Search

Background & Aims: In patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) the utility of budesonide, a synthetic corticosteroid displaying high first-pass metabolism, is unresolved. In a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, we evaluated the added-value of budesonide in those with PBC and ongoing risk of progressive disease despite ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). Methods: We evaluated 62 patients with PBC who had histologically confirmed hepatic inflammatory activity, according to the Ishak-score, and an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) >1.5x upper limit of normal (ULN), after at least 6 months of UDCA therapy. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive budesonide (9 mg/day) or placebo once daily, for 36 months, with UDCA treatment (12-16 mg/kg body weight/day) maintained. Primary efficacy was defined as improvement of liver histology with respect to inflammation and no progression of fibrosis. Secondary outcomes included changes in biochemical markers of liver injury. Results: Recruitment challenges resulted in a study underpowered compared to original intent. The primary histologic endpoint, comparing patients with paired biopsies only (n= 43), was not met (p>0.05). The proportion of patients with ALP

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disorder. Swallowed topical-acting corticosteroids are effective in bringing active EoE into remission. However, it is not clear whether these drugs are effective for long-term maintenance of remission. METHODS: We performed a double-blind trial to compare the efficacy and safety of 2 dosages of a budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) vs placebo in maintaining remission of EoE. Maintenance of remission was defined as absence of clinical and histologic relapse and no premature withdrawal for any reason. Two hundred and four adults with EoE in clinical and histologic remission, from 29 European study sites, were randomly assigned to groups given BOT 0.5 mg twice daily (n = 68), BOT 1.0 mg twice daily (n = 68), or placebo twice daily (n = 68) for up to 48 weeks. RESULTS: At end of treatment, 73.5% of patients receiving BOT 0.5 mg twice daily and 75% receiving BOT 1.0 mg twice daily were in persistent remission compared with 4.4% of patients in the placebo group (P < .001 for both comparisons of BOT with placebo). Median time to relapse in the placebo group was 87 days. The frequency of adverse events was similar in the BOT and placebo groups. Morning serum levels of cortisol were in the normal range at baseline and did not significantly change during treatment. Four patients receiving BOT developed asymptomatic, low serum levels of cortisol. Clinically manifested candidiasis was suspected in 16.2% of patients in the BOT 0.5 mg group and in 11.8% of patients in the BOT 1.0 mg group; all infections resolved with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In a phase 3 trial, up to 48 weeks of treatment with BOT (0.5 mg or 1.0 mg twice daily) was superior to placebo in maintaining remission of EoE. Both dosages were equally effective and well tolerated. EudraCT number; 2014-001485-99; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02434029.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Swallowed topical-acting corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Asthma medications not optimized for esophageal delivery are sometimes effective, although given off-label. We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of a budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT), which allows the drug to be delivered to the esophagus in adults with active EoE. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, parallel study of 88 adults with active EoE in Europe. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that received BOT (1 mg twice daily; n = 59) or placebo (n = 29) for 6 weeks. The primary end point was complete remission, based on clinical and histologic factors, including dysphagia and odynophagia severity ≤2 on a scale of 0-10 on each of the 7 days before the end of the double-blind phase and a peak eosinophil count

Background: Previous studies have reached conflicting conclusions regarding the efficacy of mesalazine in the prevention of recurrent diverticulitis. Aim: To investigate the efficacy and safety of mesalazine granules in the prevention of recurrence of diverticulitis after acute uncomplicated diverticulitis. Methods: Two phase 3, randomised, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind multicentre trials (SAG‐37 and SAG‐51) investigated mesalazine granules in patients with prior episodes (1 episode. Safety data revealed no new adverse events. Conclusion: Mesalazine was not superior to placebo in preventing recurrence of diverticulitis.

