Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Rebamipide versus Its New Formulation, AD-203, in Patients with Erosive Gastritis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Control, Noninferiority, Multicenter, Phase 3 Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background/aims

: The mucoprotective drug rebamipide is used to treat gastritis and peptic ulcers. We compared the efficacy of Mucosta^Ⓡ (rebamipide 100 mg) and its new formulation, AD-203 (rebamipide 150 mg), in treating erosive gastritis.

Methods

This double-blind, active control, noninferiority, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial randomly assigned 475 patients with endoscopically proven erosive gastritis to two groups: AD-203 twice daily or Mucosta^Ⓡ thrice daily for 2 weeks. The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included 454 patients (AD-203, n=229; Mucosta^Ⓡ, n=225), and the per-protocol (PP) analysis included 439 patients (AD-203, n=224; Mucosta^Ⓡ, n=215). The posttreatment assessments included the primary (erosion improvement rate) and secondary endpoints (erosion and edema cure rates; improvement rates of redness, hemorrhage, and gastrointestinal symptoms). Drug-related adverse events were evaluated.

Results

According to the ITT analysis, the erosion improvement rates (posttreatment) in AD-203-treated and Mucosta^Ⓡ-treated patients were 39.7% and 43.8%, respectively. According to the PP analysis, the erosion improvement rates (posttreatment) in AD-203-treated and Mucosta^Ⓡ-treated patients were 39.3% and 43.7%, respectively. The one-sided 97.5% lower limit for the improvement rate difference between the study groups was -4.01% (95% confidence interval [CI], -13.09% to 5.06%) in the ITT analysis and -4.44% (95% CI, -13.65% to 4.78%) in the PP analysis. The groups did not significantly differ in the secondary endpoints in either analysis. Twenty-four AD-203-treated and 20 Mucosta^Ⓡ-treated patients reported adverse events but no serious adverse drug reactions; both groups presented similar adverse event rates.

Conclusions

The new formulation of rebamipide 150 mg (AD-203) twice daily was not inferior to rebamipide 100 mg (Mucosta^Ⓡ) thrice daily. Both formulations showed a similar efficacy in treating erosive gastritis.

SUBMITTER: Kim GH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8593495 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEchinacea has antiviral activity against influenza viruses in vitro and has traditionally been used for treatment of colds and flu.ObjectivesThis randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, controlled clinical trial compared a new echinacea formulation with the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir, the gold standard treatment for influenza.MethodsFollowing informed consent, 473 patients with early influenza symptoms (≤48 hours) were recruited in primary care in the Czech Republic and randomized to either 5 days of oseltamivir followed by 5 days of placebo, or 10 days of an Echinacea purpurea-based formulation called Echinaforce Hotdrink (A. Vogel Bioforce AG, Roggwil, Switzerland). The proportion of recovered patients (influenza symptoms rated as absent or mild in the evening) was analyzed for noninferiority between treatment groups using a generalized Wilcoxon test with significance level α = 0.05 (2-sided) and using a CI approach in the per-protocol sample.ResultsRecovery from illness was comparable in the 2 treatment groups at 1.5% versus 4.1% after 1 day, 50.2% versus 48.8% after 5 days, and 90.1% versus 84.8% after 10 days of treatment with Echinaforce Hotdrink and oseltamivir, respectively. Noninferiority was demonstrated for each day and overall (95% CI, 0.487-0.5265 by generalized Wilcoxon test). Very similar results were obtained in the group with virologically confirmed influenza virus infections and in a retrospective analysis during the peak influenza period. The incidence of complications was lower with Echinaforce Hotdrink than with oseltamivir (2.46% vs 6.45%; P = 0.076) and fewer adverse events (particularly nausea and vomiting) were observed with Echinaforce Hotdrink.ConclusionsEchinaforce Hotdrink is as effective as oseltamivir in the early treatment of clinically diagnosed and virologically confirmed influenza virus infections with a reduced risk of complications and adverse events. It appears to be an attractive treatment option, particularly suitable for self-care. Clinical trial identifier: Eudra-CT: 2010-021571-88. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2015; 77:66-72).

