An official website of the United States government
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Authors; Sara D. Khangura, and Carolyn Spry.
Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a form of irritable bowel syndrome.1,2 UC is an immune-mediated, chronic illness that affects the rectum and can extend into the colon causing diarrhea, abdominal pain, and bowel frequency.3-5 Active UC is categorized as mild, moderate, or severe depending on the extent to which the colon is involved and the severity of the symptoms of the disease.3,6 The severity of the disease often worsens; it has been estimated that more than half of patients develop disease progression over time.5 UC can also increase the risk of developing colorectal cancer.2,4,5
The prevalence of UC has been estimated at 249 cases per 100,000 people in North America and 505 cases per 100,000 people in Europe.7 Canada has reported some of the highest estimates; in 2018, it was estimated that 120,000 people in Canada were affected.8 UC is usually characterized by flares of illness and periods of remission, with active periods causing deleterious effects on quality of life and productivity,3,9 or more severe outcomes, including hospitalization or death.10 The burden to patients on quality of life is exacerbated by the costs incurred by the disease. One estimate from the US was that the direct costs of treating UC each year were in the billions of dollars in addition to indirect costs, such as loss of productivity.7
The primary goal of treatment for UC is to control disease flares and induce remission, with an aim of maintaining remission over the long-term.2,11 Remission and response to therapy can be measured clinically or endoscopically. A recent focus has been on the importance of endoscopic measurement of mucosal healing due to its association with improved patient outcomes.12 The most common and/or recommended first-line therapy for UC are 5-aminosalicylic acids (5-ASAs), such as mesalamine .3,4,6,7,13,14 Some patients remain refractory to first-line therapy with 5-ASAs and require additional therapeutic options.2 For disease that is refractory to 5-ASAs, systemic corticosteroids, such as prednisolone, are often used.3,9,11 However, systemic corticosteroids can cause side effects, including headache, pain, nausea and/or vomiting, skin rash, and others15 that can be disruptive to daily life, so systemic corticosteroids are tapered in the maintenance phase of the disease.3,6,9,16 Adherence to treatment has also been highlighted as a potential barrier to the effectiveness of treatment, with multiple doses per day and burdensome treatment regimens (including administration both orally and rectally) affecting adherence to therapy.3,5,15
Budesonide delayed and extended release is an oral corticosteroid. It uses a multi-matrix system (MMX) technology, which ensures the tablet remains intact through the stomach and small intestine, releasing the drug throughout the colon.5,7,14,17 The delayed-release property of budesonide MMX distinguishes it from other formulations of budesonide, which are available in either rectal or systemic formulations. Some systemic formulations release the drug starting in the small intestines.18 Budesonide MMX has been described as 1 of several second-line therapies that can be used in patients who are refractory to 5-ASA therapy.11 In comparison to other systemic corticosteroids, budesonide MMX acts locally and has low systemic absorption, which may minimize side effects.3,4,6,9,11,13 The efficacy and safety of budesonide MMX has been assessed in 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (the CORE I and CORE II studies) in patients with mild to moderate UC, demonstrating both efficacy and safety for induction of remission.7,14 However, longer-term use of corticosteroids — including budesonide MMX — for maintenance therapy following remission in UC has been discouraged due to the risk of glucocorticoid-related side effects.2
Based on a CADTH Reimbursement Review clinical report published in 2017,1 the CADTH Canadian Drug Expert Committee (CDEC) recommended that budesonide MMX not be reimbursed for the induction of remission in patients with active mild to moderate UC.19 Specifically, the lack of head-to-head and sufficiently powered evidence describing the efficacy and safety of budesonide MMX versus active comparators was highlighted as an important limitation of the evidence.19 This Rapid Review aims to identify and summarize recent clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence and guidelines regarding the use of budesonide MMX for patients with UC.
An information specialist conducted a literature search on key resources including MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the International HTA Database, the websites of Canadian and major international health technology agencies, and a focused internet search. The search approach was customized to retrieve a limited set of results, balancing comprehensiveness with relevancy. The search strategy comprised both controlled vocabulary, such as the National Library of Medicine’s MeSH (Medical Subject Headings), and keywords. Search concepts were developed based on the elements of the research questions and selection criteria. The main search concepts were Cortiment, budesonide, and ulcerative colitis. The search was completed on August 4, 2023, and limited to English-language documents published since January 1, 2016.
