Background and aim: Evidence exists for the pathogenic role of the enteric flora in inflammatory bowel disease. Probiotics contain living microorganisms which exert health effects on the host. We compared the efficacy in maintaining remission of the probiotic preparation Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 and established therapy with mesalazine in patients with ulcerative colitis. Patients and methods: In total, 327 patients were recruited and assigned to a double blind, double dummy trial to receive either the probiotic drug 200 mg once daily (n = 162) or mesalazine 500 mg three times daily (n = 165). The study lasted for 12 months and patients were assessed by clinical and endoscopic activity indices (Rachmilewitz) as well as by histology. The primary aim of the study was to confirm equivalent efficacy of the two drugs in the prevention of relapses. Results: The per protocol analysis revealed relapses in 40/110 (36.4%) patients in the E coli Nissle 1917 group and 38/112 (33.9%) in the mesalazine group (significant equivalence p = 0.003). Subgroup analyses showed no differences between the treatment groups in terms of duration and localisation of disease or pretrial treatment. Safety profile and tolerability were very good for both groups and were not different. Conclusions: The probiotic drug E coli Nissle 1917 shows efficacy and safety in maintaining remission equivalent to the gold standard mesalazine in patients with ulcerative colitis. The effectiveness of probiotic treatment further underlines the pathogenetic significance of the enteric flora.

Background Aminosalicylates are used as standard treatment for maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis. As yet, there is no other existing alternative with proven efficacy. In light of the hypothesis that the intestinal environment may contribute to the pathophysiology of ulcerative colitis, a trial was conducted to test the effects of probiotic treatment with an oral preparation of non‐pathogenic E. coli. Methods A total of 120 patients with inactive ulcerative colitis were included in a double‐blind, double‐dummy study comparing mesalazine 500 mg t.d.s. to an oral preparation of viable E. coli strain Nissle (Serotype 06: K5: H1) for 12 weeks with regard to their efficacy in preventing a relapse of the disease. Study objectives were to assess the equivalence of the clinical activity index (CAI) under the two treatment modalities and to compare relapse rates, relapse‐free times and global assessment. Results The start and end scores of the CAI demonstrated no significant difference (P=0.12) between the two treatment groups. Relapse rates were 11.3% under mesalazine and 16.0% under E. coli Nissle 1917 (N.S.). Life table analysis showed a relapse‐free time of 103±4 days for mesalazine and 106±5 days for E. coli Nissle 1917 (N.S.). Global assessment was similar for both groups. Tolerability to the treatment was excellent and did not differ. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions From the results of this preliminary study, probiotic treatment appears to offer another option for maintenance therapy of ulcerative colitis. Additional support is provided for the hypothesis of a pathophysiological role for the intestinal environment in ulcerative colitis.

No abstract

SUMMARYBackground: Mesalazine as the treatment standard for ulcerative colitis can be applied in different galenical preparations. Aim: A novel formulation of mesalazine pellets with delayed and prolonged release characteristics was compared with conventional Eudragit L-coated tablets. Furthermore, the effect of mesalazine dose escalation on nonresponders was evaluated in both treatment groups. Methods: A total of 233 patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis were randomized to receive either mesalazine (1.5 g/day in three doses) as pellets

SUMMARY BackgroundThere are no comparative studies of coated mesalazine.