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 Ko
  • Seong Woo Jeon, Jae Gyu Kim, In Kyung Sung, Tae Nyeun Kim, Jae Kyu Sung, Jong Jae Park*
*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

20 Citations (Scopus)

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
Publication statusPublished - 2021

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Keywords

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology

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