One reviewer screened citations and selected sources. In the first level of screening, titles and abstracts were reviewed and potentially relevant sources were retrieved and assessed for eligibility. The final selection of full-text sources was based on the inclusion criteria presented in Table 1.
Selection Criteria.
Articles were excluded if they did not meet the selection criteria outlined in Table 1, were duplicate publications, were summarized in the previous CADTH Reimbursement Review,1,19 or were published before January 2016. Systematic reviews (SRs) in which all relevant studies were captured in other more recent or more comprehensive SRs or meta-analyses (MAs) were excluded. Primary studies retrieved by the search were excluded if they were captured in 1 or more included SRs or MAs. In addition, SRs, MAs, network meta-analyses (NMAs), and primary studies that contained only clinical data already summarized in the previous CADTH report presenting evidence on budesonide extended release for UC1 were excluded. Guidelines with unclear methodology were also excluded.
The included publications were critically appraised by 1 reviewer using the following tools as a guide: the Questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of a network meta-analysis20 for NMAs, the Downs and Black checklist21 for randomized and nonrandomized studies, the Drummond checklist22 for economic evaluations, and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument23 for guidelines. Summary scores were not calculated for the included studies; rather, the strengths and limitations of each included publication were described narratively.
A total of 110 citations were identified in the electronic literature database search. Following screening of titles and abstracts, 83 citations were excluded, and 27 potentially relevant reports were retrieved for full-text review. One potentially relevant publication was retrieved from the grey literature search for full-text review. Of these potentially relevant articles, 20 publications were excluded for various reasons, and 8 publications met the inclusion criteria (comprising 9 eligible studies; 1 report described both an NMA and a cost-effectiveness study) and were included in this report. These comprised 3 NMAs,24-26 1 RCT,27 1 cost-effectiveness study,25 and 4 evidence-based guidelines.28-31 Figure 1 presents the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)32 flow diagram of the study selection.
Additional references of potential interest are provided in Appendix 5.
This review identified 3 NMAs24-26 and 1 RCT27 that presented data of relevance to research question 1, 1 cost-effectiveness study25 with data of relevance to research question 3, and 4 evidence-based guidelines28-31 with information of relevance to research question 5. One of the NMAs was conducted and reported as part of an economic evaluation;25 the clinical and cost-effectiveness findings were described within the same report and are summarized separately in this report.
The 3 NMAs included data about budesonide MMX from the CORE I and CORE II studies, which compared budesonide MMX with placebo and were previously summarized in a CADTH Reimbursement Review.1 Although the 3 NMAs included comparators that were eligible for this report, they also included additional network comparisons beyond those of interest to this review.24-26 Specifically, 1 NMA included comparisons between different doses of mesalamine and placebo24 and another NMA included comparisons between various types of 5-ASAs, controlled, ileal-release budesonide and placebo.26 One of the NMAs reported on a comparison of budesonide MMX with budesonide 9 mg/day (i.e., Entocort);25 however, these data were described in the previous CADTH Reimbursement Review on this topic1 and are not resummarized in this report. Only the relevant comparisons not previously summarized are described further in this report.
All 3 NMAs specified the use of SR to inform their findings.24-26 Two of the NMAs used a frequentist analytical approach,24,26 whereas 1 reported the use of a Bayesian method.25 For the NMA describing a Bayesian analytical approach, the use of flat (or uninformative) priors was reported.25 One NMA incorporated data from 15 RCTs with 4 network comparators,24 another synthesized data from 5 RCTs with 5 network comparators,25 and the other NMA included 75 RCTs describing 9 network comparators.26
The included RCT report was published in 201727 and used a multicentre, double-blind design. This study was also referenced in the previous CADTH Reimbursement Review but was not summarized in detail in that report because it was only available as an abstract at that time.1
The 2018 cost-effectiveness evaluation used a societal perspective across a 5-year time horizon with clinical inputs informed by published clinical sources as well as the NMA summarized in this report.25 Cost data were taken from sources specific to the Netherlands.25 An 8-state Markov model with various health and treatment states, which included budesonide MMX, other lines of therapy, remission, and death.25
Four evidence-based guidelines were identified. One was from the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO)28 and 1 was from the Pan American Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (PANCCO),29 both published in 2022.28,29 Two other evidence-based guidelines were identified, 1 from the American College of Gastroenterology30 and 1 from the British Society of Gastroenterology,31 both published in 2019.30,31 Three of the evidence-based guidelines clearly reported the use of SR to synthesize evidence informing development of the guideline,28,29,31 whereas 1 described evidence but did not clearly report the methods used for evidence assembly and/or synthesis.30 All 4 of the evidence-based guidelines reported the use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) for rating the quality of the evidence used to develop recommendations and included information on the strength of each recommendation.28-31 Three of the evidence-based guidelines clearly reported a consensus-based process for drafting recommendations,28,29,31 while 1 did not.30
The first authors of the NMAs were based in Italy,24 France,25 and the US.26 The included RCT was multinational and multicentre, with study centres in Canada, the US, and Europe.27 The economic evaluation produced cost-effectiveness estimates specific to the Netherlands.25 The evidence-based guidelines did not specify the jurisdictions to which they are intended to be applied,28-31 although ECCO is based in Europe, PANCCO comprises South American countries, the American College of Gastroenterology is based in the US, and the British Society of Gastroenterology is based in the UK.
