Barbara Giovanni, Cremon Cesare, Annese Vito, Basilisco Guido, Bazzoli Franco, Bellini Massimo, Benedetti Antonio, Benini Luigi, Bossa Fabrizio, Buldrini Paola, Cicala Michele, Cuomo Rosario, Germanà Bastianello, Molteni Paola, Neri Matteo, Rodi Marcello, Saggioro Alfredo, Scribano Maria Lia, Vecchi Maurizio, Zoli Giorgio, Corinaldesi Roberto, Stanghellini Vincenzo
Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Centre for Applied Biomedical Research, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Division of Gastroenterology SOD2, University Hospital Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Gut. 2016 Jan;65(1):82-90. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308188. Epub 2014 Dec 22.
Low-grade intestinal inflammation plays a role in the pathophysiology of IBS. In this trial, we aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of mesalazine in patients with IBS.
We conducted a phase 3, multicentre, tertiary setting, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with Rome III confirmed IBS. Patients were randomly assigned to either mesalazine, 800 mg, or placebo, three times daily for 12 weeks, and were followed for additional 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was satisfactory relief of abdominal pain/discomfort for at least half of the weeks of the treatment period. The key secondary endpoint was satisfactory relief of overall IBS symptoms. Supportive analyses were also performed classifying as responders patients with a percentage of affirmative answers of at least 75% or >75% of time.
A total of 185 patients with IBS were enrolled from 21 centres. For the primary endpoint, the responder patients were 68.6% in the mesalazine group versus 67.4% in the placebo group (p=0.870; 95% CI -12.8 to 15.1). In explorative analyses, with the 75% rule or >75% rule, the percentage of responders was greater in the mesalazine group with a difference over placebo of 11.6% (p=0.115; 95% CI -2.7% to 26.0%) and 5.9% (p=0.404; 95% CI -7.8% to 19.4%), respectively, although these differences were not significant. For the key secondary endpoint, overall symptoms improved in the mesalazine group and reached a significant difference of 15.1% versus placebo (p=0.032; 95% CI 1.5% to 28.7%) with the >75% rule.
Mesalazine treatment was not superior than placebo on the study primary endpoint. However, a subgroup of patients with IBS showed a sustained therapy response and benefits from a mesalazine therapy.
ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT00626288.
低度肠道炎症在肠易激综合征(IBS)的病理生理学中起作用。在本试验中,我们旨在评估美沙拉嗪对IBS患者的疗效和安全性。
我们对符合罗马III标准的IBS患者进行了一项3期、多中心、三级医疗机构、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照试验。患者被随机分配至美沙拉嗪组(800mg)或安慰剂组,每日3次,共12周,并随访额外的12周。主要疗效终点为在治疗期至少半数周内腹痛/不适得到满意缓解。关键次要终点为IBS总体症状得到满意缓解。还进行了支持性分析,将肯定回答百分比至少为75%或在75%以上的时间的患者分类为有反应者。
共从21个中心纳入了185例IBS患者。对于主要终点,美沙拉嗪组有反应者为68.6%,安慰剂组为67.4%(p = 0.870;95%CI -12.8至15.1)。在探索性分析中,按照75%规则或75%以上规则,美沙拉嗪组有反应者的百分比更高,与安慰剂组的差异分别为11.6%(p = 0.115;95%CI -2.7%至26.0%)和5.9%(p = 0.404;95%CI -7.8%至19.4%),尽管这些差异不显著。对于关键次要终点,按照75%以上规则,美沙拉嗪组总体症状改善,与安慰剂组相比有显著差异,为15.1%(p = 0.032;95%CI 1.5%至28.7%)。
在研究的主要终点上,美沙拉嗪治疗并不优于安慰剂。然而,一部分IBS患者显示出持续的治疗反应并从美沙拉嗪治疗中获益。
ClinicalTrials.gov编号,NCT00626288。