Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT00577473

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

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

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year–65 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Phase 3

Primary location

Research Site, Birmingham, Alabama, United States

Loading trial locations.

About this study

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.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

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

Treatment and study plan

Mesalamine

Drug

mesalamine 2.4 g/day (400 mg tablet) for 6 weeks

Primary outcomes

  1. 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.

Secondary outcomes

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Warner Chilcott

Industry

Registry information

Official study title

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

Acronym: ASCEND I

Important dates

Study start
2001
Primary completion
2003
Study completion
2003
First posted
Dec 20, 2007
Registry last updated
Sep 16, 2011

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.