Mesalazine enemas are of well proven efficacy for the topical treatment of distal ulcerative colitis. Although new rectal formulations of mesalazine are not expected to be superior in efficacy and tolerability to standard formulations, they may offer secondary advantages in terms of overall acceptability.To compare the efficacy, tolerability and overall acceptability of a new mesalazine rectal foam (Salofalk foam) with mesalazine enema in the treatment of active distal ulcerative colitis.A multicentre study was carried out in patients with active proctitis, proctosigmoiditis and left-sided ulcerative colitis as evaluated by the Clinical Activity Index (CAIor =4) and Endoscopic Index (EIor =6). Patients were randomly assigned to receive, in open-label fashion, either mesalazine foam 2 g twice a day or mesalazine enema (2 g/60 ml twice a day) for 3 weeks. Patients who did not achieve remission (defined as CAI4 and EI6) after 3 weeks continued the study receiving the alternative galenic formulation for a further 3 weeks.A total of 195 patients were enrolled. Characteristics at baseline were similar except for concomitant therapy with oral 5-ASA products: during the 1st treatment phase, 41% of patients on enema received such treatment vs only 29% of those on foam. Patients with at least one post-treatment efficacy evaluation were included in the intent-to-treat analysis (n=89 foam, n=96 enema). After 3 weeks of treatment, 112 patients were in remission and only 59 patients entered the 2nd treatment phase thus providing data on acceptability. Remission was achieved after 3 weeks in 54% of patients treated with foam and in 67% of those treated with enema. The 90% confidence interval for the difference in remission rates was 0 to 24 and thus within the clinically acceptable range of therapeutic equivalence. At the end of the 2nd phase, 70% of patients switched to foam were in remission vs 65% to the enema. Two patients discontinued treatment with foam prematurely due to anal burning. No clinically important changes were seen in the laboratory tests.Salofalk foam and enema are equally effective for the treatment of proctitis, proctosigmoiditis and left-sided ulcerative colitis. The new foam preparation is as well tolerated and accepted as enemas and can be used as a therapeutic alternative to conventional mesalazine enema formulations.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: In previous trials, budesonide 6 mg/day was able to prolong the time to relapse in patients with quiescent Crohn's disease and budesonide 9 mg/day was effective in active disease with limited side effects. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of budesonide 9 mg vs 6 mg once daily on the maintenance of remission and occurrence of adverse events. METHODS: Double-blind, randomised trial in patients with Crohn's disease in remission. Patients were randomised to receive 6 mg/day or 9 mg/day of budesonide (Budenofalk) without concomitant treatment for Crohn's disease. Endpoints were the time to relapse and relapse rates after one year. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were randomised to 6 mg/day and 81 patients to 9 mg/day. Survival analysis showed no differences in the time to relapse. One-year relapse rates were not significantly different (6 mg group 24%; 9 mg group 19%). Any adverse event was reported in 61 and 68% of patients in the 6 mg and 9 mg groups, respectively; none of the 12 serious adverse events were drug related. CONCLUSION: The one-year relapse rates were low and not significantly different between the group of patients treated with budesonide 6 mg vs 9 mg/day. Also, time to relapse and the number of adverse events were similar in both treatment groups.

INTRODUCTION: Rectal administration of corticosteroids is advocated in patients with proctosigmoiditis who have failed therapy with mesalamine enema. Foam offers patients better tolerability than an enema. In this study the efficacy and adverse effects of a new budesonide foam are compared with the presently available hydrocortisone foam. METHODS: Two hundred fifty-one patients with proctosigmoiditis were randomly assigned to receive either budesonide foam or hydrocortisone foam for eight weeks. RESULTS: Remission rates were comparable in the budesonide and hydrocortisone groups, 53 and 52 percent, respectively. The mean disease activity index for the two groups decreased to a similar extent, from 7.2 ± 1.9 and 7 ± 2 to 3.6 ± 3.1 and 3.9 ± 3.4 in the budesonide and hydrocortisone groups, respectively. In a subgroup of patients who had not responded to rectal administration of mesalamine, 23 of 44 (52 percent) patients who received budesonide responded favorably to the foam, as compared with 14 of 38 (37 percent) patients who received hydrocortisone (P = not significant). Low plasma cortisol occurred in 3 percent of the budesonide group and in none of the hydrocortisone patients. CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrates a similar efficacy and safety of the two foams in patients with proctosigmoiditis.