Advanced Search

Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine >

2024 , Vol. 44 >Issue 1: 156 - 162

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.20231121.004

Original articles

Qingchang suppositry (清肠栓) induced remission in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative proctitis: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, parallel-controlled clinical trial

  • Xiaoling DAI ,
  • Anming ZHANG ,
  • Hui LIN ,
  • Bei SHI ,
  • Yi REN ,
  • Hongzhu WEN ,
  • Xiaoyan FEI ,
  • Jiang LIN
Expand
  • 1 Department of Gastroenterology, Longhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai 200032, China
    2 Department of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Putuo Traditional Chinese Medicine hospital, Shanghai 200063, China
    3 Department of Protocology, Shanghai Tianshan Traditional Chinese Medicine hospital, Shanghai 200050, China

Received date: 2022-12-11

  Accepted date: 2023-03-23

  Online published: 2023-11-21

Supported by

Shanghai Municipal Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine: Leadship Training Program of Inheritance and Innovation Team of Shanghai School of Traditional Chinese Medicine(2021WXGLP-007)

Fold

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Qingchang suppository (清肠栓, QCS), a preparation of Chinese herbal medicine, in the induction of remission in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative proctitis (UP).

METHODS: We performed a multicenter, prospective, randomized, parallel-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of QCS induction therapy in 140 adult patients with mild-to-moderate UP and TCM syndrome of dampness-heat in large intestine. The patients were randomized to receive QCS (study group) or Salicylazosulfapyridine (SASP) suppository (control group) one piece each time, twice a day, per anum for 12 weeks. Mayo score and main symptoms score were evaluated at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8 and 12, rectosigmoidscopy was taken at weeks 0, 4, 8 and 12, Geboes score, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP) and safety indexes were assessed at weeks 0 and 12. The primary efficacy endpoint is clinical remission rate, the secondary efficacy endpoints are clinical response rate, mucosa healing rate, Geboes score, the remission rates of the main symptoms, the median day to the remission of the symptom, etc.

RESULTS: There were no statistical difference in the clinical remission rates, the clinical response rates, the mucosa healing rates, Geboes score, ESR and CRP between the two groups. The remission rates of tenesmus and anal burning sensation of the study group were significantly higher than those of the control group (76.5% vs 25.0%, P = 0.009; 74.51% vs 29.63%, P = 0.003). The median day to the remission of purulent bloody stool of the study group was significantly less than that of control group [11 (1, 64) vs 19 (2, 67), P = 0.007]. The patients receiving QCS had a significantly higher mucosa healing rate at week 4 than the patients receiving SASP suppository (71.42% vs 52.85%, P = 0.023). No adverse event occurred in the study group while the adverse events incidence of the control group was 5.7% (P = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS: QCS could induce the remission of UP as effectively and safely as SASP suppository, and was superior to SASP suppository in relieving the symptoms of tenesmus, anal burning sensation and purulent bloody stool and the time to reach mucosa healing.

Key words： ulcerative proctitis; salicylazosulfapyridine suppository; Qingchang suppositry; randomized controlled trial

Cite this article

Xiaoling DAI , Anming ZHANG , Hui LIN , Bei SHI , Yi REN , Hongzhu WEN , Xiaoyan FEI , Jiang LIN . Qingchang suppositry (清肠栓) induced remission in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative proctitis: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, parallel-controlled clinical trial[J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2024 , 44(1) : 156 -162 . DOI: 10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.20231121.004

