Head-to-head evidence
mesalamine (Asacol HD) vs Mesalamine (Lialda)
Same mechanism, same race: design-graded trial evidence for both assets, with the grading rationale shown. Grades describe the quality of the evidence, never the merits of either security.
Ulcerative Colitis
Shared mechanism: Aminosalicylate · full Ulcerative Colitis pipeline
mesalamine (Asacol HD)
Marketed by AbbVie
NCT00577473 · Phase 3 · completed
This was a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial with 301 participants, comparing mesalamine 4.8 g/day with mesalamine 2.4 g/day. The primary clinical and sigmoidoscopy-based treatment-success endpoint was not significantly different between doses (p=0.4411), so the results provide well-controlled but inconclusive evidence that the higher dose is more effective.
Mesalamine (Lialda)
Marketed by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
NCT00151892 · Phase 3 · completed
This was a randomized, quadruple-blind, active-controlled trial with 829 participants and an objective endoscopic primary endpoint. Lialda was non-inferior to Asacol for six-month endoscopic remission: 83.7% versus 81.5%, with the 95% confidence interval for the difference (-4% to 8%) remaining within the prespecified -10% margin.
The full competitive landscape for each asset (every same-race competitor with aligned evidence, sortable) is on the asset pages: mesalamine (Asacol HD)'s landscape · Mesalamine (Lialda)'s landscape