05. All

other statistical tests (Wald test for risk difference, Wilcoxon signed rank test, log-rank test, Fisher’s exact test, t test) were performed 2-sided with a significance level of α = .05 on an exploratory basis. Efficacy was analyzed for the ITT population with a sensitivity analysis for the per-protocol (PP) population. selleck antibody Patients with lack of compliance, intake of forbidden concomitant medication, violation of eligibility criteria, or early discontinuation due to adverse event without causal relationship with study drug, were excluded from PP population. Safety analysis was performed descriptively for the safety population. Statistical testing of the primary end point was done via the ADDPLAN system. All other analyses were conducted using the SAS statistical package for Windows (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). We randomized a total of 92 patients (budesonide 30, mesalamine 25, placebo 37) eligible for ITT analysis. The first patient was enrolled on May 22, 2007. The last patient left the study on June 21, 2011. Fifty-three patients were considered for the interim analysis (budesonide 16, mesalamine 22, placebo 15). Recruitment continued during analysis. The interim analysis revealed that mesalamine was less effective than placebo

and the conditional power to gain a positive final result was near zero (stopping by futility) and, consequently, the independent data review board recommended closure of this study arm. A total of 15 patients were considered as major protocol violators, leaving 77 patients Selleck Pictilisib for the PP analysis (Supplementary

Figure 1). The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the ITT population were similar across the treatment groups without any statistical differences among the 3 treatment groups (Table 1, Supplementary Table 1). The patients’ drug histories revealed the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin in 19 and 15 cases, respectively, with no relevant differences among treatment Lepirudin groups. Only 3 patients were exposed to lansoprazole and none were exposed to sertraline, ticlopidine, or acarbose. Thirty-one patients were treated for the current acute episode before randomization. Eighteen of which (58.1%) received anti-diarrheals, but only in 1 patient was efficacy judged to be good or very good. According to the primary end point, the proportion of patients in CR at week 8 was higher with budesonide than with placebo. The difference was statistically significant in the PP analysis, but did not quite reach significance in the ITT analysis (Figure 1A). The rate of CR with mesalamine was lower than that with placebo at the interim analysis. Budesonide was significantly superior to mesalamine in the ITT and PP analyses. According to the secondary end point (CR by Hjortswang-Criteria), budesonide was significantly superior to both placebo and mesalamine in ITT and PP analyses ( Figure 1B).