That rectal 5asa is superior to oral for UP and rectosigmoiditis has been around for years. The compliance issue ,which I think is bogus, is the reason doctors don't use it. Oral and rectal for extensive disease has been around many years also. Again compliance and cost. The cost issue does make sense if your are treating somebody with less severe disease. Incidentally 5asa enemas every third day exceed 2.4 g daily of asacol for maintenance.
I asked for balasalzide after reading the clinical trials. The trials either point to superiority or just a slight edge for distal and left side. Articles since these trials make claims that in practice balasalazide is not as good as expected. These are never backed up. I assume doctors are switching people that asacol
didn't work on then comparing these people to those that asacol did work on. Faulty logic.
The new things in the article to me were that it explained how they figure out where the various pills deposit 5ASA. They are collecting mucous samples! The other is the idea of mixing various oral meds. This maybe a breakthrough idea for people with non-typical UC and crohns. The last new thing is the idea that IBD is not just UC and Crohns but a whole array of diseases with similar symptoms. Well actually that gets talked about
here all the time.
If you want some easier reading to back up the article try this:
/www.med.upenn.edu/gastro/documents/ACGguidelinesforulcerativecolitis.pdfPDF download
Post Edited (AZYooper) : 7/29/2011 5:59:56 PM (GMT-6)