Comparison of omeprazole, metronidazole and clarithromycin with omeprazole/amoxicillin dual-therapy for the cure of Helicobacter pylori infection

In this randomized, multicenter trial, we evaluated the effectiveness and side effect profile of a modified omeprazole-based triple therapy to cure Helicobacter pylori infection. The control group consisted of patients treated with standard dual therapy comprising omeprazole and amoxicillin. One hundred and fifty-seven H. pylori infected patients with duodenal ulcers were randomly assigned to receive either a combination of omeprazole 10 mg, clarithromycin 250 mg and metronidazole 400 mg (OCM) given three times daily for 10 days (n = 81),or a combination of omeprazole 20 mg and amoxicillin 1 g (OA) given twice daily for 14 days (n = 76). Prior to treatment and after 2 and 6 weeks, gastric biopsies from the antrum and corpus were obtained for histology and H. pylori culture. H. pylori infection was cured in 97.4% after OCM and in 65.8% after OA in the per-protocol analysis (p < 0.001) (intention-to-treat analysis: 93.4% and 63.2%, respectively). H. pylori was successfully cultured in 122 patients (77%). The overall rate of metronidazole resistance was 19.7% (24/122), no primary resistance to clarithromycin or amoxicillin was found. In the OCM group, all patients infected with metronidazole-sensitive H. pylori strains (n = 51) and those infected with strains of unknown susceptibility to metronidazole (n = 14)were cured (100%), while 77% (10/13) of those harboring metronidazole-resistant. strains were cured of the infection (p = 0.36). Side effects leading to premature termination of treatment occurred in 2.5% of the patients in the OCM group and in 1.4 % of the OA group. We conclude that combined treatment with omeprazole, clarithromycin and a higher dose of metronidazole is highly effective in curing H, pylori infection, Helicobacter pylori omeprazole and that this regimen remains very effective in the presence of metronidazole resistant strains

Psychometric validation of the German translation of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire in patients with reflux disease

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of heartburn has an impact on health-related quality of life (HRQL). When a questionnaire is translated into a new language, a linguistic validation is necessary but not sufficient unless the psychometric characteristics have been verified. The aim is to document the psychometric characteristics of the German translation of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire. METHODS: 142 patients with symptoms of heartburn (Age: M = 47.5, ± 14.6; Males = 44.4%) completed the German translation of GSRS, the QOLRAD, the Short-Form-36 (SF-36) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) scale. RESULTS: The internal consistency reliability of GSRS ranged from 0.53–0.91 and of QOLRAD from 0.90–0.94, respectively. The test-retest reliability of GSRS ranged from 0.49–0.73 and of QOLRAD from 0.70–0.84. The relevant domains of the GSRS and QOLRAD domain scores significantly correlated. GSRS domains of Abdominal Pain and Constipation correlated (negatively) with most of the domains of the SF-36. The relevant QOLRAD domains significantly correlated with all SF-36 domains. CONCLUSIONS: The psychometric characteristics of the German translation of GSRS and QOLRAD were found to be good, with satisfactory reliability and validity. The reliability of the GSRS Abdominal Pain domain was moderate

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral budesonide for prophylaxis of acute intestinal graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (PROGAST)

Background Gastrointestinal graft–versus-host disease (GvHD) is a potentially life-threatening complication after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT). Since therapeutic options are still limited, a prophylactic approach seems to be warranted. Methods In this randomised, double-blind-phase III trial, we evaluated the efficacy of budesonide in the prophylaxis of acute intestinal GvHD after SCT. The trial was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov webcite, number NCT00180089. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 3 mg capsule three times daily oral budesonide or placebo. Budesonide was applied as a capsule with pH-modified release in the terminal ileum. Study medication was administered through day 56, follow-up continued until 12 months after transplantation. If any clinical signs of acute intestinal GvHD appeared, an ileocolonoscopy with biopsy specimens was performed. Results The crude incidence of histological or clinical stage 3–4 acute intestinal GvHD until day 100 observed in 91 (n =48 budesonide, n =43 placebo) evaluable patients was 12.5% (95% CI 3-22%) under treatment with budesonide and 14% (95% CI 4-25%) under placebo (p = 0.888). Histologic and clinical stage 3–4 intestinal GvHD after 12 months occurred in 17% (95% CI 6-28%) of patients in the budesonide group and 19% (CI 7-32%) in the placebo group (p = 0.853). Although budesonide was tolerated well, we observed a trend towards a higher rate of infectious complications in the study group (47.9% versus 30.2%, p = 0.085). The cumulative incidences at 12 months of intestinal GvHD stage >2 with death as a competing event (budesonide 20.8% vs. placebo 32.6%, p = 0.250) and the cumulative incidence of relapse (budesonide 20.8% vs. placebo 16.3%, p = 0.547) and non-relapse mortality (budesonide 28% (95% CI 15-41%) vs. placebo 30% (95% CI 15-44%), showed no significant difference within the two groups (p = 0.911). The trial closed after 94 patients were enrolled because of slow accrual. Within the limits of the final sample size, we were unable to show any benefit for the addition of budesonide to standard GvHD prophylaxis. Conclusions Budesonide did not decrease the occurrence of intestinal GvHD in this trial. These results imply most likely that prophylactic administration of budenoside with pH-modified release in the terminal ileum is not effective

