Ulcerative Colitis Remission Status After Induction With Mesalazine Predicts Maintenance Outcomes: the MOMENTUM Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study assessed the efficacy of maintenance treatment with multimatrix mesalazine following achievement of complete or partial remission after induction treatment with high-dose multimatrix mesalazine. METHODS: In this phase 3b/4, open-label, multicentre, prospective, single-arm study, patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis were treated with multimatrix mesalazine 4.8g/day once daily for 8 weeks [induction phase]. At Week 8, those who achieved complete or partial remission, based on predefined clinical and endoscopic criteria, were eligible to receive 12 months of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4g/day once daily maintenance therapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in complete remission at Month 12. RESULTS: A total of 717 patients received induction treatment; 25.9% and 39.3% of patients achieved complete and partial remission, respectively, at Week 8. A total of 461 patients entered the maintenance phase. The likelihood of remaining in/achieving complete remission at Month 12 was higher for patients who entered the maintenance phase in complete remission compared with those who began maintenance in partial remission [47.8% vs 26.0%; p < 0.001]. At Month 12, mucosal healing [endoscopy score ≤ 1] was demonstrated in 76.4% [139/182] and 63.5% [176/277] of those who were in complete and partial remission, respectively, at the end of induction. CONCLUSION: Patients achieving complete remission before dose reduction were more likely to remain in remission at Month 12.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of prucalopride in men with chronic constipation.

OBJECTIVES: Prucalopride is effective at alleviating symptoms of chronic constipation in women. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of 12 weeks of prucalopride treatment compared with placebo in men with chronic constipation. METHODS: This was a multicenter, stratified, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01147926). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a mean of three or more spontaneous complete bowel movements (SCBMs) per week across the treatment period. Efficacy end points were assessed using daily electronic diaries, global assessment of the severity of constipation and efficacy of treatment, and Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms (PAC-SYM) and Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) questionnaires. RESULTS: In total, 374 patients were enrolled in the study. Significantly more patients achieved a mean of three or more SCBMs per week in the prucalopride group (37.9%) than in the placebo group (17.7%, P<0.0001). The proportion of patients rating their constipation treatment as "quite a bit" to "extremely" effective at the final on-treatment visit was 46.7 and 30.4% in the prucalopride and placebo groups, respectively. The difference between treatment groups was statistically significant (P<0.0001). The proportion of patients with an improvement of at least 1 point in PAC-QOL satisfaction subscale score was 52.7 and 38.8% in the prucalopride and placebo groups, respectively (P=0.0035). Prucalopride had a good safety profile and was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Prucalopride is effective, has a good safety profile, and is well tolerated for the treatment of men with chronic constipation.

3g mesalazine granules are superior to 9mg budesonide for achieving remission in active ulcerative colitis: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Budesonide may be an effective therapy for mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority for oral 9mg budesonide once daily (OD) versus 3g mesalazine granules OD. METHODS: This was an eight-week randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study in which patients with mild-to-moderately active UC, defined as Clinical Activity Index (CAI) ≥6 and Endoscopic Index (EI) ≥4, received budesonide (Budenofalk® 3mg capsules×3) or mesalazine (Salofalk® 1000mg granules×3). The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 8 (CAI ≤4 with stool frequency and rectal bleeding subscores of "0"). RESULTS: 343 patients were randomised (177 budesonide, 166 mesalazine). Fewer patients achieved the primary endpoint with budesonide versus mesalazine (70/177 [39.5%] versus 91/166 [54.8%]) with a difference in proportions of -15.3% (95% CI [-25.7%, -4.8%]; p=0.520 for non-inferiority). The median time to first resolution of symptoms was 14.0 days (budesonide) and 11.0 days (mesalazine) (hazard ratio 1.19; 95% CI [0.94, 1.51]). Mucosal healing was observed in 54/177 (30.5%) budesonide patients versus 65/166 (39.2%) mesalazine patients, a difference of -8.6% (95% CI [-18.7%, 1.4%]; p=0.093). The incidences of adverse events (budesonide 26.6%, mesalazine 25.3%) and serious adverse events (budesonide 1.7%, mesalazine 1.2%) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily 3g mesalazine administered as granules is superior to 9mg budesonide OD administered as capsules for achieving remission in mild-to-moderately active UC. However, it is noteworthy that remission of UC was attained in about 40% of budesonide-treated patients with a rapid onset of resolution.

Budesonide 9 mg is at least as effective as mesalamine 4.5 g in patients with mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Comparative data on budesonide vs mesalamine for the treatment of mild-to-moderately active Crohn's disease (CD) are sparse. We assessed the efficacy and safety of each therapy in patients with mildly to moderately active CD. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, 8-week, multicenter study in which 309 patients with mildly to moderately active CD received pH-modified-release oral budesonide (9 mg/day once daily or 3 mg/day 3 times daily) or Eudragit-L-coated oral mesalamine (4.5 g/day). RESULTS: The primary efficacy variable, clinical remission (defined as Crohn's Disease Activity Index ≤150), at the final visit occurred in 69.5% (107 of 154) of patients given budesonide vs 62.1% (95 of 153) of patients given mesalamine (difference, 7.4%; 95% repeated confidence interval, -4.6% to 18.0%; P = .001 for noninferiority). Clinical remission rates did not differ significantly between the 2 budesonide groups. Treatment response, defined as Crohn's Disease Activity Index of 150 or less and/or a decrease of 70 or more (Δ70) or 100 or more (Δ100) points from baseline to final visit, did not differ significantly between patients given budesonide vs mesalamine (Δ70, P = .11; Δ100, P = .15), or between the 2 budesonide groups (Δ70, P = .38; Δ100, P = .78). No other efficacy end points differed significantly between groups. Discontinuation because of adverse events occurred in 3% and 5% of budesonide- and mesalamine-treated patients, respectively. There were no clinically relevant differences in adverse events between the 2 budesonide groups. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide (9 mg/day) was numerically, but not statistically, more effective than Eudragit-L-coated mesalamine (4.5 g/day) in patients with mildly to moderately active CD. Budesonide (9 mg/day), administered once daily, was as effective as the standard (3 times daily) regimen.