4.5 Article

RDP58 is a novel and potentially effective oral therapy for ulcerative colitis

期刊

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 713-719

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.MIB.0000172807.26748.16

关键词

cell signaling; MyD88-IRAK-TRAF6 protein complex; new therapy; treatment; ulcerative colitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: RDP58 is a novel anti-inflammatory D-amino acid decapeptide that inhibits synthesis of proinflammatory cytokines by disrupting cell signaling at the pre-MAPK MyD88-IRAK-TRAF6 protein complex. We therefore evaluated its efficacy and safety in parallel multicenter, double-blind, randomized concept studies in ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods: In the first trial, 34 patients with mild to moderate active UC were randomized (1:2) to placebo (n = 13) or RDP58 100 mg (n = 21). In the second trial, 93 similar patients were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo (n = 30) RDP58 200 mg (n = 31), or RDP 300 mg (n = 32). In both studies, treatment success was defined as a simple clinical colitis activity index score of no more than 3 at 28 days. Sigmoidoscopy and rectal biopsy (at baseline and 28 days) and safety measures (baseline and 28 and 56 days) were other endpoints. Results: Treatment success on RDP 100 mg was 29% versus 46% on placebo (P = 0.46). There were no significant differences in sigmoidoscopy or histology score. In the second study, treatment success on the higher doses of RDP58 (200 and 300 mg) was 71% and 72%, respectively, versus 43% on placebo (P = 0.016). Improvements in sigmoidoscopy scores (41% on 200 mg and 46% on 300 mg versus 32% on placebo) did not reach significance, but histology scores improved significantly (P = 0.002) versus placebo. Overall, adverse events were no different between placebo (3.3 +/- 2.4) and RDP58 (2.7 +/- 1.4, 300-mg group). Conclusions: RDP58 at a dose of 200 or 300 mg, but not 100 mg, was effective in mild-to-moderate UC. RDP58 was safe and well tolerated, and its novel action makes it an attractive potential therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据