Budesonide as induction therapy for incomplete microscopic colitis: A randomised, placebo‐controlled multicentre trial

Background and aims: Incomplete microscopic colitis (MCi) is a subtype of microscopic colitis (MC). Budesonide is recommended as a first-line treatment for MC. However, randomised trials on efficacy of treatment in MCi are missing. We therefore performed a randomised, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate budesonide as induction therapy for MCi. Methods: Patients with active MCi were randomly assigned to either budesonide 9 mg once daily or placebo for 8 weeks in a double-blind, double-dummy design. The primary endpoint was clinical remission, defined as a mean of <3 stools/day and a mean of <1 watery stool/day in the 7 days before week 8. Results: Due to insufficient patient recruitment, the trial was discontinued prematurely. The intention-to-treat analysis included 44 patients (21 budesonide and 23 placebo). The primary endpoint of clinical remission at week 8 was obtained by 71.4% on budesonide and 43.5% on placebo (p = 0.0582). All clinical secondary endpoints were in favour of budesonide. Budesonide decreased the number of soft or watery stools (16.3 vs. 7.7, p = 0.0186) and improved health-related quality of life for all four dimensions of the short health scale. Adverse events with a suspected relation to study drug were reported in one patient in the budesonide group and two patients in the placebo group. Neither serious nor severe adverse events occurred during the double-blind phase. Conclusions: Budesonide decreased the frequency of soft or watery stools and improved the patients' quality of life significantly in MCi, but the primary endpoint was not met due to the low sample size (type 2 error). Budesonide was safe and well tolerated during the 8-weeks treatment course

Budesonide orodispersible tablets for induction of remission in patients with active eosinophilic oesophagitis: A 6-week open-label trial of the EOS-2 Programme

BACKGROUND A novel budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) has been proven effective in adult patients with active eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) in a 6-week placebo-controlled trial (EOS-1). AIMS To report the efficacy of an open-label induction treatment with BOT in a large prospective cohort of EoE patients within the EOS-2 study. METHODS Patients with clinico-histological active EoE were treated with BOT 1 mg BID for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinico-histological remission (≤2 points on numerical rating scales [0-10] each for dysphagia and odynophagia, and peak eosinophil count <16 eos/mm$^{2}$ hpf (corresponds to <5 eos/hpf)). Further study endpoints included clinical and histological remission rates, change in the EEsAI-PRO score, change in peak eosinophil counts, and deep endoscopic remission using a modified Endoscopic Reference Score. RESULTS Among 181 patients enrolled, 126 (69.6%) achieved clinico-histological remission (histological remission 90.1%, clinical remission 75.1%). The mean peak eosinophil counts decreased by 283 eos/mm$^{2}$ hpf (i.e., by 89.0%). Mean EEsAI-PRO score decreased from baseline by 29 points and deep endoscopic remission was achieved in 97 (53.6%) patients. The majority of patients judged tolerability as good or very good (85.6%) and compliance was high (96.5%). Local candidiasis was suspected in 8.3% of patients; all were of mild severity, resolved with treatment and none led to premature withdrawal from the study. CONCLUSIONS In this large prospective trial, a 6-week open-label treatment with BOT 1 mg BID was highly effective and safe in achieving clinico-histological remission of active EoE and confirmed the results of the placebo-controlled EOS-1 trial

Budesonide orodispersible tablets maintain remission in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis

Background & Aims: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disorder. Swallowed topical-acting corticosteroids are effective in bringing active EoE into remission. However, it is not clear whether these drugs are effective for long-term maintenance of remission. Methods: We performed a double-blind trial to compare the efficacy and safety of 2 dosages of a budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) vs placebo in maintaining remission of EoE. Maintenance of remission was defined as absence of clinical and histologic relapse and no premature withdrawal for any reason. Two hundred and four adults with EoE in clinical and histologic remission, from 29 European study sites, were randomly assigned to groups given BOT 0.5 mg twice daily (n = 68), BOT 1.0 mg twice daily (n = 68), or placebo twice daily (n = 68) for up to 48 weeks. Results: At end of treatment, 73.5% of patients receiving BOT 0.5 mg twice daily and 75% receiving BOT 1.0 mg twice daily were in persistent remission compared with 4.4% of patients in the placebo group (P < .001 for both comparisons of BOT with placebo). Median time to relapse in the placebo group was 87 days. The frequency of adverse events was similar in the BOT and placebo groups. Morning serum levels of cortisol were in the normal range at baseline and did not significantly change during treatment. Four patients receiving BOT developed asymptomatic, low serum levels of cortisol. Clinically manifested candidiasis was suspected in 16.2% of patients in the BOT 0.5 mg group and in 11.8% of patients in the BOT 1.0 mg group; all infections resolved with treatment. Conclusions: In a phase 3 trial, up to 48 weeks of treatment with BOT (0.5 mg or 1.0 mg twice daily) was superior to placebo in maintaining remission of EoE. Both dosages were equally effective and well tolerated. EudraCT number; 2014-001485-99; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02434029

Efficacy of Budesonide Orodispersible Tablets as Induction Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis in a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Swallowed topical-acting corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Asthma medications not optimized for esophageal delivery are sometimes effective, although given off-label. We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of a budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT), which allows the drug to be delivered to the esophagus in adults with active EoE. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, parallel study of 88 adults with active EoE in Europe. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that received BOT (1 mg twice daily; n = 59) or placebo (n = 29) for 6 weeks. The primary end point was complete remission, based on clinical and histologic factors, including dysphagia and odynophagia severity ≤2 on a scale of 0-10 on each of the 7 days before the end of the double-blind phase and a peak eosinophil count <5 eosinophils/high power field. Patients who did not achieve complete remission at the end of the 6-week double-blind phase were offered 6 weeks of open-label treatment with BOT (1 mg twice daily). RESULTS: At 6 weeks, 58% of patients given BOT were in complete remission compared with no patients given placebo (P < .0001). The secondary end point of histologic remission was achieved by 93% of patients given BOT vs no patients given placebo (P < .0001). After 12 weeks, 85% of patients had achieved remission. Six-week and 12-week BOT administration were safe and well tolerated; 5% of patients who received BOT developed symptomatic, mild candida, which was easily treated with an oral antifungal agent. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of adults with active EoE, we found that budesonide oral tablets were significantly more effective than placebo in inducing clinical and histologic remission. Eudra-CT number 2014-001485-99; ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02434029

A randomised, double-blind trial comparing budesonide formulations and dosages for short-term treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis.

To investigate the efficacy and safety of two different budesonide formulations (effervescent tablet for orodispersible use (BET) and viscous suspension (BVS)) with different daily dosages for short-term treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE).Adults with active EoE (n=76) randomly received 14 days' treatment with either BET 2×1 mg/day (BET1, n=19) or BET 2×2 mg/day (BET2, n=19), or BVS 2×5 mL (0.4 mg/mL)/day (BVS, n=19) or placebo (n=19) in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion, with a 2-week follow-up. Primary end point was histological remission (mean of <16 eosinophils/mm(2 )hpf). Secondary end points included endoscopy score, dysphagia score, drug safety and patient's preference for drug formulation.Histological remission occurred in 100%, 94.7% and 94.7% of budesonide (BET1, BET2, BVS, respectively) and in 0% of placebo recipients (p<0.0001). The improvement in total endoscopic intensity score was significantly higher in the three budesonide groups compared with placebo. Dysphagia improved in all groups at the end of treatment; however, improvement of dysphagia persisted only in those treated with BET1 (p=0.0196 vs placebo). There were no serious adverse events. Local fungal infection (stained fungi) occurred in two patients of each budesonide group (10.5%). The effervescent tablet was preferred by 80% of patients.BET or BVS was highly effective and safe for short-term treatment of EoE. The 1 mg (twice daily) dosage was equally effective as the 2 mg twice daily dosage. The majority of patients preferred the effervescent tablet formulation.NCT02280616; EudraCT number, 2009-016692-29