All of the included studies reporting on clinical and cost-effectiveness24-27 specified a focus on patients with mild to moderate UC.
Of the included guidelines, 2 were focused on patients with mild, moderate, or severe UC,28,30 1 stated a focus on UC without specifying disease severity,29 and 1 was general to inflammatory bowel disease (including patients with UC)31 although all recommendations of relevance to this report were specific to patients with mild to moderate disease.28-31 Intended users of the included evidence-based guidelines were specified as clinicians and health care providers by 2 guidelines,28,31 and were not clearly stated by the other 2 guidelines.29,30
All the included sources described data and information addressing the use of budesonide MMX.24-31 Two NMAs,24,25 1 RCT,27 the cost-effectiveness study,25 and 1 evidence-based guideline30 specified a focus on the use of budesonide MMX at a dose of 9 mg/day, whereas 1 NMA,26 and 3 guidelines28,29,31 did not report the dose or scheduling of interest. In addition, the RCT specified that budesonide MMX or placebo was added to existing oral mesalamine therapy, which was being administered at baseline.27
Comparators described within the clinical and cost-effectiveness studies included 5-ASAs (i.e., mesalamine, sulfasalazine, olsalazine, balsalazide, or not reported),24,26 corticosteroids (i.e., prednisolone, other formulations of budesonide),25,26 and placebo.24,25,27 Another NMA also reported data on a placebo as a comparator for budesonide MMX;26 however, these data were based only on studies previously reviewed by CADTH,1 and were not included or summarized again in this report.
All 4 studies reporting on clinical effectiveness incorporated data on the clinical benefits of budesonide MMX,24-27 3 of which included data on induction of remission.24-27 Induction of remission was specified as clinical and/or endoscopic, with 3 studies presenting a composite outcome describing both clinical and endoscopic remission,24,25,27 3 studies presenting data on clinical remission only,25-27 and 2 studies describing endoscopic remission only.26,27 Other outcomes describing clinical benefit included histologic healing, clinical improvement (including measures of stool frequency, rectal bleeding, appearance of mucosa on sigmoidoscopy, and physician’s disease severity assessment), and quality of life.27
Three of the studies reporting on clinical effectiveness incorporated data on the clinical harms of budesonide MMX,24,26,27 including treatment discontinuation and/or study withdrawal,24,26 adverse events (AEs),27 and serious AEs.24
The economic evaluation reported on mean costs in euros, mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expressed as euros per QALY gained.25
The evidence-based guidelines made recommendations about the induction of remission.
Additional details about the included publications are provided in Appendix 2.
