Budesonide foam versus budesonide enema in active ulcerative proctitis and proctosigmoiditis

Abstract

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.