Efficacy and Safety of Mesalamine 1 g HS Versus 500 mg BID Suppositories in Mild to Moderate Ulcerative Proctitis: A Multicenter Randomized Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ulcerative proctitis (UP) usually presents as fresh rectal bleeding. Successful treatment using topical mesalamine 5-aminosalicyclic acid (5-ASA) 500 mg BID suppository led to developing a once-a-day formulation that could contribute to better acceptability and ease of use by patients. The objective of this randomized trial, conducted in 18 centers, was to compare efficacy of 2 modes of treatment with 5-ASA suppositories. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients with mild or moderate UP limited to 15 cm of the anal margin, evidenced by a disease activity index (DAI) between 4 and 11, were randomized to 5-ASA 500 mg suppository (Canasa; Axcan Pharma) BID or 1 g at bedtime (HS) for 6 weeks. The study used a noninferiority hypothesis based on the mean difference in DAI values after 6 weeks of treatment on an intent-to-treat basis using analysis of covariance. DAI was derived from a composite of the measures of stool frequency, rectal bleeding, mucosal visualization at endoscopy, and general well being. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups at baseline for demographic and clinical parameters. Mean DAIs fell from 6.6 +/- 1.5 (SD) to 1.6 +/- 2.3 in the 500 mg BID group (n = 48) and from 6.1 +/- 1.5 to 1.3 +/- 2.2 in the 1 g HS group (n = 39). There was no significant difference (P = 0.74) in mean DAI at week 6 between the 2 groups. Both groups showed a significant reduction (P < 0.0001) in DAI over the course of the 6 weeks. Both formulations showed effectiveness in reducing each individual component of the DAI. There was no significant difference between treatments in adverse events, and both groups had an overall drug compliance of greater than 95%. CONCLUSION: This study showed that 1 g HS and 500 mg BID mesalamine suppository treatments of UP patients were equivalent in all facets of efficacy, safety, and compliance in a 6-week trial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".