Safety and Efficacy of Asacol 4.8 g/Day Versus Asacol 2.4 g/Day (ASCEND I) (ASCEND I)

September 14, 2011 updated by: Warner Chilcott

A Double-blind, Randomized, 6 Week, Parallel-group Design Clinical Trial in Patients With Mildly to Moderately Active Ulcerative Colitis to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Asacol 4.8 g/Day Versus Asacol 2.4 g/Day

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Asacol 4.8 g/day (800 mg tablet) versus Asacol 2.4 g/day (400 mg tablet

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

This study is designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 4.8 g/day using 800 mg Asacol tablets as compared to 2.4g/day using 400 mg Asacol tablets in newly- and previously-diagnosed patients who are experiencing a flare-up of mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
301

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Phase 3

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Alabama
      • Birmingham, Alabama, United States
        • Research Site
    • California
      • Anaheim, California, United States
        • Research Site
      • Sacramento, California, United States
        • Research Site
      • San Francisco, California, United States
        • Research Site
    • Colorado
      • Denver, Colorado, United States
        • Research Site
      • Golden, Colorado, United States
        • Research Facility
    • Connecticut
      • Bridgeport, Connecticut, United States
        • Research Site
    • Florida
      • Ft Myers, Florida, United States
        • Research Site
      • Hollywood, Florida, United States
        • Research Site
      • Jupiter, Florida, United States
        • Research Site
      • Miami, Florida, United States
        • Research Site
    • Georgia
      • Atlanta, Georgia, United States
        • Research Facility
      • Decatur, Georgia, United States
        • Research Facility
    • Illinois
      • Arlington Heights, Illinois, United States
        • Research Site
      • Moline, Illinois, United States
        • Research Site
      • Rockford, Illinois, United States
        • Research Site
    • Kansas
      • Wichita, Kansas, United States
        • Research Site
    • Louisiana
      • Metairie, Louisiana, United States
        • Research Site
    • Maryland
      • Baltimore, Maryland, United States
        • Research Site
      • Laurel, Maryland, United States
        • Research Site
    • Michigan
      • Detroit, Michigan, United States
        • Research Site
    • New Jersey
      • New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States
        • Research Site
      • Somerville, New Jersey, United States
        • Research Site
    • New York
      • Great Neck, New York, United States
        • Research Site
      • Pomona, New York, United States
        • Research Site
      • Poughkeepsie, New York, United States
        • Research Facility
    • North Carolina
      • Raleigh, North Carolina, United States
        • Research Site
      • Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States
        • Research Site
    • Ohio
      • Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
        • Research Site
    • Oklahoma
      • Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States
        • Research Site
    • Pennsylvania
      • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
        • Research Site
      • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
        • Research Site
    • South Carolina
      • Charleston, South Carolina, United States
        • Research Site
    • Tennessee
      • Memphis, Tennessee, United States
        • Research Facility
      • Nashville, Tennessee, United States
        • Research Facility
    • Texas
      • Ft Worth, Texas, United States
        • Research Site
      • Houston, Texas, United States
        • Research Site
      • San Antonio, Texas, United States
        • Research Site
    • Vermont
      • Burlington, Vermont, United States
        • Research Site
    • Virginia
      • Charlottesville, Virginia, United States
        • Research Site
      • Falls Church, Virginia, United States
        • Research Facility
      • Norfolk, Virginia, United States
        • Research Site
    • Washington
      • Tacoma, Washington, United States
        • Research Site
    • Wisconsin
      • Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
        • Research Site

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 65 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • confirmed diagnosis of ulcerative colitis

Exclusion Criteria:

  • a history of allergy or hypersensitivity to salicylates or aminosalicylates;
  • a history of extensive small bowel resection

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Double

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Active Comparator: 1
mesalamine 2.4 g/day (400 mg tablet) for 6 weeks
Drug: mesalamine
mesalamine 2.4 g/day (400 mg tablet) for 6 weeks
Drug: mesalamine
mesalamine 4.8 g/day (800 mg tablet) for 6 weeks
Experimental: 2
mesalamine 4.8 g/day (800 mg tablet) for 6 weeks
Drug: mesalamine
mesalamine 2.4 g/day (400 mg tablet) for 6 weeks
Drug: mesalamine
mesalamine 4.8 g/day (800 mg tablet) for 6 weeks

