Efficacy and Safety of Budesonide Foam for Participants With Active Mild to Moderate Ulcerative Proctitis or Proctosigmoiditis

July 19, 2019 updated by: Bausch Health Americas, Inc.

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Budesonide Foam (2 mg/25 mL BID for 2 Weeks, Followed by 2 mg/25 mL QD for 4 Weeks) Versus Placebo in Subjects With Active Mild to Moderate Ulcerative Proctitis or Proctosigmoiditis

The purpose of this study is to establish the efficacy profile of rectally administered budesonide foam, as compared to an equivalent volume of rectally administered placebo foam over the same dosing schedule, in participants who present with a diagnosis of active, mild to moderate, ulcerative proctitis (UP) or ulcerative proctosigmoiditis (UPS). During the study, eligible participants will be allowed to maintain previously established oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) treatment at doses up to 4.8 grams/day (g/day).

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.

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.
281

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
      • Dothan, Alabama, United States
    • Arizona
      • Mesa, Arizona, United States
      • Tucson, Arizona, United States
    • Arkansas
      • Little Rock, Arkansas, United States
    • California
      • Chula Vista, California, United States
      • Garden Grove, California, United States
      • Mission Hills, California, United States
      • Monterey, California, United States
      • Roseville, California, United States
      • San Francisco, California, United States
    • Colorado
      • Lafayette, Colorado, United States
    • Connecticut
      • Bristol, Connecticut, United States
      • Hamden, Connecticut, United States
    • Florida
      • Altamonte Springs, Florida, United States
      • Cape Coral, Florida, United States
      • Hialeah, Florida, United States
      • North Miami Beach, Florida, United States
      • Winter Park, Florida, United States
    • Georgia
      • Macon, Georgia, United States
      • Marietta, Georgia, United States
      • Suwanee, Georgia, United States
    • Illinois
      • Moline, Illinois, United States
    • Iowa
      • Davenport, Iowa, United States
    • Kansas
      • Topeka, Kansas, United States
    • Louisiana
      • Metairie, Louisiana, United States
    • Maryland
      • Annapolis, Maryland, United States
      • Hagerstown, Maryland, United States
      • Prince Frederick, Maryland, United States
      • Silver Springs, Maryland, United States
    • Michigan
      • Chesterfield, Michigan, United States
      • Rochester, Michigan, United States
    • Mississippi
      • Tupelo, Mississippi, United States
    • Missouri
      • Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    • New Jersey
      • Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey, United States
      • Marlton, New Jersey, United States
    • New York
      • Great Neck, New York, United States
      • Mineola, New York, United States
      • New York, New York, United States
      • North Massapequa, New York, United States
      • Stony Brook, New York, United States
    • North Carolina
      • Asheville, North Carolina, United States
      • Fayetteville, North Carolina, United States
      • Greensboro, North Carolina, United States
      • Jacksonville, North Carolina, United States
      • New Bern, North Carolina, United States
      • Raleigh, North Carolina, United States
      • Rocky Mount, North Carolina, United States
      • Wilmington, North Carolina, United States
    • Ohio
      • Beachwood, Ohio, United States
    • Oklahoma
      • Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States
    • Oregon
      • Portland, Oregon, United States
    • Tennessee
      • Germantown, Tennessee, United States
    • Texas
      • Houston, Texas, United States
      • La Porte, Texas, United States
      • Pasadena, Texas, United States
      • Plano, Texas, United States
      • San Antonio, Texas, United States
    • Utah
      • Ogden, Utah, United States
      • West Valley City, Utah, United States
    • Virginia
      • Chesapeake, Virginia, United States
      • Lynchburg, Virginia, United States
    • Wisconsin
      • Monroe, Wisconsin, United States

