A randomised, double-blind trial comparing XXXX formulations and dosages for short-term treatment of @entity1712 .

@entity1712 @entity1 @entity364 @entity4184 @entity1282 @entity71300 @entity3991
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of two different @entity4184 formulations (effervescent tablet for orodispersible use ( @entity3991 ) and viscous suspension (BVS)) with different daily dosages for short-term treatment of @entity1712 ( @entity1712 ). DESIGN: Adults with active @entity1712 (n=76) randomly received 14   days' treatment with either @entity3991 2*1   mg/day ( @entity71300 , n=19) or @entity3991 2*2   mg/day (BET2, n=19), or BVS 2*5   mL (0.4   mg/mL)/day (BVS, n=19) or placebo (n=19) in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion, with a 2-week follow-up. Primary end point was histological remission (mean of <16   eosinophils/mm(2   )hpf). Secondary end points included endoscopy score, @entity1282 score, drug safety and @entity1 's preference for drug formulation. RESULTS: Histological remission occurred in 100%, 94.7% and 94.7% of @entity4184 ( @entity71300 , BET2, BVS, respectively) and in 0% of placebo recipients (p<0.0001). The improvement in total endoscopic intensity score was significantly higher in the three @entity4184 groups compared with placebo. @entity1282 improved in all groups at the end of treatment; however, improvement of @entity1282 persisted only in those treated with @entity71300 (p=0.0196 vs placebo). There were no serious adverse events. Local @entity364 (stained fungi) occurred in two @entity1 of each @entity4184 group (10.5%). The effervescent tablet was preferred by 80% of @entity1 . CONCLUSIONS: @entity3991 or BVS was highly effective and safe for short-term treatment of @entity1712 . The 1   mg (twice daily) dosage was equally effective as the 2   mg twice daily dosage. The majority of @entity1 preferred the effervescent tablet formulation. CLINICALTRIALSGOV NUMBER: NCT02280616; EudraCT number, 2009-016692-29.