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Percentage of Patients Classified as Treatment Success at Week 6, ITT Population
Time Frame: 6 weeks
Treatment Success - complete or partial response; Complete = complete resolution of clinical assessments (stool frequency, rectal bleeding, PFA [patient's functional assessment], sigmoidoscopy) and PGA (physician global assessment) = 0, Partial = improvement from baseline PGA score and improvement in at least 1 of the clinical assessments [decrease of at least 1 on scale] and no worsening [no score increases] of remaining clinical assessments. Each clinical assessment graded using scale 0/normal, better thru 3/severe, worse.
6 weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Percentage of Patients Classified as Treatment Success at Week 3, ITT Population
Time Frame: 3 weeks
Treatment Success - complete or partial response; Complete = complete resolution of clinical assessments (stool frequency, rectal bleeding, PFA [patient's functional assessment], sigmoidoscopy) and PGA (physician global assessment) = 0, Partial = improvement from baseline PGA score and improvement in at least 1 of the clinical assessments [decrease of at least 1 on scale] and no worsening [no score increases] of remaining clinical assessments. Each clinical assessment graded using scale 0/normal, better thru 3/severe, worse.
3 weeks
Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Percentage of Patients Improved at Week 3, All Randomized Patients
Time Frame: Week 3
PGA - 0-quiescent disease activity (all 0's) , 1-mild (mostly 1's), 2-moderate (mostly 2's), 3-severe (mostly 3's) based upon on scoring for stool frequency, rectal bleeding, PFR (patient's functional assessment - 0-well, 1-fair, 2-poor, 3-terrible), sigmoidoscopy findings. Improvement defined as either complete response (remission, score = 0) or partial response (improvement on treatment). Scoring Scale: 0-good thru 3-worse.
Week 3
Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Percentage of Patients Improved at Week 6, All Randomized Patients
Time Frame: Week 6
PGA - 0-quiescent disease activity (all 0's) , 1-mild (mostly 1's), 2-moderate (mostly 2's), 3-severe (mostly 3's) based upon on scoring for stool frequency, rectal bleeding, PFR (patient's functional assessment - 0-well, 1-fair, 2-poor, 3-terrible), sigmoidoscopy findings. Improvement defined as complete response (remission, score = 0) or partial response (improvement on treatment). Scoring Scale: 0-good thru 3-worse.
Week 6
Stool Frequency Improvement at Week 3, All Randomized Patients (Percentage)
Time Frame: Week 3
0: normal stool frequency per day, 1: 1-2 stools greater than normal per day, 2: 3-4 stools greater than normal per day, 3: 5 or more stools greater than normal per day, Scoring Scale: 0-good thru 3-worse.
Week 3
Stool Frequency Improvement at Week 6, All Randomized Patients (Percentage)
Time Frame: Week 6
0: normal stool frequency per day, 1: 1-2 stools greater than normal per day, 2: 3-4 stools greater than normal per day, 3: 5 or more stools greater than normal per day, Scoring Scale: 0-good thru 3-worse.
Week 6
Rectal Bleeding Improvement at Week 3, All Randomized Patients (Percentage)
Time Frame: Week 3
0: no blood seen, 1: streaks of blood with stool less than half of the time, 2: obvious blood with stool most of the time, 3: blood alone passed, Scoring Scale: 0-good thru 3-worse.
Week 3
Rectal Bleeding Improvement at Week 6, All Randomized Patients (Percentage)
Time Frame: Week 6
0-no blood seen, 1- streaks of blood with stool less than half of the time, 2- obvious blood with stool most of the time, 3- blood alone passed. Scoring Scale: 0-good thru 3-worse.
Week 6
Improvement in Patient's Functional Assessment (PFA) at Week 3, All Randomized Patients (Percentage)
Time Frame: Week 3
0-generally well, 1-fair, 2-poor, 3-terrible
Week 3
Improvement in Patient's Functional Assessment (PFA) at Week 6, All Randomized Patients (Percentage)
Time Frame: Week 6
0-generally well, 1-fair, 2-poor, 3-terrible
Week 6
Improvement in Patient's Sigmoidoscopy Assessment Score at Week 3, All Randomized Patients (Percentage)
Time Frame: Week 3
0-normal (intact vascular pattern, no friability or granularity), 1-mild (erythema; diminished or absent vascular markings; mild granularity; friability), 2-moderate (marked erythema, granularity; absent vascular markings; bleeds with minimal trauma; no ulcerations), 3-severe (spontaneous bleeding, ulcerations). Scoring Scale: 0-good thru 3-worse.
Week 3
Improvement in Patient's Sigmoidoscopy Assessment Score at Week 6, All Randomized Patients (Percentage)
Time Frame: Week 6
0-normal (intact vascular pattern, no friability or granularity), 1-mild (erythema; diminished or absent vascular markings; mild granularity; friability), 2-moderate (marked erythema, granularity; absent vascular markings; bleeds with minimal trauma; no ulcerations), 3-severe (spontaneous bleeding, ulcerations). Scoring Scale: 0-good thru 3-worse.
Week 6

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Warner Chilcott

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Study Director: Jeffery Kralstein, MD, Procter and Gamble

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
February 1, 2001

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
February 1, 2003

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
February 1, 2003

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
December 19, 2007

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
December 19, 2007

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
December 20, 2007

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
September 16, 2011

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
September 14, 2011

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
September 1, 2011

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • 2000083

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Ulcerative Colitis

Clinical Trials on mesalamine

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings