Suppr超能文献

口服与联合美沙拉嗪治疗活动期溃疡性结肠炎:一项双盲、双模拟、随机多中心研究。

Oral versus combination mesalazine therapy in active ulcerative colitis: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomized multicentre study.

作者信息

Vecchi M, Meucci G, Gionchetti P, Beltrami M, Di Maurizio P, Beretta L, Ganio E, Usai P, Campieri M, Fornaciari G, de Franchis R

机构信息

Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Service, Department of Internal Medicine, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico, Milan, Italy.

出版信息

Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2001 Feb;15(2):251-6. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2001.00913.x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Oral and topical mesalazine formulations are effective in active ulcerative colitis, but little is known on the efficacy of combined treatment.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of oral mesalazine vs. combined oral and topical mesalazine in mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

Patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis (Clinical Activity Index, CAI 4-12) were identified at 15 participating centres. They were randomized to receive either mesalazine 4 g orally plus placebo enema, or mesalazine 2 g orally plus mesalazine 2 g rectally as a liquid enema for 6 weeks. The rate of clinical remission (CAI < 4) or clinical remission/improvement (reduction of CAI of 50% from baseline) at 6 weeks and time to clinical remission/improvement were primary end-points; the rate of endoscopic remission was a secondary end-point.

RESULTS

67 patients were assigned to oral treatment and 63 to combined treatment. One patient in the oral group and 2 in the combined group discontinued the treatment due to adverse events. Following an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of clinical remission was 82% for oral treatment and 87% for combined treatment (P=0.56); the mean time to remission 22.2 and 20.2 days, respectively (P=0.29); the rate of clinical remission/improvement and the rate of endoscopic remission were 85% and 91% (P=0.503) and 58% and 71% (P=0.21), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mild active ulcerative colitis, mesalazine 4 g orally and 2 g orally plus 2 g enema are equally effective in inducing disease remission.

摘要

背景

口服和局部用美沙拉嗪制剂对活动性溃疡性结肠炎有效,但联合治疗的疗效鲜为人知。

目的

比较口服美沙拉嗪与口服联合局部用美沙拉嗪治疗轻度至中度活动性溃疡性结肠炎的疗效。

方法

在15个参与中心识别出轻度至中度活动性溃疡性结肠炎患者(临床活动指数,CAI 4 - 12)。他们被随机分为两组,一组口服4g美沙拉嗪加安慰剂灌肠,另一组口服2g美沙拉嗪加直肠用2g美沙拉嗪液体制剂灌肠,疗程6周。6周时的临床缓解率(CAI < 4)或临床缓解/改善率(CAI较基线降低50%)以及达到临床缓解/改善的时间为主要终点;内镜缓解率为次要终点。

结果

67例患者被分配至口服治疗组,63例被分配至联合治疗组。口服组有1例患者、联合治疗组有2例患者因不良事件停药。在意向性分析后,口服治疗组的临床缓解率为82%,联合治疗组为87%(P = 0.56);平均缓解时间分别为22.2天和20.2天(P = 0.29);临床缓解/改善率和内镜缓解率分别为85%和91%(P = 0.503)以及58%和71%(P = 0.21)。

结论

在轻度活动性溃疡性结肠炎患者中,口服4g美沙拉嗪与口服2g加灌肠2g美沙拉嗪在诱导疾病缓解方面同样有效。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验