Head-to-head evidence
mesalamine (Asacol) 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)
Marketed by AbbVie
NCT00073021 · Phase 3 · completed
The trial randomized and double-blinded participants and compared two Asacol doses in 268 patients with moderate disease analyzed for the primary endpoint. Its primary clinical and sigmoidoscopic treatment-success endpoint was met: 71.8% responded with 4.8 g/day versus 59.2% with 2.4 g/day (p=0.0357).
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)'s landscape · Mesalamine (Lialda)'s landscape