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 and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Voluntarily sign written informed consent.
  • Male or non-pregnant and non-lactating females.
  • Confirmed diagnosis (by endoscopy procedure) of active, mild to moderate UP or UPS, with disease extending at least 5 centimeters (cm) but no further than 40 cm from the anal verge.
  • Must possess a baseline MMDAI score between 5 and 10.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History or current diagnosis of Crohn's disease and indeterminate colitis.
  • Prior gastrointestinal surgery except appendectomy and hernia.
  • Concomitant active gastrointestinal disease or distortion of intestinal anatomy.
  • History of diverticulitis, collagenous colitis, celiac disease, recurrent pancreatic or known gallbladder disease.
  • Uncontrolled, previously diagnosed type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus.
  • Uncontrolled abnormal thyroid function.
  • Unstable significant cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic or pulmonary disease.
  • Hemoglobin levels less than (<) 7.5 grams /deciliter (g/dL).
  • History of sclerosing cholangitis, cirrhosis, or hepatic impairment.
  • Renal disease manifested by greater than (>) 2.0 milligrams/deciliter (mg/dL) serum creatinine.
  • History of avascular hip necrosis, active tuberculosis, ocular herpes simplex or ocular varicella zoster, malignant disease, and HIV or hepatitis B or C.
  • Adrenal insufficiency.
  • Active systemic or cutaneous infection or toxic megacolon, fistula, perforation or abscess.
  • History of uncontrolled psychiatric disorders or seizure disorders.
  • History of asthma requiring ongoing use of inhaled steroids.
  • Recent history of drug or alcohol abuse.
  • Positive stool test for bacterial pathogens, Clostridium difficile toxin, or ovum and parasites.
  • Vaccination within 28 days prior to randomization.
  • Allergies to budesonide or to any other items used in its preparation.
  • Participation in another clinical trial in the past 30 days.
  • Pregnant or at risk of pregnancy.
  • Taking a prohibited medication. Some medications to treat UP/UPS are prohibited during participation in the study, including laxatives and anti-diarrhea medications; however, oral 5-ASA agents at doses up to 4.8 g/day and daily fiber supplements are allowed. Other medications (e.g., antibiotics, anti-seizure and anti-coagulant medicines) are also prohibited.

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: Triple

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.
Experimental: Budesonide
Participants who were diagnosed with active mild to moderate UP or UPS, will receive 2 milligrams (mg)/25 milliliter (mL) of budesonide foam, rectally twice daily for a period of 2 weeks followed by 2 mg/25 mL of budesonide foam, rectally once daily for a period of 4 weeks.
Drug: Budesonide
Budesonide will be administered as per the dose and schedule specified in the respective arm.
Placebo Comparator: Placebo
Participants who were diagnosed with active mild to moderate UP or UPS will receive 25 mL of placebo matching to budesonide foam twice daily for a period of 2 weeks followed by once daily for a period of 4 weeks.
Drug: Placebo
Placebo matching to budesonide will be administered as per the dose and schedule specified in the respective arm.

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 Participants Who Achieved Remission
Time Frame: Week 6
Remission was a combined assessment of clinical and endoscopic variables, defined as an endoscopy score of less than or equal to (<=) 1, a rectal bleeding score of 0, and an improvement or no change from baseline in stool frequency subscales of the Modified Mayo Disease Activity Index (MMDAI) at the end of 6 weeks of treatment. MMDAI was used to assess the overall disease activity for each participant. MMDAI evaluated 4 indices: stool frequency, rectal bleeding, physician's global assessment (PGA) and endoscopy findings each on a scale of 0 to 3 with a maximum total score of 12. Stool frequency MMDAI subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated normal number of stools per day and 3 indicated 5 or more stools than normal. Rectal bleeding MMDAI subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated no blood seen and 3 indicated blood alone passed. Endoscopy MMDAI subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated normal or inactive disease and 3 indicated severe disease (spontaneous bleeding, ulceration).
Week 6

