Budesonide foam vs. hydrocortisone acetate foam in the treatment of active ulcerative proctosigmoiditis.

INTRODUCTION

Rectal administration of corticosteroids is advocated in patients with proctosigmoiditis who have failed therapy with mesalamine enema. Foam offers patients better tolerability than an enema. In this study the efficacy and adverse effects of a new budesonide foam are compared with the presently available hydrocortisone foam.

METHODS

Two hundred fifty-one patients with proctosigmoiditis were randomly assigned to receive either budesonide foam or hydrocortisone foam for eight weeks.

RESULTS

Remission rates were comparable in the budesonide and hydrocortisone groups, 53 and 52 percent, respectively. The mean disease activity index for the two groups decreased to a similar extent, from 7.2 +/- 1.9 and 7 +/- 2 to 3.6 +/- 3.1 and 3.9 +/- 3.4 in the budesonide and hydrocortisone groups, respectively. In a subgroup of patients who had not responded to rectal administration of mesalamine, 23 of 44 (52 percent) patients who received budesonide responded favorably to the foam, as compared with 14 of 38 (37 percent) patients who received hydrocortisone (P = not significant). Low plasma cortisol occurred in 3 percent of the budesonide group and in none of the hydrocortisone patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial demonstrates a similar efficacy and safety of the two foams in patients with proctosigmoiditis.