2001Alimentary Pharmacology & TherapeuticsRequires access

Oral versus combination mesalazine therapy in active ulcerative colitis: a double‐blind, double‐dummy, randomized multicentre study

Maurizio Vecchi, Gianmichele Meucci, Paolo Gionchetti, Marina Beltrami, P. Di Maurizio, Luigi Beretta, E Ganio, Paolo Usai, Massimo Campieri, G. Fornaciari, Roberto de Franchis

Open publisher page 90 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Oral and topical mesalazine formulations are effective in active ulcerative colitis, but little is known on the efficacy of combined treatment. AIM: To compare the efficacy of oral mesalazine vs. combined oral and topical mesalazine in mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: Patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis (Clinical Activity Index, CAI 4-12) were identified at 15 participating centres. They were randomized to receive either mesalazine 4 g orally plus placebo enema, or mesalazine 2 g orally plus mesalazine 2 g rectally as a liquid enema for 6 weeks. The rate of clinical remission (CAI < 4) or clinical remission/improvement (reduction of CAI of 50% from baseline) at 6 weeks and time to clinical remission/improvement were primary end-points; the rate of endoscopic remission was a secondary end-point. RESULTS: 67 patients were assigned to oral treatment and 63 to combined treatment. One patient in the oral group and 2 in the combined group discontinued the treatment due to adverse events. Following an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of clinical remission was 82% for oral treatment and 87% for combined treatment (P=0.56); the mean time to remission 22.2 and 20.2 days, respectively (P=0.29); the rate of clinical remission/improvement and the rate of endoscopic remission were 85% and 91% (P=0.503) and 58% and 71% (P=0.21), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild active ulcerative colitis, mesalazine 4 g orally and 2 g orally plus 2 g enema are equally effective in inducing disease remission.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: Oral and topical mesalazine formulations are effective in active ulcerative colitis, but little is known on the efficacy of combined treatment. AIM: To compare the efficacy of oral mesalazine vs. combined oral and topical mesalazine in mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: Patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis (Clinical Activity Index, CAI 4-12) were identified at 15 participating centres. They were randomized to receive either mesalazine 4 g orally plus placebo enema, or mesalazine 2 g orally plus mesalazine 2 g rectally as a liquid enema for 6 weeks. The rate of clinical remission (CAI < 4) or clinical remission/improvement (reduction of CAI of 50% from baseline) at 6 weeks and time to clinical remission/improvement were primary end-points; the rate of endoscopic remission was a secondary end-point. RESULTS: 67 patients were assigned to oral treatment and 63 to combined treatment. One patient in the oral group and 2 in the combined group discontinued the treatment due to adverse events. Following an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of clinical remission was 82% for oral treatment and 87% for combined treatment (P=0.56); the mean time to remission 22.2 and 20.2 days, respectively (P=0.29); the rate of clinical remission/improvement and the rate of endoscopic remission were 85% and 91% (P=0.503) and 58% and 71% (P=0.21), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild active ulcerative colitis, mesalazine 4 g orally and 2 g orally plus 2 g enema are equally effective in inducing disease remission.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 90 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: Oral and topical mesalazine formulations are effective in active ulcerative colitis, but little is known on the efficacy of combined treatment. AIM: To compare the efficacy of oral mesalazine vs. combined oral and topical mesalazine in mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: Patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis (Clinical Activity Index, CAI 4-12) were identified at 15 participating centres. They were randomized to receive either mesalazine 4 g orally plus placebo enema, or mesalazine 2 g orally plus mesalazine 2 g rectally as a liquid enema for 6 weeks. The rate of clinical remission (CAI < 4) or clinical remission/improvement (reduction of CAI of 50% from baseline) at 6 weeks and time to clinical remission/improvement were primary end-points; the rate of endoscopic remission was a secondary end-point. RESULTS: 67 patients were assigned to oral treatment and 63 to combined treatment. One patient in the oral group and 2 in the combined group discontinued the treatment due to adverse events. Following an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of clinical remission was 82% for oral treatment and 87% for combined treatment (P=0.56); the mean time to remission 22.2 and 20.2 days, respectively (P=0.29); the rate of clinical remission/improvement and the rate of endoscopic remission were 85% and 91% (P=0.503) and 58% and 71% (P=0.21), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild active ulcerative colitis, mesalazine 4 g orally and 2 g orally plus 2 g enema are equally effective in inducing disease remission.

Key concepts: Mesalazine, Medicine, Ulcerative colitis, Enema, Gastroenterology, Internal medicine, Adverse effect, Randomized controlled trial

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Oral versus combination mesalazine therapy in active ulcerative colitis: a double‐blind, double‐dummy, randomized multicentre study — Research Paper | ScholarLens