Efficacy and safety of rebamipide versus its new formulation, AD-203, in patients with erosive gastritis: A randomized, double-blind, active control, noninferiority, multicenter, phase 3 study

Gwang Ha Kim, Hang Lak Lee, Moon Kyung Joo, Hong Jun Park, Sung Woo Jung, Ok Jae Lee, Hyungkil Kim, Hoon Jai Chun, Soo Teik Lee, Ji Won Kim, Han Ho Jeon, Il Kwun Chung, Hyun Soo Kim, Dong Ho Lee, Kyoung Oh Kim, Yun Jeong Lim, Seun Ja Park, Soo Jeong Cho, Byung Wook Kim, Kwang Hyun KoSeong Woo Jeon, Jae Gyu Kim, In Kyung Sung, Tae Nyeun Kim, Jae Kyu Sung, Jong Jae Park

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

12 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background/Aims: The mucoprotective drug rebamipide is used to treat gastritis and peptic ulcers. We compared the efficacy of Mucosta® (rebamipide 100 mg) and its new formulation, AD-203 (rebamipide 150 mg), in treating erosive gastritis. Methods: This double-blind, active control, noninferiority, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial randomly assigned 475 patients with endoscopically proven erosive gastritis to two groups: AD-203 twice daily or Mucosta® thrice daily for 2 weeks. The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included 454 patients (AD-203, n=229; Mucosta®, n=225), and the per-protocol (PP) analysis included 439 patients (AD-203, n=224; Mucosta®, n=215). The posttreatment assessments included the primary (erosion improvement rate) and secondary endpoints (erosion and edema cure rates; improvement rates of redness, hemorrhage, and gastrointestinal symptoms). Drug-related adverse events were evaluated. Results: According to the ITT analysis, the erosion improvement rates (posttreatment) in AD-203-treated and Mucosta®-treated patients were 39.7% and 43.8%, respectively. According to the PP analysis, the erosion improvement rates (posttreatment) in AD-203-treated and Mucosta®treated patients were 39.3% and 43.7%, respectively. The one-sided 97.5% lower limit for the improvement rate difference between the study groups was −4.01% (95% confidence interval [CI], -13.09% to 5.06%) in the ITT analysis and −4.44% (95% CI, -13.65% to 4.78%) in the PP analysis. The groups did not significantly differ in the secondary endpoints in either analysis. Twenty-four AD-203-treated and 20 Mucosta®-treated patients reported adverse events but no serious adverse drug reactions; both groups presented similar adverse event rates. Conclusions: The new formulation of rebamipide 150 mg (AD-203) twice daily was not inferior to rebamipide 100 mg (Mucosta®) thrice daily. Both formulations showed a similar efficacy in treating erosive gastritis.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)841-850
Number of pages10
JournalGut and Liver
Volume15
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2021

Keywords

  • Adverse drug reaction
  • Gastritis
  • Intention-to-treat analysis
  • Phase III clinical trial
  • Rebamipide

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Efficacy and safety of rebamipide versus its new formulation, AD-203, in patients with erosive gastritis: A randomized, double-blind, active control, noninferiority, multicenter, phase 3 study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this