Comparison of efficacies of once-daily dose multimatrix mesalazine and multiple-dose mesalazine for the maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis: A randomized, double-blind study

3Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background/Aims: This study compared the efficacy of once-daily administration of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day with multiple-dose mesalazine for the maintenance of remission. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 203 patients with ulcerative colitis in remission received multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day once-daily or time-dependent (controlled- release) mesalazine 2.25 g/day 3 times-daily for 48 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients without rectal bleeding. Results: The proportion of patients without rectal bleeding during the 48-week treatment period in the per protocol set was 84.8% (84/99) in the multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day group and 78.0% (78/100) in the controlled-release mesalazine 2.25 g/day group. The difference between the 2 treatment groups was 6.8% (two-sided 95% confidence interval, -3.9% to 17.6%). The noninferiority margin of -10% was met in the comparison of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day once-daily with controlled-release mesalazine 2.25 g/day. Multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day once-daily demonstrated consistent efficacy in all subgroups. There was no difference between the 2 treatment groups with regard to safety. Conclusions: A once-daily dose of 2 multimatrix mesalazine tablets (2.4 g) was not inferior to controlled-release mesalazine 2.25 g/day 3 times-daily in maintaining absence of rectal bleeding in ulcerative colitis.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ogata, H., Ohori, A., Nishino, H., Mizushima, S., Hagino, A., & Hibi, T. (2017). Comparison of efficacies of once-daily dose multimatrix mesalazine and multiple-dose mesalazine for the maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis: A randomized, double-blind study. Intestinal Research, 15(3), 358–367. https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2017.15.3.358

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free