Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35709376›Full record

Trial reportJournal of Crohn's & colitis2022

Novel Budesonide Suppository and Standard Budesonide Rectal Foam Induce High Rates of Clinical Remission and Mucosal Healing in Active Ulcerative Proctitis: a Randomised, Controlled, Non-inferiority Trial.

Wolfgang Kruis, Britta Siegmund, Konrad Lesniakowski, Vladimir Simanenkov, Ludmila Khimion, Marcin Sobon, Glebs Delmans, Svetlana V Maksyashina, Oleg A Sablin, Juris Pokrotnieks and 18 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of Crohn's & colitis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 3D printed infliximab suppositories for rectal biologic delivery.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

28 authors at 18 institutions in 6 countries.

Wolfgang KruisEmeritus Head of Gastroenterology, Ev. Krankenhaus Kalk, University of Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9465-0124
Britta SiegmundDepartment for Gastroenterology, Infectious diseases and Rheumatology, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0055-958X
Konrad LesniakowskiDepartment VII of Gastroenterology, Hepatologie and Clinical Nutrition, Wojewódzki Szpital Specjalistyczny im. J. Gromkowskiego, Wroclaw, Poland.
Vladimir SimanenkovState Budgetary Healthcare Institution 'City Hospital #26', Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Ludmila KhimionMunicipal Institution of Kyiv Regional Rada 'Kyiv Regional Clinical Hospital', Kyiv, Ukraine.
Marcin SobonCentrum Medyczne Pratia Bydgoszcz, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Glebs DelmansEndoscopy Department, Daugavpils Regional Hospital, Daugavpils, Latvia.
Svetlana V MaksyashinaState Public Health Institution 'Novgorod regional clinical hospital', Velikiy Novgorod, Russian Federation.
Oleg A SablinFederal State Budget Public Health Institution All-Russian centre of Emergency and Radiation medicine n. a., A.M.Nikiforov of Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia, Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Juris PokrotnieksPauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Centre, Riga, Latvia.
Yuriy MostovoyPrivate small-scale enterprise "Pulse", Therapeutical Department, Vinnitsya, Ukraine.
Olena DatsenkoMunicipal Institution of Healthcare 'Prof. Shalimova Kharkiv City Clinical Hospital # 2', Kharkiv, Ukraine.
Sayar AbdulkhakovFederal State Budget Educational Institution of High Education 'Kazan State Medical University', Kazan, Russian Federation.
Andriy DorofeyevUkrainian-German Gastroenterology Center 'BYK-Kyiv', Kyiv, Ukraine.
Olena LevchenkoMunicipal Institution 'Odesa Regional Clinical Hospital', Polyclinic department, Odesa, Ukraine.
Olga AlexeevaState Public Health Institution 'Nizhny Novgorod regional clinical hospital n.a. N.A.Semashko', Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation.
Pavel AndreevNon-state Public Health Institution 'Railway clinical hospital on station Samara' of JSC 'Russian railways', Samara, Russian Federation.
Ivan P KolesnikMunicipal Institution 'Zaporizhzhya City Clinical Hospital of Urgent Care', Surgery department #3, Zaporizhya, Ukraine.
Emese MihalySemmelweis Egyetem ÁOK, II. Belgyógyászati Klinika, Budapest, Hungary.
Orest AbrahamovychLviv Regional Clinical Hospital, Gastroenterology department; Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine.
Malgorzata BalutaCentrum Medyczne Pratia Gdynia, Gdynia, Poland.
Nataliia KharchenkoKyiv City Clinical Hospital #8, Department of Gastroenterology. P.L. Shupyk National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Kyiv, Ukraine.
Neshta ViacheslavMunicipal Institution 'City Hospital #1', Surgery department, Zaporizhya, Ukraine.
Yury UspenskiySaint-Petersburg State Public Health Institution 'City Hospital of Saint Venerable Martyr Elizabeth', Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Michael ViethFriedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Klinikum Bayreuth, Institute of Pathology, Bayreuth, Germany.
Ralf MohrbacherDr. Falk Pharma GmbH, Clinical Research and Development, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4976-3629
Ralph MuellerDr. Falk Pharma GmbH, Clinical Research and Development, Freiburg, Germany.
Roland GreinwaldDr. Falk Pharma GmbH, Clinical Research and Development, Freiburg, Germany.
Dr Falk Pharma (Germany) · DEZaporizhzhia National University · UABayreuth Medical Center · DEDanylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University · UADaugavpils University · LVEnergostal (Ukraine) · UAHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DEKazan State Medical University · RUKyiv City Clinical Oncology Center · UAMinistry of Emergency Situations · RUNizhny Novgorod Regional Clinical Hospital named after Semashko · RUPauls Stradiņš Clinical University Hospital · LVRussian Railways · RUSemmelweis University · HUShupyk National Healthcare University of Ukraine · UASt. Petersburg State Medical Academy "City Hospital No. 26" · RUUniversity of Cologne · DEWojewódzki Szpital Specjalistyczny we Wrocławiu · PL

Funding

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsProctitis is the least extensive type of ulcerative colitis, for which rectal therapy is rarely studied and is underused. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and patient's preference of a novel formulation of budesonide suppository 4 mg, compared with a commercially available budesonide rectal foam 2 mg, for the treatment of mild to moderate ulcerative proctitis.

methodsThis was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either budesonide 4 mg suppository or budesonide 2 mg foam once daily for 8 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were changes from baseline to Week 8 in clinical symptoms, for which clinical remission was defined as having a modified Ulcerative Colitis-Disease Activity Index [UC-DAI] subscore for stool frequency of 0 or 1 and a subscore for rectal bleeding of 0, and mucosal healing, defined as having a modified UC-DAI subscore for mucosal appearance of 0 or 1. Using a more stringent criterion, we additionally analysed deepened mucosal healing, which was defined as a mucosal appearance subscore of 0. Patient's preference, physician's global assessment, and quality of life were also assessed and analysed.

resultsOverall, 286 and 291 patients were included in the 4 mg suppository and 2 mg foam groups, respectively. Budesonide 4 mg suppository met the prespecified criterion for non-inferiority to the 2 mg foam in both co-primary endpoints of clinical remission and mucosal healing. Secondary endpoints consistently supported the non-inferiority of the suppository. Trends in favour of the suppository were observed in the subgroup of mesalazine non-responders. More patients reported a preference for the suppository over rectal foam.

conclusionsIn patients with ulcerative proctitis, budesonide 4 mg suppository was non-inferior to budesonide 2 mg foam in efficacy, and both were safe and well tolerated.

Indexed as

Colitis, UlcerativeProctitisBudesonideDouble-Blind MethodHumansMesalamineQuality of LifeRemission InductionTreatment OutcomeBudesonideMesalaminebudesonideClinical trialsrectal foamrectal suppositoryulcerative proctitis

Identifiers

PMID35709376
PMCPMC9683080
OpenAlexW4282961468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.