The safety and efficacy of budesonide rectal foam were evaluated in 2 replicate, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center trials (Studies 1 and 2). 

Participants in the trials were adult patients with active mild-to-moderate distal ulcerative colitis with disease extending at least 5 cm but no further than 40 cm from the anal verge (confirmed by endoscopy). To be eligible, patients had to have a Modified Mayo Disease Activity Index (MMDAI) score between 5 and 10, inclusive, a rectal bleeding subscore of 2 or 3, and an endoscopy subscore of 2 or 3. The MMDAI score ranges from 0 to 12 and has 4 subscales that are each scored from 0 (normal) to 3 (most severe): stool frequency, rectal bleeding, findings on endoscopy, and physician global assessment. An endoscopy subscore of 2 is defined by marked erythema, lack of vascular pattern, friability, and erosions; an endoscopy subscore of 3 is defined by spontaneous bleeding and ulceration.

Oral and rectal corticosteroids, and rectal 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) products were prohibited during the course of the trials but were allowed as rescue therapy. Oral 5-ASA products were allowed at doses ≤ 4.8 grams/day. 

In total, 546 subjects were randomized in these trials: 267 subjects to budesonide rectal foam and 279 subjects to placebo. In each trial (Study 1 and Study 2), patients received budesonide rectal foam 2 mg or placebo twice daily for 2 weeks followed by once daily for 4 weeks. 

The median age was 41 years and 42 years, 5% and 8% were ≥ 65 years of age, and 43% and 45% were male, in Studies 1 and 2, respectively. In each of these trials, 90% were Caucasian, 7-8% were African American, and 3% were Asian or Other.

The majority of patients had a baseline diagnosis of proctosigmoiditis (69% and 74%) in Studies 1 and 2, respectively. The remaining patients had a baseline diagnosis of proctitis. Concomitant oral 5-ASA use at baseline was 59% and 51% in Studies 1 and 2, respectively. 

Baseline MMDAI total score was 7.8 and 7.9 in the budesonide rectal foam group and placebo group, respectively, of Study 1; and 7.9 and 8.0 in the budesonide rectal foam group and placebo group, respectively, of Study 2. The mean stool frequency subscore at baseline was 1.8 and 1.9 in the budesonide rectal foam group and placebo group, respectively, of Study 1; and 1.7 and 1.8 in the budesonide rectal foam group and placebo group, respectively, of Study 2. 

In each trial (Study 1 and Study 2), the primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects who were in remission after 6 weeks of treatment. Remission was defined as a decrease or no change in the stool frequency subscore from baseline, a rectal bleeding subscore of 0, and an endoscopy score of 0 or 1. (An endoscopy subscore of zero is defined by normal or inactive disease; an endoscopy subscore of 1 is defined by erythema and decreased vascular pattern.)

In each trial (Study 1 and Study 2), a higher proportion of patients in the budesonide rectal foam group than in the placebo group were in remission at Week 6 and had a rectal bleeding subscore of 0 at Week 6 (Table 4). 

CI: Confidence Interval

In Study 1, the percentage of patients with endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 at Week 6 was 55.6% in the budesonide rectal foam group versus 43.2% in the placebo group. In Study 2, the percentage of patients with endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 at Week 6 was 56.0% in the budesonide rectal foam group versus 36.7% in the placebo group (an endoscopy subscore of 0 is defined by normal or inactive disease; an endoscopy subscore of 1 is defined by erythema and decreased vascular pattern). 

In patients that met the primary endpoint of remission in Study 1, the mean (SD) decrease in stool frequency subscore was 1.2 (0.9) in the budesonide rectal foam group and 1.2 (0.8) in the placebo group. In patients that met the primary endpoint of remission in Study 2, the mean (SD) decrease in stool frequency subscore was 1.3 (0.8) in the budesonide rectal foam group and 1.1 (0.9) in the placebo group.