Gastroenterology
Volume 137, Issue 6 , Pages 1934-1943.e3 , December 2009

Delayed-Release Oral Mesalamine 4.8 g/day (800-mg Tablet) Is Effective for Patients With Moderately Active Ulcerative Colitis

  • William J. Sandborn

      Affiliations

    • Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinic, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests Address requests for reprints to: William J. Sandborn, MD, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinic, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, Minnesota 55905. fax: (507) 266-0335
  • ,
  • Jaroslaw Regula

      Affiliations

    • Medical Center for Postgraduate Education and the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, Warsaw, Poland
  • ,
  • Brian G. Feagan

      Affiliations

    • Robarts Research Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
  • ,
  • Elena Belousova

      Affiliations

    • Moscow Regional Research Clinical Institute, Moscow, Russian Federation
  • ,
  • Njegica Jojic

      Affiliations

    • KBC Zvezdara University Centre, Belgrade, Serbia
  • ,
  • Milan Lukas

      Affiliations

    • General Faculty Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
  • ,
  • Bruce Yacyshyn

      Affiliations

    • University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
  • ,
  • Piotr Krzeski

      Affiliations

    • Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Egham, United Kingdom
  • ,
  • Chyon–Hwa Yeh

      Affiliations

    • Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Mason, Ohio
  • ,
  • Christi A. Messer

      Affiliations

    • Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Mason, Ohio
  • ,
  • Stephen B. Hanauer

      Affiliations

    • University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

Received 26 April 2009 ,Accepted 27 August 2009.

  • Image Result

    Patient disposition. Patients (n = 772) with moderately active ulcerative colitis were randomized to treatment and dosed with delayed-release mesalamine 2.4 g/day or 4.8 g/day.

    Patient disposition. Patients (n = 772) with moderately active ulcerative colitis were randomized to treatment and dosed with delayed-release mesalamine 2.4 g/day or 4.8 g/day.

  • Image Result

    (A) Treatment success at week 6. The 4.8 g/day dose was noninferior to delayed-release mesalamine 2.4 g/day for the endpoint of treatment success (overall improvement). Treatment success was defined a

    (A) Treatment success at week 6. The 4.8 g/day dose was noninferior to delayed-release mesalamine 2.4 g/day for the endpoint of treatment success (overall improvement). Treatment success was defined as either a complete response (remission) or a partial response (improvement) to treatment from baseline at week 6. A complete response was defined as complete resolution or normalization of all of the following: stool frequency, rectal bleeding, and sigmoidoscopy with contact friability test assessment score. A partial response was defined as improvement from baseline in the Physician's Global Assessment score and no worsening in any of the 3 component scores. The complete response rates in the 4.8 g/day and 2.4 g/day groups were 2.6% and 5.0%, respectively. The partial response rates in the 4.8 g/day and 2.4 g/day groups were 67.6% and 60.6%, respectively. (B) Clinical remission at weeks 3 and 6. Significantly more patients who received 4.8 g/day compared to 2.4 g/day achieved clinical remission at week 3 (P = .02) and week 6 (P = .04).

  • Image Result
    Improvement in individual clinical assessments at week 3. Significantly more patients who received 4.8 g/day compared to 2.4 g/day achieved improvement in stool frequency (P = .002). The 4.8 g/day tre

    Improvement in individual clinical assessments at week 3. Significantly more patients who received 4.8 g/day compared to 2.4 g/day achieved improvement in stool frequency (P = .002). The 4.8 g/day treatment group showed numerically higher improvement rates than 2.4 g/day for rectal bleeding and Patient's Functional Assessment, but these differences were not statistically significant.

  • Image Result
    Improvement in individual clinical assessments at week 6. Improvement in stool frequency, rectal bleeding, Patient's Functional Assessment, and Physician's Global Assessment was numerically greater fo

    Improvement in individual clinical assessments at week 6. Improvement in stool frequency, rectal bleeding, Patient's Functional Assessment, and Physician's Global Assessment was numerically greater for patients who received 4.8 g/day compared to 2.4 g/day, but these differences were not statistically significant. Approximately 30% of patients in both treatment groups had improvement in sigmoidoscopy with contact friability test.

  • Image Result
    (A) and (B) Treatment outcome by subgroups at week 6. Treatment success in favor of 4.8 g/day was generally consistent among most subgroups.

    (A) and (B) Treatment outcome by subgroups at week 6. Treatment success in favor of 4.8 g/day was generally consistent among most subgroups.

  • Image Result
    Treatment success at week 6 in patients having taken previous ulcerative colitis (UC) therapy. An advantage of 4.8 g/day versus 2.4 g/day was observed with patients previously treated with oral mesala

    Treatment success at week 6 in patients having taken previous ulcerative colitis (UC) therapy. An advantage of 4.8 g/day versus 2.4 g/day was observed with patients previously treated with oral mesalamines (P = .07), rectal therapies (P = .06), corticosteroids (P = .05), or multiple UC medications (P = .01).

 This article has an accompanying continuing medical education activity on page 2158. Learning Objective: Upon completion of reading this article, successful learners will be able to apply the results of the study to their practice by weighing the potential benefits of mesalamine dosed at 2.4 or 4.8 g/d in individual patients with moderate ulcerative colitis.

 Conflicts of interest The authors disclose the following: Dr Sandborn has served as a consultant for and received research funding from Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals and Shire Pharmaceuticals, and has served as a consultant for Salix Pharmaceuticals. Dr Regula has obtained lecture fees from Abbott and Schering Plough. Dr Feagan has received honorariums from Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals. Dr Yacyshyn was previously employed by Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals. Drs Krzeski, Yeh, and Messer are employees of Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals. Dr Hanauer has served as a consultant for and received clinical research support from Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals and has served as a consultant to Shire Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Salix Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts.

 Funding This study was funded by Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Mason, Ohio.

PII: S0016-5085(09)01570-4

doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.08.069

Gastroenterology
Volume 137, Issue 6 , Pages 1934-1943.e3 , December 2009