ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of two different budesonide formulations (effervescent tablet for orodispersible use (BET) and viscous suspension (BVS)) with different daily dosages for short-term treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE).DesignAdults with active EoE (n=76) randomly received 14 days’ treatment with either BET 2×1 mg/day (BET1, n=19) or BET 2×2 mg/day (BET2, n=19), or BVS 2×5 mL (0.4 mg/mL)/day (BVS, n=19) or placebo (n=19) in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion, with a 2-week follow-up. Primary end point was histological remission (mean of <16 eosinophils/mm2 hpf). Secondary end points included endoscopy score, dysphagia score, drug safety and patient's preference for drug formulation.ResultsHistological remission occurred in 100%, 94.7% and 94.7% of budesonide (BET1, BET2, BVS, respectively) and in 0% of placebo recipients (p<0.0001). The improvement in total endoscopic intensity score was significantly higher in the three budesonide groups compared with placebo. Dysphagia improved in all groups at the end of treatment; however, improvement of dysphagia persisted only in those treated with BET1 (p=0.0196 vs placebo). There were no serious adverse events. Local fungal infection (stained fungi) occurred in two patients of each budesonide group (10.5%). The effervescent tablet was preferred by 80% of patients.ConclusionsBET or BVS was highly effective and safe for short-term treatment of EoE. The 1 mg (twice daily) dosage was equally effective as the 2 mg twice daily dosage. The majority of patients preferred the effervescent tablet formulation.ClinicalTrials.gov numberNCT02280616; EudraCT number, 2009-016692-29.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Swallowed topical-acting corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Asthma medications not optimized for esophageal delivery are sometimes effective, although given offlabel. We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of a budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT), which allows the drug to be delivered to the esophagus in adults with active EoE. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, parallel study of 88 adults with active EoE in Europe. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that received BOT (1 mg twice daily; n ¼ 59) or placebo (n ¼ 29) for 6 weeks. The primary end point was complete remission, based on clinical and histologic factors, including dysphagia and odynophagia severity 2 on a scale of 0-10 on each of the 7 days before the end of the double-blind phase and a peak eosinophil count <5 eosinophils/high power field. Patients who did not achieve complete remission at the end of the 6-week double-blind phase were offered 6 weeks of open-label Gastroenterology 2019;157:74-86 CLINICAL AT treatment with BOT (1 mg twice daily). RESULTS: At 6 weeks, 58% of patients given BOT were in complete remission compared with no patients given placebo (P < .0001). The secondary end point of histologic remission was achieved by 93% of patients given BOT vs no patients given placebo (P < .0001). After 12 weeks, 85% of patients had achieved remission. Six-week and 12-week BOT administration were safe and well tolerated; 5% of patients who received BOT developed symptomatic, mild candida, which was easily treated with an oral antifungal agent. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of adults with active EoE, we found that budesonide oral tablets were significantly more effective than placebo in inducing clinical and histologic remission. Eudra-CT number 2014-001485-99; ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02434029.

norUDCA significantly reduced ALP values dose-dependently in all treatment arms. The safety profile of norUDCA was excellent and comparable to placebo. Consequently, these results justify a phase III trial of norUDCA in PSC patients. Lay summary: Effective medical therapy for primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is urgently needed. In this phase II clinical study in PSC patients, a side chain-shortened derivative of ursodeoxycholic acid, norursodeoxycholic acid (norUDCA), significantly reduced serum alkaline phosphatase levels in a dose-dependent manner during a 12-week treatment. Importantly, norUDCA showed a favorable safety profile, which was similar to placebo. The use of norUDCA in PSC patients is promising and will be further evaluated in a phase III clinical study. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01755507.

Objectives: To determine the therapeutic equivalence and safety of once daily (OD) versus three times daily (TID) dosing of a total daily dose of 3 g Salofalk (mesalazine) granules in patients with active ulcerative colitis. Design: A randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, multicentre, international, phase III noninferiority study. Setting: 54 centres in 13 countries. Patients: 380 patients with confirmed diagnosis of established or first attack of ulcerative colitis (clinical activity index (CAI).4 and endoscopic index >4 at baseline) were randomised and treated. Interventions: 8-week treatment with either 3 g OD or 1 g TID mesalazine granules. Main outcome measures: Clinical remission (CAI(4) at study end. Results: 380 patients were evaluable for efficacy and safety by intention-to-treat (ITT); 345 for per protocol (PP) analysis. In the ITT population, 79.1% in the OD group (n = 191) and 75.7% in the TID group (n = 189) achieved clinical remission (p,0.0001 for non-inferiority). Significantly more patients with proctosigmoiditis achieved clinical remission in the OD group (86%; n = 97) versus the TID group (73%; n = 100; p = 0.0298). About 70% of patients in both treatment groups achieved endoscopic remission, and 35% in the OD group and 41% in the TID group achieved histological remission. About 80% of all patients preferred OD dosing. Similar numbers of adverse events occurred in 55 patients (28.8%) in the OD group and in 61 patients (32.3%) in the TID group, indicating that the two dosing regimens were equally safe and well tolerated. Conclusions: OD 3 g mesalazine granules are as effective and safe as a TID 1 g schedule. With respect to the best possible adherence of patients to the treatment, OD dosing of mesalazine should be the preferred application mode in active ulcerative colitis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00449722Aminosalicylates (mesalazine, sulfasalazine, olsalazine, balsalazide) have been the mainstay of inflammatory bowel disease treatment for over 60 years.1 These drugs are prescribed for active disease as well as for relapse prevention in both ulcerative colitis and in Crohn's disease. Aminosalicylates are the undisputed ''gold standard'' for maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis.2-4 Furthermore, they may have chemopreventive properties against colorectal cancer. 5Conventionally, a multiple daily dosing regimen of aminosalicylates is established. This is a demanding drug regimen, which can interfere with the everyday life of a patient, and can therefore reduce the quality of life. Moreover, the inconvenience of this dosing regimen can have a negative impact on adherence to the drugs, and thus, can lead to a poorer long-term prognosis. Adherence rates in prospective, community-based studies range from 40 to 60%, 6 7 and are particularly poor among patients in remission. [8][9][10][11] Three times per day (TID) dosing of mesalazine was the most significant risk factor for partial non-compliance. A total of 57% of patients who were prescribed mesalazine TID...

No abstract