Randomised non-inferiority trial: 1600 mg versus 400 mg tablets of mesalazine for the treatment of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis.

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).

Omeprazole-Domperidone Fixed Dose Combination vs Omeprazole Monotherapy: A Phase 4, Open-Label, Comparative, Parallel Randomized Controlled Study in Mild to Moderate Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of omeprazole-domperidone combination vs omeprazole monotherapy in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: In a comparative, randomized controlled, phase 4 study, outpatients with GERD were randomly allocated to either group 1 (omeprazole 20 mg + domperidone 30 mg) or group 2 (omeprazole 20 mg) in an equal ratio; 2 capsules daily in the morning were administered for 8 weeks. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled. Esophagitis reversal was observed in 92% patients in group 1 vs 65.2% in group 2. Approximately, 83.3% patients in group 1 vs 43.3% patients in group 2 demonstrated full cupping of reflux symptoms at 8 weeks. Combined therapy resulted in significantly longer period of heartburn-free days (23 vs 12 days on omeprazole). There were no safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Omeprazole-domperidone combination was more effective than omeprazole alone in providing complete cupping of reflux symptoms and healing of esophagitis in patients with GERD. Both the treatments were well tolerated with few reports of adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with http://clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT02140073.

Mesalazine granules are superior to Eudragit-L-coated mesalazine tablets for induction of remission in distal ulcerative colitis - a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different oral formulations of 'mesalazine (mesalamine)' may have different efficacy in distal ulcerative colitis. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of mesalazine granules (Salofalk granules) vs. mesalazine tablets (Salofalk tablets) as induction therapy in patients with distinct extensions of ulcerative colitis. METHODS: A pooled analysis of 705 patients from four prospective, randomised, double-blind phase III trials was performed. The efficacy of 8 weeks' induction with 3 g/day mesalazine granules [3 g once daily (o.d.) or 1 g three times daily (t.d.s)] vs. 3 g/day mesalazine tablets (1 g t.d.s.) was compared in terms of clinical remission (CR: CAI ≤ 4) and endoscopic remission (ER: EI ≤ 3) (both according to Rachmilewitz) in subgroups with pancolitis, left-sided colitis, or proctosigmoiditis. RESULTS: Mesalazine granules were equipotent to mesalazine tablets in pancolitis regarding CR (72% vs. 71%, P = 0.909) and ER (58% vs. 49%, P = 0.338). In left-sided colitis, both mesalazine formulations were equipotent regarding CR (66% vs. 67%; P = 0.843) but mesalazine granules were superior regarding ER (56% vs. 37%; P = 0.025). In proctosigmoiditis, mesalazine granules were significantly more effective than mesalazine tablets regarding CR (78% vs. 55% P < 0.001) and ER (67% vs. 43% P < 0.001). Furthermore, o.d. application of mesalazine granules was more effective than t.d.s. dosing in left-sided colitis (CR 73% vs. 62%, P = 0.181; ER 71% vs. 48% P = 0.005) and proctosigmoiditis (CR 86% vs. 73%, P = 0.020; ER 75% vs. 61%, P = 0.021), but not in pancolitis. CONCLUSION: This pooled analysis supports the hypothesis that mesalazine granules are superior to mesalazine tablets in induction of remission in distal colitis and should be taken once daily.

A double-blind dose-escalating trial comparing novel mesalazine pellets with mesalazine tablets in active ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Mesalazine as the treatment standard for ulcerative colitis can be applied in different galenical preparations. AIM: A novel formulation of mesalazine pellets with delayed and prolonged release characteristics was compared with conventional Eudragit L-coated tablets. Furthermore, the effect of mesalazine dose escalation on nonresponders was evaluated in both treatment groups. METHODS: A total of 233 patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis were randomized to receive either mesalazine (1.5 g/day in three doses) as pellets (n = 115) or tablets (n = 118) for 8 weeks. At insufficient response, the dose was increased to 3.0 g. RESULTS: The clinical remission rate (clinical activity index < or = 4) for pellets was 67% vs. 68% for tablets which statistically proved to be not inferior (significance level alpha = 2.5%). In patients without dose increase, the remission rate was 47% (pellets) vs. 42% (tablets). Endoscopic improvement was observed in 80% (pellets) vs. 83% (tablets), and histological improvement in 48% (pellets) vs. 52% (tablets) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Mesalazine pellets are as effective as tablets in the treatment of mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. Dose escalation to 3.0 g/day is a valid option for nonresponders to a starting dose of 1.5 g/day.