TY - JOUR
T1 - Budesonide 9 mg is at least as effective as mesalamine 4.5 g in patients with mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease
AU - Tromm, Andreas
AU - Bunganič, Ivan
AU - Tomsová, Eva
AU - Tulassay, Zsolt
AU - Lukáš, Milan
AU - Kykal, Jan
AU - Bátovský, Marian
AU - Fixa, Bohumil
AU - Gabalec, Libor
AU - Safadi, Rifaat
AU - Kramm, Heinzjochen
AU - Altorjay, István
AU - Löhr, Hanns
AU - Koutroubakis, Ioannis
AU - Barmeir, Simon
AU - Štimac, Davor
AU - Schäffeler, Elke
AU - Glasmacher, Christoph
AU - Dilger, Karin
AU - Mohrbacher, Ralf
AU - Greinwald, Roland
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding The study was funded by Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH, Freiburg, Germany. The study sponsor contributed to the design of the study in collaboration with the authors, funded the analysis of the data by an independent biostatistics company, and worked in conjunction with the authors to interpret the data. The sponsor was not involved in data collection. ES was supported by the Robert-Bosch Foundation , Stuttgart, Germany and from the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF, Berlin, Germany; 03 IS 2061C ).
PY - 2011/2
Y1 - 2011/2
N2 - 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-Lcoated 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-Lcoated 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.
AB - 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-Lcoated 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-Lcoated 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.
KW - Mesalamine
KW - Mesalazine
KW - RCT
KW - Remission
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79251534064&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1053/j.gastro.2010.11.004
DO - 10.1053/j.gastro.2010.11.004
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:79251534064
SN - 0016-5085
VL - 140
SP - 425-434.e1
JO - Gastroenterology
JF - Gastroenterology
IS - 2
ER -