m+Medelevator.RU
← Поиск публикаций
Digestive diseases and sciences · 1993

Better quality of therapy with 5-ASA colonic foam in active ulcerative colitis. A multicenter comparative trial with 5-ASA enema.

Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Campieri M, Paoluzi P, D'Albasio G, Brunetti G, Pera A, Barbara L

Аннотация

We evaluated the efficacy, tolerance, and acceptance of a new 5-ASA colonic foam versus 5-ASA liquid enema in the short-term treatment of active ulcerative colitis in a three-week prospective, randomized, investigator-blind study, enrolling 233 patients from 12 outpatient clinics in Italy. In arm 1 of the study, 117 patients with mild attacks received 2 g of 5-ASA as foam or enema at bedtime. In arm 2, 116 patients with moderate attacks were given 4 g of 5-ASA as foam or enema at bedtime. End points were defined as complete relief of symptoms, and endoscopic and histological evidence of remission or improvement. In patients with mild relapse, 34 of 63 (54%) treated with foam were in clinical remission after only 10 days compared with 17 of 51 (31%) treated with enemas (P < 0.05). However, there was no statistically significant difference between foam (83%) and enema (74%) after three weeks. In patients with moderate relapse, a higher proportion of patients achieved complete clinical remission in the foam group (63%) compared with enema group (52%) after three weeks (difference 11%, 95% CI -7 to 29). No significant differences were observed in endoscopic and histological evaluation of colonic mucosa between treatment groups in either arm. 5-ASA foam was well tolerated. No unexpected adverse events were reported. Patient evaluation of therapy showed that foam was much better accepted than enema because foam was more comfortable, more practical, easier to retain, and interfered less with daily living.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Предметные рубрики MeSH

ИП Урсолов Владлен Сергеевич

ИНН 500118482352 · ОГРНИП 314500117700049

Реквизиты и контакты