Browsing by Author "Pokrotnieks, J."

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Budesonide foam versus budesonide enema in active ulcerative proctitis and proctosigmoiditis
    (2006-01) Gross, V.; Bar-Meir, S.; Lavy, A.; Mickisch, O.; Tulassay, Z.; Pronai, L.; Kupcinskas, L.; Kiudelis, G.; Pokrotnieks, J.; Kovács, Á; Faszczyk, M.; Razbadauskas, A.; Margus, B.; Stolte, M.; Müller, R.; Greinwald, R.
    Background: Rectal budesonide is an effective treatment of active ulcerative proctitis or proctosigmoiditis. Aim: To compare the therapeutic efficacy, tolerability and safety, and patient's preference of budesonide foam vs. budesonide enema. Methods: Patients with active ulcerative proctitis or proctosigmoiditis (clinical activity index >4 and endoscopic index ≥4) were eligible for this double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, multicentre study. They received 2 mg/25 mL budesonide foam and placebo enema (n = 265), or 2 mg/100 mL budesonide enema and placebo foam (n = 268) for 4 weeks. Primary endpoint was clinical remission (clinical activity index ≤4) at the final/withdrawal visit (per protocol). Results: A total of 541 patients were randomized - 533 were evaluable for intention-to-treat analysis and 449 for per protocol analysis. Clinical remission rates (per protocol) were 60% for budesonide foam and 66% for budesonide enema (P = 0.02362 for non-inferiority of foam vs. enema within a predefined non-inferiority margin of 15%). Both formulations were safe and no drug-related serious adverse events were observed. Because of better tolerability and easier application most patients preferred foam (84%). Conclusion: Budesonide foam is as effective as budesonide enema in the treatment of active ulcerative proctitis or proctosigmoiditis. Both budesonide formulations are safe, and most patients prefer foam.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Clinical trial : Randomized-controlled clinical study comparing the efficacy and safety of a low-volume vs. a high-volume mesalazine foam in active distal ulcerative colitis
    (2007-11) Eliakim, R.; Tulassay, Z.; Kupcinskas, L.; Adamonis, K.; Pokrotnieks, J.; Bar-Meir, S.; Lavy, A.; Mueller, R.; Greinwald, R.; Chermesh, I.; Gross, V.
    Background: Rectally administered mesalazine (mesalamine; 5-aminosalicylic acid) is the first-line therapy for treatment of distal ulcerative colitis. Recently, a high-volume 5-aminosalicylic acid foam has been shown to be as effective and safe as standard 5-aminosalicylic acid enema. Aim: To study the efficacy and safety of a low-volume vs. a high-volume 5-aminosalicylic acid foam. Methods: In this investigator-blinded study, patients with active distal ulcerative colitis [Clinical Activity Index (CAI) > 4, Endoscopic Index ≥ 4] were randomized to receive 2 × 1 g/30 mL low-volume (n = 163) or 2 × 1 g/60 mL high-volume 5-aminosalicylic acid foam (n = 167) for 42 days. Primary end point was clinical remission (CAI ≤ 4) at the final/withdrawal visit (per-protocol). Results: 330 patients were evaluable for efficacy and safety by intention-to-treat, 290 for per-protocol analysis. Clinical remission rates at week 6 (per-protocol) were 77% on low-volume foam vs. 77% on high-volume foam (P = 0.00002 for non-inferiority). The low-volume foam was associated with a lower frequency of severe discomfort, pain and retention problems. Conclusions: Low-volume 5-aminosalicylic acid foam is as effective and safe as a high-volume 5-aminosalicylic acid foam in the treatment of active distal ulcerative colitis, but offers compliance advantages compared to the high-volume preparation.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Long-term safety and efficacy of acotiamide in functional dyspepsia (postprandial distress syndrome)—results from the European phase 3 open-label safety trial
    (2018-06) Tack, J.; Pokrotnieks, J.; Urbonas, G.; Banciu, C.; Yakusevich, V.; Bunganic, I.; Törnblom, H.; Kleban, Y.; Eavis, P.; Tsuchikawa, M.; Miyagawa, T.; Rīga Stradiņš University
    Backgrounds: Acotiamide is a novel acetylcholinesterase inhibitor for treatment of postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) symptoms of functional dyspepsia (FD). This European phase 3 open-label safety trial has been conducted to evaluate the long-term safety of acotiamide and explore the efficacy of acotiamide on PDS symptoms using the validated LPDS, quality of life using SF-36 and SF-NDI, and work productivity using WPAI. Methods: FD-PDS patients (defined by ROME III criteria) aged ≥18 years with active PDS symptoms and without predominant overlapping symptoms of epigastric pain syndrome and related disorders were enrolled to receive 100 mg acotiamide three times daily for 1 year. Patients' safety profile and efficacy of acotiamide were monitored. Key Results: The majority of patients (81.6%) maintained exposure to acotiamide for >50 weeks, with a mean duration of 320.3 days. No specific clinically significant safety concerns have been shown, with no deaths, treatment-related severe/serious adverse events, or any clinically significant laboratory test results. Although being an open-label trial, acotiamide showed a change in severity larger than the minimum clinically important difference at weeks 1 and 2 for postprandial fullness and early satiation (meal-related symptoms), and showed improvement of quality of life and work productivity from the first measurement (at week 12) up to 1 year. Conclusions & Inferences: The long-term safety of acotiamide treatment was confirmed. A clinically important change for PDS symptoms, QoL, and work productivity was suggested; however a controlled trial is required to confirm this hypothetic efficacy of acotiamide. (NCT01973790).