The included NMAs described populations, interventions, outcomes, and context relevant and applicable to the current review. The trials included connected networks of RCTs, which were displayed using graphical representations.24-26 The SR methods were appropriate in 2 of the NMAs, including information describing appropriate searches and selection criteria,24,26 whereas 1 NMA did not describe the SR methods in detail (i.e., a reference to a systematic literature search was reported with no detail provided about the methods for the search, although study selection criteria were provided).25 Authors of all 3 NMAs described assessment of inconsistency, reporting that no or very little inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons was present. However, none of the articles included data from the findings of their assessments.24-26 Potential conflicts of interest were included in all 3 reports, yet none of the NMA reports discussed the potential effects of these conflicts of interest on the findings of the studies.24-26 Conclusions were generally fair and balanced, reflecting the findings as described.24-26
Limitations of the NMAs included several single-study connections, lack of clarity concerning the extent to which bias may have influenced the findings, with some trials demonstrating unclear risk of bias in 2 NMAs24,26 and no description of an assessment of risk of bias in 1 NMA.25 The 3 NMAs did not provide a clear rationale for selection of the modelling methods used (i.e., fixed versus random effects), did not report individual study results, or report the findings of both direct and indirect effect estimates.24-26 Although a description of the assessment of heterogeneity was provided in 2 NMAs,24,26 1 NMA did not describe an assessment of heterogeneity.25 All 3 NMAs acknowledged that heterogeneity between RCTs included in their analyses could limit their findings (including variable definitions and/or measurement of outcomes), although none were specific about how these limitations might impact the interpretation of findings.24-26 Finally, none of the 3 NMAs made it clear whether statistical methods to preserve within-study randomization were used.24-26 This could represent a major limitation of the analyses in the event that naive, indirect comparisons that fail to account for treatment effects across studies were made.20
The RCT clearly reported the study objectives, patient characteristics, main outcomes, findings, and AEs.27 External validity may have been supported by a multinational, multicentre design in the RCT, although it was unclear whether the study centres and health care facilities were representative of those used in the general population.27 Methods to support internal validity were generally robust in the RCT, with a randomized, double-blind design, statistical methods to account for losses to follow-up, study withdrawals and missing data for the remission outcome (i.e., imputation using a worst case scenario, in which missing data were considered to be nonresponse), and the use of valid, reliable outcome measures.27 A power calculation specific to remission as an end point was reported by the authors of the RCT. Although the study did not retain the predicted necessary number of patients to inform the efficacy analyses, statistically significant between-group differences were observed for the primary end point.27
The economic evaluation provided a clear description of its research objectives, viewpoint, appropriate rationale for the choice of comparators (i.e., in accordance with Dutch clinical practice and guidance), outcomes, and appropriate sources for clinical and cost data (i.e., published clinical data and findings from the supporting NMA).25 Key methods were reported clearly, including details of the modelling used and sensitivity analyses undertaken.25 Limitations included limited information on patients from whom valuations were obtained, and a lack of confidence intervals for main outcome data. Importantly, data for comparators (i.e., alternative formulations of budesonide) were also presented aggregately,25 preventing the reader from understanding the comparative cost-effectiveness of budesonide MMX with individual comparators.
The scope and purpose of the 4 evidence-based guidelines were clearly described.28-31 Stakeholder involvement was clear and robust in 1 guideline,31 although 2 guidelines did not clearly describe the composition of the guideline development groups28,30 and 1 did not explicitly describe the involvement of patients or the public.29 The rigour of development was generally robust for 3 of the included guidelines.28,29,31 One guideline did not clearly describe systematic methods for evidence assembly, methods for developing recommendations, external review, or a procedure for updating the guideline.30 Three of the included guidelines demonstrated clear presentation of recommendations,28,30,31 whereas 1 guideline made reference to the strength of the recommendation being conditional on the strategy used, but did not make clear which strategies they were referring to.29 One guideline provided resources to support application of the guideline in practice,28 while the remaining 3 did not.29-31 Editorial independence was clearly demonstrated in 3 of the guidelines,28,29,31 but was not clear in 1 guideline.30
Additional details regarding the strengths and limitations of included publications are provided in Appendix 3.
This Rapid Review identified 3 NMAs24-26 and 1 RCT27 presenting findings regarding the clinical effectiveness of budesonide MMX for the induction of remission in patients with mild to moderate UC. All data describing budesonide MMX in the 3 NMAs were derived from the CORE I and CORE II studies, which compared budesonide MMX with placebo and were previously summarized in a CADTH Reimbursement Review.1
One economic evaluation25 about the cost-effectiveness of budesonide MMX for induction of remission in patients with mild to moderate UC, and 4 evidence-based guidelines28-31 regarding the use of budesonide MMX for the management of UC were identified.
Appendix 4 presents the main study findings.
The clinical evidence indicated that treatment with budesonide MMX demonstrated a benefit in terms of remission and clinical response compared to placebo in patients with mild to moderate UC. However, indirect comparisons between budesonide MMX and other active comparators did not clearly demonstrate a difference favouring 1 treatment. In terms of quality of life and AEs, no consistent differences between budesonide MMX and placebo were observed. Indirect comparisons between treatment with budesonide MMX and other active therapies also did not demonstrate a clear or consistent difference in AEs.
