Efficacy and safety of two pH-dependent-release mesalamine doses in moderately active ulcerative colitis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study.
- Author:
Yasuo SUZUKI
1
;
Mitsuo IIDA
;
Hiroaki ITO
;
Isamu SAIDA
;
Toshifumi HIBI
Author Information
- Publication Type:Multicenter Study ; Randomized Controlled Trial ; Original Article
- Keywords: Asacol; pH-dependent-release mesalamine; Colitis, ulcerative; Double-blind method
- MeSH: Colitis, Ulcerative*; Consensus; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Mesalamine*; Remission Induction; Ulcer*
- From:Intestinal Research 2016;14(1):50-59
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: BACKGROUND/AIMS: The therapeutic effect of mesalamine is considered to be dose-dependent; however, no consensus has been reached regarding the optimal doses for individual patients. This study aimed to provide new insight for dose optimization using two doses of pH-dependent release mesalamine for induction of remission of moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study, 110 patients with moderately active UC were assigned to two groups after treatment with a constant dose of mesalamine. Fifty-five patients were treated with a pH-dependent release formulation of 3.6 or 4.8 g/day for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was a decrease in the UC disease activity index (UCDAI) adjusted by covariates. RESULTS: In the full analysis set (n=110), the mean decrease in UCDAI was 3.1 in the 3.6 g/day group and 3.4 in the 4.8 g/day group (P>0.05). In a subgroup analysis, the effectiveness of the 4.8 g/day dose was greater in particular populations, such as those who had been previously treated with a lower dose of mesalamine and those with more severe disease. The safety was comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that treatment with pH-dependent release mesalamine at either 3.6 or 4.8 g/day was effective and safe for the induction of remission in patients with moderately active UC. However, the patients receiving mesalamine at 2.4 g/day but in whom the therapeutic effect is not sufficient and having more severe symptoms (UCDAI 9-10), benefit from higher doses of mesalamine compared to others.