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis with the probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 is as effective as with standard mesalazine
    (2004-11) Kruis, W.; Frič, P.; Pokrotnieks, J.; Lukáš, M.; Fixa, B.; Kaščák, M.; Kamm, M. A.; Weismueller, J.; Beglinger, C.; Stolte, M.; Wolff, C.; Schulze, J.
    Background and aim: Evidence exists for the pathogenic role of the enteric flora in inflammatory bowel disease. Probiotics contain living microorganisms which exert health effects on the host. We compared the efficacy in maintaining remission of the probiotic preparation Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 and established therapy with mesalozine in patients with ulcerative colitis. Patients and methods: In total, 327 patients were recruited and assigned to a double blind, double dummy trial to receive either the probiotic drug 200 mg once daily (n = 162) or mesalozine 500 mg three times daily (n = 165). The study lasted for 12 months and patients were assessed by clinical and endoscopic activity indices (Rochmilewitz) as well as by histology. The primary aim of the study was to confirm equivalent efficacy of the two drugs in the prevention of relapses. Results: The per protocol analysis revealed relapses in 40/110 (36.4%) patients in the E coli Nissle 1917 group and 38/112 (33.9%) in the mesalazine group (significant equivalence p = 0.003). Subgroup analyses showed no differences between the treatment groups in terms of duration and localisation of disease or pretrial treatment. Safety profile and tolerability were very good for both groups and were not different. Conclusions: The probiotic drug E coli Nissle 1917 shows efficacy and safety in maintaining remission equivalent to the gold standard mesalazine in patients with ulcerative colitis. The effectiveness of probiotic treatment further underlines the pathogenetic significance of the enteric flora.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Once daily versus three times daily mesalazine granules in active ulcerative colitis : A double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, non-inferiority trial
    (2009-02) Kruis, W.; Kiudelis, G.; Rácz, I.; Gorelov, A.; Pokrotnieks, J.; Horynski, M.; Batovsky, M.; Kykal, J.; Boehm, S.; Greinwald, R.; Mueller, R.
    Objectives: To determine the therapeutic equivalence and safety of once daily (OD) versus three times daily (TID) dosing of a total daily dose of 3 g Salofalk (mesalazine) granules in patients with active ulcerative colitis. Design: A randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, multicentre, international, phase III noninferiority study. Setting: 54 centres in 13 countries. Patients: 380 patients with confirmed diagnosis of established or first attack of ulcerative colitis (clinical activity index (CAI)>4 and endoscopic index ≥ 4 at baseline) were randomised and treated. Interventions: 8-week treatment with either 3 g OD or 1 g TID mesalazine granules. Main outcome measures: Clinical remission (CAI ≤ 4) at study end. Results: 380 patients were evaluable for efficacy and safety by intention-to-treat (ITT); 345 for per protocol (PP) analysis. In the ITT population, 79.1% in the OD group (n = 191) and 75.7% in the TID group (n = 189) achieved clinical remission (p<0.0001 for non-inferiority). Significantly more patients with proctosigmoiditis achieved clinical remission in the OD group (86%; n = 97) versus the TID group (73%; n = 100; p = 0.0298). About 70% of patients in both treatment groups achieved endoscopic remission, and 35% in the OD group and 41% in the TID group achieved histological remission. About 80% of all patients preferred OD dosing. Similar numbers of adverse events occurred in 55 patients (28.8%) in the OD group and in 61 patients (32.3%) in the TID group, indicating that the two dosing regimens were equally safe and well tolerated. Conclusions: OD 3 g mesalazine granules are as effective and safe as a TID 1 g schedule. With respect to the best possible adherence of patients to the treatment, OD dosing of mesalazine should be the preferred application mode in active ulcerative colitis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00449722.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Randomised clinical trial : A comparative dose-finding study of three arms of dual release mesalazine for maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis
    (2011-02) Kruis, W.; Jonaitis, L.; Pokrotnieks, J.; Mikhailova, T. L.; Horynski, M.; Bátovskã, M.; Lozynsky, Y. S.; Zakharash, Y.; Rácz, I.; Kull, K.; Vcev, A.; Faszczyk, M.; Dilger, K.; Greinwald, R.; Mueller, R.
    Background Comparative data regarding different regimens of oral mesalazine (mesalamine) for maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis are limited. Aim To evaluate whether 3.0 g mesalazine once-daily (OD) is superior to the standard treatment of 0.5 g mesalazine three times daily (t.d.s.) and to prove the therapeutic equivalence of OD vs. t.d.s. dosing of total 1.5 g mesalazine for remission maintenance in patients with ulcerative colitis. Methods A 1-year, multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy study was undertaken in patients with endoscopically and histologically confirmed ulcerative colitis in remission. Patients were randomised to oral mesalazine 3.0 g OD, 1.5 g OD or 0.5 g t.d.s. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients still in clinical remission at the final visit, with clinical relapse being defined as CAI score >4 and an increase of â¥3 from baseline. Results The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 162/217 3.0 g OD patients (75%), 129/212 1.5 g OD patients (61%) and 150/218 0.5 g t.d.s. patients (69%) in the intention-to-treat population, and in 152/177 (86%), 121/182 (67%) and 144/185 (78%) in the per protocol population respectively; 3.0 g OD was superior to both low-dose regimens for the primary endpoint (i.e. P < 0.001, 3.0 g OD vs. 1.5 g OD; P = 0.024, 3.0 g OD vs. 0.5 g t.d.s.; superiority test, per protocol population). Safety analysis, including comprehensive renal monitoring, revealed no concern in any treatment group. Conclusion Mesalazine 3.0 g once daily was the most effective dose for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis of the three regimens assessed, with no penalty in terms of safety.