Detailed data can be found in Table 10.
Two studies (1 NMA and 1 RCT) reported on a composite measure of clinical and endoscopic remission,24,27 with both describing a comparison of treatment with budesonide MMX versus placebo.24,27 The NMA also reported on a comparison with both low-dose and high-dose mesalamine.24
Three studies (2 NMAs and 1 RCT) reported on clinical remission. One NMA and 1 RCT described the odds or probability of clinical remission of treatment with budesonide MMX versus placebo,25,27 1 NMA described the odds of clinical remission of treatment with budesonide MMX versus 5-ASAs (including oral and topical diazo-bonded mesalamine and sulfasalazine),26 and 2 NMAs described the odds of clinical remission of treatment with budesonide MMX compared with other formulations of budesonide.25,26
Two studies (1 NMA and 1 RCT) reported on endoscopic remission. The RCT described the probability of endoscopic remission of treatment with budesonide MMX versus placebo,27 and the NMA described the odds of endoscopic remission of treatment with budesonide MMX versus 5-ASAs (including oral and topical diazo-bonded mesalamine and sulfasalazine) and controlled ileal-release budesonide.26
Outcomes describing clinical and/or endoscopic response were reported in the RCT, which described treatment with budesonide MMX compared to placebo. A statistically significant improvement favouring budesonide MMX was found in histologic healing, whereas there was no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in clinical improvement at 8 weeks of follow-up.27 Detailed data can be found in Table 11.
One RCT described quality of life and found no statistically significant difference between treatment with budesonide MMX and placebo at 2 and 8 weeks of follow-up. A statistically significant benefit of treatment with budesonide MMX at 4 weeks of follow-up was reported27 (no information on minimally importance difference was reported). Detailed data can be found in Table 12.
Three studies reported on AEs.24,26,27 One NMA and 1 RCT described a comparison between treatment with budesonide MMX and placebo,24,27 2 NMAs reported on treatment with budesonide MMX versus 5-ASAs (i.e., mesalamine, sulfasalazine, diazo-bonded and oral and topical 5-ASAs),24,26 and 1 NMA described comparisons between treatment with budesonide MMX and other corticosteroids (i.e., ileal-release budesonide and prednisolone).26 Detailed data can be found in Table 13.
Compared with placebo:
Compared with 5-ASAs:
Compared with other corticosteroids:
No relevant evidence specific to active moderate to severe UC was identified; therefore, no summary can be provided.
The base-case analysis indicated a benefit of budesonide, with a mean gain of 0.009 QALYs, which the authors attributed to the higher remission rates with budesonide MMX versus the comparators (i.e., alternative formulations of budesonide). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios value was not reported, although the authors indicated that budesonide MMX was dominant (i.e., less costly and more effective).25 One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses produced similar findings, with budesonide MMX demonstrating dominant cost-effectiveness versus most comparators for risk of relapse, hospitalization, surgery, AE costs, mortality, type of treatment, indirect costs, and disease type.25
Detailed findings are presented in Table 14.
No relevant evidence specific to active moderate to severe UC was identified; therefore, no summary can be provided.
Three of the 4 identified evidence-based guidelines make specific recommendations in favour of budesonide MMX for induction of remission in patients with mild or mild to moderately active UC.29-31 One generalizes the recommendation to colonic-release corticosteroids, but references supporting evidence specific to budesonide MMX.28
Of the 3 evidence-based guidelines with recommendations specific to budesonide MMX, 1 includes an associated good practice point that suggests that budesonide MMX be initiated following nonresponse to 5-ASAs, and administered daily at a dose of 9 mg for an 8-week course of therapy.29 Similarly, another evidence-based guideline specifies within the relevant recommendations that budesonide MMX at a dose of 9 mg/day be provided to patients with mild to moderate UC who are nonresponsive to 5-ASAs, with an additional recommendation particular to moderate UC that does not specify whether budesonide MMX should be used as first- or second-line therapy or what the dose or scheduling should be.30 The third evidence-based guideline also indicates that patients who are nonresponsive to 5-ASAs should receive budesonide MMX if they choose not to take systemic corticosteroids (i.e., prednisolone), although the recommendation does not specify dosing or scheduling.31
All the evidence sources referenced in support of the recommendations made in the 4 evidence-based guidelines28-31 were either summarized in the previous CADTH Reimbursement Review (except 1 study which was excluded from the previous CADTH review)1 or summarized in this report (i.e., the included RCT).27 Two of the evidence-based guidelines indicate the quality of evidence informing their recommendations is moderate and that the recommendations are strong.30,31 Another evidence-based guideline indicates that the evidence informing their recommendation is of high quality, but that the recommendation is conditional on the strategy used (however, these strategies are not clear).29 Finally, the recommendation that was general to colonic-release corticosteroids was characterized as weak and described as being based on a low quality of evidence.28
Recommendations specific to the use of budesonide MMX for severe UC were not identified.
