Skip to main content
. 2015 Oct 26;2015(10):CD007698. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007698.pub3

Rubin 2014.

Methods Randomised double‐blind, placebo controlled trial
Participants Non‐pregnant patients, age 18‐75 years, with active mild to moderate UC (UCDAI score ≥ 4 and ≤ 10) with a mucosal appearance score of ≥ 1, despite the use of oral 5‐ASA (≥ 2.4g daily for at least 6 weeks) were included (N = 510)
Patients with disease limited to the rectum were excluded
Other exclusion criteria included infectious colitis, malignancy within the past 5 years (with the exception of non‐melanoma skin cancers), active peptic ulcer disease, a history of toxic megacolon, Crohn's disease or indeterminate colitis. Patient with tuberculosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C or HIV were excluded. Patients with severe disease in other organs or systems were excluded, including those with type 1 diabetes
The use of oral corticosteroids, other than budesonide, the use of immunosuppressant medications and the use of biologic therapy, within 4 weeks, 8 weeks and 3 months of randomisation, respectively, were also exclusion criteria
Patients who had used rectal 5‐ASA or corticosteroid products within 2 weeks of randomisation were also excluded
Interventions Budesonide multi‐matrix system (MMX®) 9 mg (n =230)
Placebo (n = 228)
Outcomes Primary outcome: induction of remission (combination of clinical and endoscopic remission) following 8 weeks of therapy
Secondary outcomes: clinical remission, clinical response, histologic remission and histologic healing, evaluation of treatment failures, quality of life, C‐reactive protein and fecal calprotectin levels at 8 weeks
Notes Currently only published in abstract form
Modified intention‐to‐treat population was 458
This trial was supported by Santarus, Inc. a wholly owned subsidiary of Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. which manufactures budesonide‐MMX®.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Computer‐generated randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Centralized randomisation via an interactive voice response system
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Outcome assessors were blinded to the treatment allocation
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) 
 Treatment Allocation Low risk Physicians, patients and outcome assessors were blinded to the treatment allocation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Abstract publication
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Abstract publication
Other bias Unclear risk Abstract publication