1998The American Journal of GastroenterologyRequires access

Maintenance Treatment of Ulcerative Proctitis With Mesalazine Suppositories: A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

G d'Albasio, Omero Alessandro Paoluzi, Massimo Campieri, Bianchi G Porro, A. Pera, Cosimo Prantera, G.C. Sturniolo, M. Miglioli

Open publisher page 67 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: A multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled clinical study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of two different therapeutic schedules of mesalazine suppositories in patients with ulcerative proctitis. METHODS: From 1990 to 1993, 111 patients with ulcerative proctisis in remission, limited to the rectum (< or = 15 cm from anus), were enrolled. After obtaining informed consent, patients were randomized to three treatment groups: 500 mg mesalazine b.i.d. (36 patients), 500 mg mesalazine u.i.d. (40 patients), and placebo (35 patients). The treatment lasted 1 yr. Follow-up consisted of periodic clinical, endoscopic, and histological assessments. An endoscopic score > 1 according to the Baron scale defined relapse occurrence. The three groups were homogeneous as regards main demographic, diagnostic, and prognostic features. RESULTS: The cumulative relapse rates at 12 months were 10% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0-21) in the mesalazine b.i.d. group, 32% (95% CI: 16-49) in the mesalazine u.i.d. group, and 47% (95% CI: 29-65) in the placebo group. The comparison between the mesalazine b.i.d. group and the mesalazine u.i.d. group cumulative relapse rates gave a p value of 0.0334, whereas the corresponding comparison between the mesalazine b.i.d. group and the placebo group gave a p value of 0.007 (log-rank test). The dose-response relationship was statistically significant (p = 0.008 by Cox analysis). Two patients in the mesalazine b.i.d. group, two patients in the mesalazine u.i.d. group, and one patient in the placebo group withdrew from the study due to nonserious adverse events; four, three, and four patients per group, respectively, dropped out because of poor compliance. Two patients in the mesalazine u.i.d. group and two in the placebo group were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study confirm the therapeutic efficacy of mesalazine suppositories in the maintenance treatment of ulcerative proctitis. According to our experience the most effective therapeutic schedule is 500 mg mesalazine b.i.d.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVES: A multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled clinical study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of two different therapeutic schedules of mesalazine suppositories in patients with ulcerative proctitis. METHODS: From 1990 to 1993, 111 patients with ulcerative proctisis in remission, limited to the rectum (< or = 15 cm from anus), were enrolled. After obtaining informed consent, patients were randomized to three treatment groups: 500 mg mesalazine b.i.d. (36 patients), 500 mg mesalazine u.i.d. (40 patients), and placebo (35 patients). The treatment lasted 1 yr. Follow-up consisted of periodic clinical, endoscopic, and histological assessments. An endoscopic score > 1 according to the Baron scale defined relapse occurrence. The three groups were homogeneous as regards main demographic, diagnostic, and prognostic features. RESULTS: The cumulative relapse rates at 12 months were 10% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0-21) in the mesalazine b.i.d. group, 32% (95% CI: 16-49) in the mesalazine u.i.d. group, and 47% (95% CI: 29-65) in the placebo group. The comparison between the mesalazine b.i.d. group and the mesalazine u.i.d. group cumulative relapse rates gave a p value of 0.0334, whereas the corresponding comparison between the mesalazine b.i.d. group and the placebo group gave a p value of 0.007 (log-rank test). The dose-response relationship was statistically significant (p = 0.008 by Cox analysis). Two patients in the mesalazine b.i.d. group, two patients in the mesalazine u.i.d. group, and one patient in the placebo group withdrew from the study due to nonserious adverse events; four, three, and four patients per group, respectively, dropped out because of poor compliance. Two patients in the mesalazine u.i.d. group and two in the placebo group were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study confirm the therapeutic efficacy of mesalazine suppositories in the maintenance treatment of ulcerative proctitis. According to our experience the most effective therapeutic schedule is 500 mg mesalazine b.i.d.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 67 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

OBJECTIVES: A multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled clinical study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of two different therapeutic schedules of mesalazine suppositories in patients with ulcerative proctitis. METHODS: From 1990 to 1993, 111 patients with ulcerative proctisis in remission, limited to the rectum (< or = 15 cm from anus), were enrolled. After obtaining informed consent, patients were randomized to three treatment groups: 500 mg mesalazine b.i.d. (36 patients), 500 mg mesalazine u.i.d. (40 patients), and placebo (35 patients). The treatment lasted 1 yr. Follow-up consisted of periodic clinical, endoscopic, and histological assessments. An endoscopic score > 1 according to the Baron scale defined relapse occurrence. The three groups were homogeneous as regards main demographic, diagnostic, and prognostic features. RESULTS: The cumulative relapse rates at 12 months were 10% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0-21) in the mesalazine b.i.d. group, 32% (95% CI: 16-49) in the mesalazine u.i.d. group, and 47% (95% CI: 29-65) in the placebo group. The comparison between the mesalazine b.i.d. group and the mesalazine u.i.d. group cumulative relapse rates gave a p value of 0.0334, whereas the corresponding comparison between the mesalazine b.i.d. group and the placebo group gave a p value of 0.007 (log-rank test). The dose-response relationship was statistically significant (p = 0.008 by Cox analysis). Two patients in the mesalazine b.i.d. group, two patients in the mesalazine u.i.d. group, and one patient in the placebo group withdrew from the study due to nonserious adverse events; four, three, and four patients per group, respectively, dropped out because of poor compliance. Two patients in the mesalazine u.i.d. group and two in the placebo group were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study confirm the therapeutic efficacy of mesalazine suppositories in the maintenance treatment of ulcerative proctitis. According to our experience the most effective therapeutic schedule is 500 mg mesalazine b.i.d.

Key concepts: Mesalazine, Medicine, Placebo, Internal medicine, Gastroenterology, Suppository, Placebo-controlled study, Ulcerative colitis

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Maintenance Treatment of Ulcerative Proctitis With Mesalazine Suppositories: A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial — Research Paper | ScholarLens