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 Participants Who Achieved a Rectal Bleeding MMDAI Subscale Score of 0 at End of Week 6
Time Frame: Week 6
The MMDAI was used to assess the overall disease activity for each participant. The MMDAI evaluated 4 indices:stool frequency, rectal bleeding, physician's global assessment and endoscopy findings each on a scale of 0 to 3 with a maximum total score of 12. Rectal bleeding MMDAI subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated no blood seen and 3 indicated blood alone passed. Missing data was imputed using LOCF method.
Week 6
Number of Scheduled Assessments With Rectal Bleeding Responder Classification
Time Frame: Weeks 1, 2, 4, and 6
The MMDAI was used to assess the overall disease activity for each participant. The MMDAI evaluated 4 indices: stool frequency, rectal bleeding, PGA and endoscopy findings each on a scale of 0 to 3 with a maximum total score of 12. Rectal bleeding MMDAI subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated no blood seen and 3 indicated blood alone passed. Percentage of participants who were rectal bleeding responder at scheduled assessments were reported. Rectal bleeding responders were defined as those participants who achieved a rectal bleeding MMDAI subscale score of 0 during the treatment period. Missing data was imputed using LOCF method.
Weeks 1, 2, 4, and 6
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved an Endoscopy MMDAI Subscale Score of 0 or 1 at End of Week 6
Time Frame: Week 6
The MMDAI was used to assess the overall disease activity for each participant. The MMDAI evaluated 4 indices: stool frequency, rectal bleeding, physician's global assessment and endoscopy findings each on a scale of 0 to 3 with a maximum total score of 12. Endoscopy subscale ranged from 0-3, where 0 = normal or inactive disease, 1 = mild disease, 2 = moderate disease and 3 = severe disease (spontaneous bleeding, ulceration). Percentage of participants with normal or mild disease have been presented in this outcome measure. Missing data was imputed using LOCF method.
Week 6
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a Score of 0 for Rectal Bleeding Subscale and a Combined Score of <=2 for Bowel Frequency (BF) and Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) in the MMDAI Subscales at End of Week 6
Time Frame: Week 6
The MMDAI was used to assess the overall disease activity for each participant. The MMDAI evaluated 4 indices: stool frequency, rectal bleeding, PGA and endoscopy findings each on a scale of 0 to 3 with a maximum total score of 12. Rectal bleeding subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated no blood seen and 3 indicated blood alone passed. BF subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated normal number of stools per day and 3 indicated 5 or more stools than normal. PGA subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated normal disease and 3 indicated severe disease. Missing data was imputed using LOCF method.
Week 6
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved an MMDAI Total Score of <= 3 With Greater Than or Equal to (>=2) Points of Improvement From Baseline at the End of Week 6
Time Frame: Week 6
The MMDAI was used to assess the overall disease activity for each participant. The MMDAI evaluated 4 indices: stool frequency, rectal bleeding, PGA and endoscopy findings each on a scale of 0 to 3 with a maximum total score of 12. Rectal bleeding subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated no blood seen and 3 indicated blood alone passed. BF subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated normal number of stools per day and 3 indicated 5 or more stools than normal. PGA subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated normal and 3 indicated severe disease. Endoscopy subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated normal and 3 indicated severe disease. MMDAI total score ranged from 0-12, where higher score indicated severe disease. Missing data was imputed using LOCF method.
Week 6
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved Improvement of >=1 Point From Baseline in the MMDAI Endoscopy Subscale Score at End of Week 6
Time Frame: Week 6
The MMDAI was used to assess the overall disease activity for each participant. The MMDAI evaluated 4 indices: stool frequency, rectal bleeding, PGA and endoscopy findings each on a scale of 0 to 3 with a maximum total score of 12. Endoscopy subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 = normal or inactive disease, 1 = mild disease (erythema, decreased vascular pattern), 2 = moderate disease (marked erythema, absent vascular pattern, friability, erosions), and 3 = severe disease (spontaneous bleeding, ulceration). Missing data was imputed using LOCF method.
Week 6
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved Improvement of >=1 Point From Baseline in the MMDAI Rectal Bleeding Subscale Score at End of Week 6
Time Frame: Week 6
The MMDAI was used to assess the overall disease activity for each participant. The MMDAI evaluated 4 indices: stool frequency, rectal bleeding, PGA and endoscopy findings each on a scale of 0 to 3 with a maximum total score of 12. Rectal bleeding MMDAI subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 = no blood seen, 1 = streaks of blood with stool less than half the time, 2 = obvious blood with stool most of the time, and 3 indicated blood alone passed. Missing data was imputed using LOCF method.
Week 6
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved >=3 Point Improvement From Baseline in the MMDAI Total Score Including Improvement of >=1 Point From Baseline in the MMDAI Rectal Bleeding Subscale Score and MMDAI Endoscopy Subscale at End of Week 6
Time Frame: Week 6
The MMDAI was used to assess the overall disease activity for each participant. The MMDAI evaluated 4 indices: stool frequency, rectal bleeding, PGA and endoscopy findings each on a scale of 0 to 3 with a maximum total score of 12. Rectal bleeding subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated no blood seen and 3 indicated blood alone passed. BF subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated normal number of stools per day and 3 indicated 5 or more stools than normal. PGA subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated normal and 3 indicated severe disease. Endoscopy subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated normal and 3 indicated severe disease. MMDAI total score ranged from 0-12, where higher score indicated severe disease. Missing data was imputed using LOCF method.
Week 6
Mean Change From Baseline to Week 6 in MMDAI Total Score and Subscale Scores
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 6
The MMDAI was used to assess the overall disease activity for each participant. The MMDAI evaluated 4 indices: stool frequency, rectal bleeding, PGA and endoscopy findings each on a scale of 0 to 3 with a maximum total score of 12. Rectal bleeding subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated no blood seen and 3 indicated blood alone passed. BF subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated normal number of stools per day and 3 indicated 5 or more stools than normal. PGA subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated normal and 3 indicated severe disease. Endoscopy subscore ranged from 0-3, where 0 indicated normal and 3 indicated severe disease. MMDAI total score ranged from 0-12, where higher score indicated severe disease. Missing data was imputed using LOCF method.
Baseline, 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.
Bausch Health Americas, Inc.

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, Bausch health companies

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 (Actual)

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.
November 20, 2009

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.
March 18, 2013

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.
March 18, 2013

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).
November 4, 2009

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.
November 4, 2009

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.
November 5, 2009

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

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.
August 14, 2019

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.
July 19, 2019

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.
July 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

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.
  • BUCF3002

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.

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