A detailed summary of recommendations is presented in Table 15.
Since CADTH’s Reimbursement Review in 2017,1 all direct comparative evidence and recommendations identified by this review described budesonide MMX compared with placebo and most was generated from the CORE I and CORE II studies (which were previously reviewed by CADTH).1 As summarized previously, the CORE I and CORE II studies demonstrated some methodological limitations, including high rates of treatment discontinuation, potential loss of randomization due to exclusion of patients from the intention-to-treat analyses, the observed placebo effects, and insufficient power of both studies to compare budesonide MMX with active treatment arms (i.e., mesalamine and Entocort, respectively).1
No evidence was identified to answer the research questions posed in this report specific to moderate to severe UC. Consequently, no information could be summarized. Similarly, the relevant recommendations made in the evidence-based guidelines identified and summarized in this report were limited to mild to moderate UC.28-31 The potential for overlap in the definitions of mild to moderate and moderate to severe disease was highlighted in 1 of the guidelines included in this review, and has been described as a limitation of the literature describing this topic.28
CADTH summarized evidence comparing budesonide MMX with placebo previously1 and additional primary evidence from 1 RCT describing this comparison was summarized in this report.27 No primary, novel, or direct evidence describing comparisons of budesonide MMX with other active treatments was identified by this review. Indirect comparisons between budesonide MMX and other active therapies (i.e., 5-ASAs and other corticosteroids, including high-dose corticosteroids) were reported by the 3 NMAs summarized in this report.24-26 Methodological limitations of these studies warrant caution in the interpretation of their findings. Although the cost-effectiveness study included immunomodulators and biologics as third- and fourth-line therapies in their Markov model (i.e., 1 drug from each class) no evidence or information was identified comparing budesonide MMX with immunomodulators and biologics. This represents a current gap in the evidence base. Similarly, the evidence upon which the recommendations from the 4 included evidence-based guidelines are based was generated using placebo as the comparator to budesonide MMX,28-31 which limits their applicability for decision-making about the use of budesonide MMX compared with other active therapies.
Most of the clinical evidence and information identified was particular to the induction of remission,24-31 with 1 RCT describing other outcomes, such as clinical response and quality of life.27 Additional studies describing these and a broader range of outcomes (e.g., function, disability) would provide a more complete picture of the clinical effectiveness of budesonide MMX.
Cost-effectiveness data were also limited. One study used clinical data on budesonide MMX from the CORE I and II trials, which have been summarized previously,1 including methodological limitations that could affect the integrity of the model. Further, the economic evaluation was conducted in the Netherlands25 and may be limited in its generalizability to the Canadian context. Although the RCT reported the recruitment of patients in Canada (but did not report the number of centres or patients),27 the other studies and guidelines identified and summarized in this report were not specific to the Canadian context. This lack of data and recommendations specific to the Canadian population may limit generalizability within Canada.
Although there was considerable overlap in the evidence cited to support the recommendations made in the evidence-based guidelines, there was variation observed in the judgments made concerning quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.28-31 The source of this variability was not clear. It could represent differences in the methods used to assess the evidence by the various guideline development groups, although the actual reason for the observed variability is unclear.
This report simplified elements of the SR process by following Rapid Review methods (i.e., limited search strategy, the use of a single reviewer), which is distinct from CADTH Reimbursement Reviews, which rely on formal SR methodology. This report does not replace or formally update the previous CADTH Reimbursement Review.