References

1. Pineton dCG, Tassy B, Kollen L, et al. The treatment of refractory ulcerative colitis. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2018; 32-33: 49-57.
2. Chambrun GP, Danese S, Peyrin-Biroulet L. Time to include patients with ulcerative proctitis in clinical trials. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 4: 900-2.
3. Henriksen M, Jahnsen J, Lygren I, et al. Ulcerative colitis and clinical course: results of a 5-year population-based follow-up study (the IBSEN study). Inflamm Bowel Dis 2006; 12: 543-50.
4. Meucci G, Vecchi M, Astegiano M, et al. The natural history of ulcerative proctitis: a multicenter, retrospective study. Gruppo di Studio per le Malattie Infiammatorie Intestinali (GSMII). Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 469-73.
5. Gong YP, Li CN. Clinical and experimental research progress of Qingchang suppository in the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Lin Chuang Yi Yao Wen Xian Dian Zi Za Zhi 2018; 5: 181-3,5.
6. Watanabe M, Nishino H, Sameshima Y, et al. Randomised clinical trial: evaluation of the efficacy of mesalazine (mesalamine) suppositories in patients with ulcerative colitis and active rectal inflammation-a placebo-controlled study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2013; 38: 264-73.
7. Kato S, Ishibashi A, Kani K, Yakabi K. Optimized management of ulcerative proctitis: when and how to use mesalazine suppository. Digestion 2018; 97: 59-63.
8. Gong YP, Ma GT, LIU W, et al. Qingchang suppository in the treatment of ulcerative colitis: a randomized controlled study. Shanghai Zhong Yi Yao Da Xue Xue Bao 2007; 21: 33-6.
9. Hao WW, Ma GT, Zhang XF, et al. Effects of Qingchangshuan on IL-4 and IL-10 mRNA expression in rat colon tissue of ulcerative colitis induced by TNBS. Chin J Integr Trad West Med Dig 2007; 15: 177-80.
10. Wang ZN, Tang ZP, Ma GT, et al. Effect of Qingchang suppository on cell proliferation of colonic mucous in trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid-induced colitis in rats. Zhong Guo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi 2006; 14: 383-6.
11. Sun BY, Yuan JY, Wang SY, et al. Qingchang suppository ameliorates colonic vascular permeability in dextran-sulfate-sodium-induced colitis. Front Pharmacol 2018; 9: 1235.
12. D’Haens G, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. A review of activity indices and efficacy end points for clinical trials of medical therapy in adults with ulcerative coliti. Gastroenterology 2007; 132: 763-86.
13. Zhang S, Shen H, Zheng K, et al. Expert consensus opinion of TCM diagnosis and treatment of ulcerative colitis (2017). Zhong Hua Zhong Yi Yao Za Zhi 2017; 32: 3585-9.
14. Geboes K, Riddell R, Ost A, et al. A reproducible grading scale for histological assessment of inflammation in ulcerative colitis. Gut 2000; 47: 404-9.
15. Safroneeva E, Vavricka S, Fournier N, et al. Systematic analysis of factors associated with progression and regression of ulcerative colitis in 918 patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015; 42: 540-8.
16. Iacucci M, Ghosh S. Mucosal healing-how deep is enough? Dig Dis 2016; 34: 160-4.
17. Dal BA, Roda G, Argollo M, et al. Histological healing: should it be considered as a new outcome for ulcerative colitis? Expert Opin Biol Ther 2020; 20: 407-12.
18. Sands BE, Peyrin-Biroulet L, Loftus EV Jr, et al. Vedolizumab versus adalimumab for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 2019; 381: 1215-26.
19. Yoon H, Jangi S, Dulai PS, et al. Incremental benefit of achieving endoscopic and histologic remission in patients with ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2020; 159: 1262-75. e7.
20. Magro F, Doherty G, Peyrin-Biroulet L, et al. ECCO position paper: harmonization of the approach to ulcerative colitis histopathology. J Crohns Colitis 2020; 14: 1503-11.
21. Marchal BA, Riddell RH, Boulagnon-Rombi C, et al. Review article: the histological assessment of disease activity in ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015; 42: 957-67.
22. Yoon JY, Park SJ, Hong SP, et al. Correlations of C-reactive protein levels and erythrocyte sedimentation rates with endoscopic activity indices in patients with ulcerative colitis. Dig Dis Sci 2014; 59: 829-37.
23. Vermeire S, Van Assche G, Rutgeerts P. Laboratory markers in IBD: useful, magic, or unnecessary toys? Gut 2006; 55: 426-31.
Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