Project description:BackgroundRebamipide is a gastroprotective agent with promising results against gastric damage induced by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The present study evaluated if rebamipide protects against naproxen-induced gastric damage in healthy volunteers. Changes in gastric PGE2 tissue concentration were also evaluated.MethodsAfter a preliminary endoscopy to rule out previous gastric macroscopic damage, twenty-four healthy volunteers of both sexes were divided into 2 groups. One group received sodium naproxen 550 mg b.i.d. plus placebo for 7 days, while the other group received sodium naproxen 550 mg b.i.d. plus rebamipide 100 mg b.i.d. At the end of treatment, a new endoscopy was performed. Gastric macroscopic damage was evaluated by the Cryer score and by the modified Lanza score. The primary outcome measure of the trial was the macroscopic damage observed in each treatment group at the end of treatment. Biopsies were collected at both endoscopies for PGE2 quantification and histopathological analysis (secondary outcomes). Tissue PGE2 was quantified by ELISA. The randomization sequence was generated using 3 blocks of 8 subjects each. Volunteers and endoscopists were blind to whether they were receiving rebamipide or placebo.ResultsAll recruited volunteers completed the trial. Sodium naproxen induced gastric damage in both groups. At the end of the study, median Cryer score was 4 in both groups (Difference = 0; 95%CI = -1 to 0; p = 0.728). In the placebo group, the mean tissue PGE2 concentration was 1005 ± 129 pg/mL before treatment and 241 ± 41 pg/mL after treatment (p < 0.001). In the rebamipide group, the mean tissue PGE2 concentration was 999 ± 109 pg/mL before treatment, and 168 ± 13 pg/mL after treatment (p < 0.001). There was no difference in mean tissue PGE2 between the two groups (difference = 5; 95%CI from -334.870 to 345.650; p = 0.975). No significant change was observed at the histopathological evaluation, despite the evident macroscopic damage induced by naproxen.ConclusionRebamipide does not protect against naproxen-induced gastric damage in healthy volunteers.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02632812 . Registered 14 December 2015.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To demonstrate the efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate three-monthly (PP3M) formulation in an East Asian population with schizophrenia by subgroup analysis of a double-blind (DB), multicenter, noninferiority study. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Of 1,429 patients who entered the open-label (OL) phase, 510 were East Asian (China: 296 [58%], Japan: 175 [34%], South Korea: 19 [4%] and Taiwan: 20 [4%]). In the 17-week OL phase, patients received paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) formulation on day 1 (150 mg eq.), day 8 (100 mg eq.) and once-monthly thereafter (50-150 mg eq., flexible). Following the OL phase, patients (n=344 East Asian) entered DB phase and were randomized (1:1) to PP1M (n=174) or PP3M (n=170). Primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients who remained relapse free at the end of the 48-week DB phase, using Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival estimate. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change from DB baseline to endpoint in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Clinical Global Impression Severity, Personal and Social Performance scores and symptomatic remission. Additional assessments included caregiver burden and safety. RESULTS:A total of 285/344 (83%) randomized East Asian patients completed the DB phase. The percentage of patients who had a relapse event was similar on comparing PP3M (17 [10.2%]) to PP1M (20 [11.8%]), and also for Japan (PP3M: 9 [17.6%], PP1M: 13 [23.2%]) and China (PP3M: 6 [5.9%], PP1M: 7 [6.9%]). Mean change from baseline in secondary efficacy parameters was similar to the global population, regardless of treatment. Symptomatic remission was attained by 50% of the treated patients. Caregiver burden was significantly reduced (P<0.001) following treatment with PP3M/PP1M. Frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events in PP3M group during DB phase was greater in the East Asian subgroup (81%) than the global population (68%) and was higher in Japan (92%) than China (75%). CONCLUSION:Results suggest that PP3M is efficacious in the East Asian subgroup. Although treatment-emergent adverse events were slightly higher in the East Asian subgroup versus the global population, no new safety signals were identified.