This report identified evidence and information that was published since the 2017 CADTH Reimbursement Review and related CDEC recommendation against the reimbursement of budesonide MMX.1,19 The evidence and information included 3 NMAs,24-26 1 RCT,27 1 cost-effectiveness study, and 4 evidence-based guidelines28-31 that described data and recommendations specific to mild to moderate UC. No evidence was found about the effect of budesonide MMX in moderate to severe UC. Although the evidence identified in this review is limited to mild to moderate disease, the role of budesonide MMX for more severe forms of UC or across the course of the disease remains uncertain and has been questioned in the literature (e.g., is there a role for budesonide MMX as first-line therapy or in the maintenance of remission?).13 Additional research is also needed to clarify the potential role of budesonide MMX in longer-term therapy (i.e., for maintenance of remission).6,11
Data describing the clinical effectiveness of budesonide MMX compared with placebo remain consistent with the previous CADTH Reimbursement Review.1 The 1 RCT27 and 2 NMAs (which relied primarily on the CORE I and II trials)24,25 reported statistically significant improvement in clinical and/or endoscopic remission in patients receiving budesonide MMX.24,25,27 Similarly, the RCT summarized in this report found no statistically significant difference in clinical improvement or consistent difference in quality of life between budesonide MMX and placebo,27 which is consistent with the previous CADTH report.1 One finding from the RCT summarized in this report that differed from the findings describing the CORE I study in the previous CADTH report was histologic healing. The previous CADTH report found no difference between budesonide MMX and placebo as reported in CORE I,1 but the RCT from this report found a statistically significant benefit of budesonide MMX.27 The previous CADTH report did describe a statistically significant benefit of budesonide MMX for histologic healing in the CORE II study.1 In addition, the RCT summarized in this report added budesonide MMX to concomitant mesalamine, unlike the CORE I and CORE II studies summarized previously, which did not allow for concomitant use of mesalamine.1 It is not clear whether this or other possible differences between the studies may or may not account for the difference observed in histologic healing with the findings of from the CORE I study. Of relevance to this outcome, there is commentary in the literature describing an evolution of the goals of treatment for UC, with priorities shifting toward histologic and endoscopic healing3,10,33 as evidence builds to demonstrate their positive impact on such downstream outcomes as disease flares and hospitalizations.7 The potential for these outcomes to be prioritized could affect the way evidence is produced and/or treatments are assessed, provided, and sequenced.
No primary data or direct comparisons comparing budesonide MMX with other active therapies were identified in this review, which corroborates the findings of the previous CADTH report.1 The current lack of head-to-head comparative data between budesonide MMX and other active therapies has also been highlighted in the literature as a gap in the evidence.13 Most indirect comparisons between budesonide MMX and other therapies (i.e., 5-ASAs and other corticosteroids, including high-dose corticosteroids) indicated no statistically significant difference between treatment groups for induction of remission.24-26 Some indirect comparisons with 5-ASAs indicated statistically significantly fewer treatment discontinuations or study withdrawals with 5-ASAs compared with budesonide MMX.24,26 The lack of any comparative clinical evidence between budesonide MMX and immunomodulators or biologics has also been highlighted in the literature as an opportunity for further exploration in the treatment of UC.6,10,11
Cost-effectiveness data were also limited. One study specific to the Netherlands indicated dominant cost-effectiveness of budesonide MMX as a second-line therapy versus aggregated comparators.25 The authors highlighted the comparable (or marginally higher) gains in QALYs with lower costs as the drivers of cost-effectiveness in most of the analyses.25 These findings are consistent with CADTH’s previous pharmacoeconomic assessment of budesonide MMX, which used similar clinical outputs from CORE I and II, and also highlighted important limitations (i.e., a lack of direct comparative clinical evidence between budesonide MMX and active comparators).34 Recently published evidence-based guidelines made recommendations that generally favour the use of budesonide MMX — often as second-line therapy — in mild to moderate UC. However, these recommendations were based on evidence that was limited to comparisons of budesonide MMX with placebo.28-31
Limited data describing patient-oriented outcomes is also an opportunity for additional research on this topic. For instance, burdensome first-line treatment regimens for UC, with multiple doses per day, have been identified as a potential barrier for patient adherence to therapy.3,5 Budesonide MMX, with its once-daily oral administration, may offer patient-oriented benefits to those living with UC.4 The importance of a once-daily formula that requires less time and vigilance for patients than more frequently dosed formulations, as well as relative tolerability, may benefit patient preference and satisfaction, potentially improving treatment adherence, patient quality of life, and costs to health systems.7 Nonetheless, these potential benefits have yet to be supported by high-quality data.5
In conclusion, CADTH recommended against the reimbursement of budesonide MMX for mild to moderate UC in 2017. This was largely due to the lack of direct comparative evidence with other active therapies.19 Similarly, this review did not identify evidence describing direct comparisons of budesonide MMX with other active therapies. Further research is needed to evaluate the role of budesonide MMX in treating moderate to severe UC and its cost-effectiveness specific to the Canadian context. Decision-makers may also consider patient preferences and the potential benefits related to budesonide MMX’s once-daily oral administration.
