BACKGROUND: High concentration mesalazine formulations are more convenient than conventional low concentration formulations for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of 1600 mg and 400 mg tablet mesalazine formulations. METHODS:Patients with mild-to-moderate active UC (Mayo Clinic Score >5; N=817) were randomised to 3.2 g of oral mesalazine, administered as two 1600 mg tablets once, or four 400 mg tablets twice daily. We hypothesised that treatment with the 1600 mg tablet was non-inferior (within a 10% margin) to the 400 mg tablet for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission at week 8. Open-label treatment with the 1600 mg tablet continued for 26-30 weeks based on induction response. Predictors of treatment response were also explored. RESULTS: At week 8, remission occurred in 22.4% and 24.6% of patients receiving the 1600 mg and 400 mg tablets, respectively (absolute difference -2.2%, 95% CI: -8.1% to 3.8%, non-inferiority P=.005). Endoscopic and histopathologic disease activity, leucocyte concentration and age were significantly associated with clinical remission (P=.022, .042, .014 and .023, respectively). At week 38, 43.9% (296/675) of patients who continued treatment with the 1600 mg formulation were in remission, including 70.3% (142/202) of patients who received a reduced dose of mesalazine (1.6 g/d). The overall incidence of serious adverse events was low. CONCLUSIONS: Induction therapy with 3.2 mg mesalazine using two 1600 mg tablets once-daily was statistically and clinically non-inferior to a twice-daily regimen using four 400 mg tablets (NCT01903252).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: High concentration mesalazine formulations are more convenient than conventional low concentration formulations for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of 1600 mg and 400 mg tablet mesalazine formulations. METHODS:Patients with mild-to-moderate active UC (Mayo Clinic Score >5; N=817) were randomised to 3.2 g of oral mesalazine, administered as two 1600 mg tablets once, or four 400 mg tablets twice daily. We hypothesised that treatment with the 1600 mg tablet was non-inferior (within a 10% margin) to the 400 mg tablet for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission at week 8. Open-label treatment with the 1600 mg tablet continued for 26-30 weeks based on induction response. Predictors of treatment response were also explored. RESULTS: At week 8, remission occurred in 22.4% and 24.6% of patients receiving the 1600 mg and 400 mg tablets, respectively (absolute difference -2.2%, 95% CI: -8.1% to 3.8%, non-inferiority P=.005). Endoscopic and histopathologic disease activity, leucocyte concentration and age were significantly associated with clinical remission (P=.022, .042, .014 and .023, respectively). At week 38, 43.9% (296/675) of patients who continued treatment with the 1600 mg formulation were in remission, including 70.3% (142/202) of patients who received a reduced dose of mesalazine (1.6 g/d). The overall incidence of serious adverse events was low. CONCLUSIONS: Induction therapy with 3.2 mg mesalazine using two 1600 mg tablets once-daily was statistically and clinically non-inferior to a twice-daily regimen using four 400 mg tablets (NCT01903252).
Authors: Christopher Ma; William J Sandborn; Geert R D'Haens; Guangyong Zou; Larry W Stitt; Siddharth Singh; Ashwin N Ananthakrishnan; Parambir S Dulai; Reena Khanna; Vipul Jairath; Brian G Feagan Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Christopher Ma; Jenny Jeyarajah; Leonardo Guizzetti; Claire E Parker; Siddharth Singh; Parambir S Dulai; Geert R D'Haens; William J Sandborn; Brian G Feagan; Vipul Jairath Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 11.382