4.8 Article

Once-daily, high-concentration MMX mesalamine in active ulcerative colitis

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 132, 期 1, 页码 66-75

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.10.011

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: SPD476 (LIALDA (TM) in the US; MEZAVANT (TM) in the EU; otherwise known as MMX mesalamine; Shire Pharmaceuticals Inc., Wayne, PA, under license from Giuliani SPA, Milan, Italy) is a novel, once-daily, high-strength (1.2 g/tablet) formulation of mesalamine, utilizing MMX Multi Matrix System (MMX) technology designed to deliver the active drug throughout the colon. We performed a double-blind, multicenter study, comparing MMX mesalamine vs placebo for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis. A delayed-release oral mesalamine (ASACOL; Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH) reference arm was included. Methods: Three hundred forty-three patients with active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis received MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day or 4.8 g/day given once daily, ASACOL 2.4 g/day given in 3 divided doses, or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of patients in clinical and endoscopic remission (modified ulcerative colitis disease activity index of <= 1 with rectal bleeding and stool frequency scores of 0, no mucosal friability, and a >= 1-point reduction in sigmoidoscopy score from baseline). Results: A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day given once daily (40.5%; P = .01) and 4.8 g/day given once daily (41.2%; P = .007) achieved clinical and endoscopic remission at week 8, vs placebo (22.1%). The clinical and endoscopic remission rate for ASACOL (32.6%; P = .124) was not significantly superior to placebo. All active treatments were well-tolerated. Conclusions: Once-daily MMX mesalamine was efficacious and well-tolerated for the induction of clinical and endoscopic remission. MMX mesalamine offers effective and convenient mesalamine therapy, potentially improving treatment compliance.

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

4.8
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