5-aminosalicylic acid
adverse event
meta-analysis
multi-matrix system
network meta-analysis
quality-adjusted life-year
randomized controlled trial
systematic review
ulcerative colitis
Contributors: Calvin Young, Elizabeth Carson, Matthew McDonald
Selection of Included Studies.
Characteristics of Included Network Meta-Analyses.
Characteristics of Included Primary Clinical Study.
Characteristics of Included Economic Evaluation.
Characteristics of Included Guidelines.
Note that this appendix has not been copy-edited.
Strengths and Limitations of Systematic Reviews With Network Meta-Analyses Using the ISPOR Questionnaire.
Strengths and Limitations of Clinical Study Using the Downs and Black Checklist.
Strengths and Limitations of Economic Evaluation Using the Drummond Checklist.
Strengths and Limitations of Guidelines Using AGREE II.
Note that this appendix has not been copy-edited.
Summary of Findings by Outcome — Induction of Remission.
Summary of Findings by Outcome — Clinical and Endoscopic Response.
Summary of Findings by Outcome — Quality of Life.
Summary of Findings by Outcome — Adverse Events.
Summary of Findings of Included Economic Evaluation.
Summary of Recommendations in Included Guidelines.
Note that this appendix has not been copy-edited.
Disclaimer: The information in this document is intended to help Canadian health care decision-makers, health care professionals, health systems leaders, and policy-makers make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. While patients and others may access this document, the document is made available for informational purposes only and no representations or warranties are made with respect to its fitness for any particular purpose. The information in this document should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice or as a substitute for the application of clinical judgment in respect of the care of a particular patient or other professional judgment in any decision-making process. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) does not endorse any information, drugs, therapies, treatments, products, processes, or services.
While care has been taken to ensure that the information prepared by CADTH in this document is accurate, complete, and up-to-date as at the applicable date the material was first published by CADTH, CADTH does not make any guarantees to that effect. CADTH does not guarantee and is not responsible for the quality, currency, propriety, accuracy, or reasonableness of any statements, information, or conclusions contained in any third-party materials used in preparing this document. The views and opinions of third parties published in this document do not necessarily state or reflect those of CADTH.
CADTH is not responsible for any errors, omissions, injury, loss, or damage arising from or relating to the use (or misuse) of any information, statements, or conclusions contained in or implied by the contents of this document or any of the source materials.
This document may contain links to third-party websites. CADTH does not have control over the content of such sites. Use of third-party sites is governed by the third-party website owners’ own terms and conditions set out for such sites. CADTH does not make any guarantee with respect to any information contained on such third-party sites and CADTH is not responsible for any injury, loss, or damage suffered as a result of using such third-party sites. CADTH has no responsibility for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by third-party sites.
Subject to the aforementioned limitations, the views expressed herein are those of CADTH and do not necessarily represent the views of Canada’s federal, provincial, or territorial governments or any third-party supplier of information.
This document is prepared and intended for use in the context of the Canadian health care system. The use of this document outside of Canada is done so at the user’s own risk.
This disclaimer and any questions or matters of any nature arising from or relating to the content or use (or misuse) of this document will be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable therein, and all proceedings shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Ontario, Canada.
The copyright and other intellectual property rights in this document are owned by CADTH and its licensors. These rights are protected by the Canadian Copyright Act and other national and international laws and agreements. Users are permitted to make copies of this document for non-commercial purposes only, provided it is not modified when reproduced and appropriate credit is given to CADTH and its licensors.
About CADTH: CADTH is an independent, not-for-profit organization responsible for providing Canada’s health care decision-makers with objective evidence to help make informed decisions about the optimal use of drugs, medical devices, diagnostics, and procedures in our health care system.
Funding: CADTH receives funding from Canada’s federal, provincial, and territorial governments, with the exception of Quebec.
Questions or requests for information about this report can be directed to Requests@CADTH.ca
Copyright © 2023 - Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Except where otherwise noted, this work is distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND).
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...
