluated 2, 6, and 12 months after switching.
resultsA total of 106 switches in 88 UC patients were analyzed. The efficacy at 2 months after switching was observed in 23/39 (59%) cases from any mesalazine formulation to SASP, in 18/55 (33%) cases from one mesalazine to another, and in 2/12 (17%) cases from SASP to any mesalazine formulation. Nine of 43 effective cases showed inefficacy or became intolerant post-switching. Delayed efficacy more than two months after switching was observed in four cases. Steroid-free remission was achieved in 42/106 (39%) cases-within 100 days in 35 of these cases (83%).
conclusionsSwitching from mesalazine to SASP was effective in more than half of cases. The efficacy of switching between mesalazine formulations was lower but may be worth attempting in clinical practice from a safety perspective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.