Efficacy and Tolerability of a Revised Formulatio of Acidosalus® Suppositories in Haemorrhoidal Disease: A Randomized Comparative Clinical Study

Abstract

Objective / Purpose: This open-label, randomized comparative clinical study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of the newly reformulated Acidosalus® hemorrhoidal suppositories in patients with Grade I–III haemorrhoidal disease, compared to Bioapifit® anti-haemorrhoidal ointment as an established comparator. Materials and methods: Acodosalus suppositories are applied rectally once a day (before bedtime) for 10 consecutive days. Bioapifit ointment applied externally three times a day onto clean perianal area and rectally once a day for 10 consecutive days. Symptoms (pain, defecation discomfort, bleeding severity, anal itching, and overall subjective discomfort) were assessed at baseline, Day 3, Day 5, and Day 10 of treatment using a standardized rating scale. Results: Symptom improvement was observed in both groups, with no statistically significant differences between treatments at any time point (all p>0.05). Ten days of the application of Acidosalus suppositories resulted in 89.6% reduction of pain, 91.3% defecation discomfort, 100% of bleeding, 91.7% of itching while overall subjective discomfort was reduced for 89.6% with clinical cure rate of 82.5%. In the end of the treatment Bioapifit ointment performed slightly but not significantly better with decrease of initial values between 97.5% and 100% with clinical cure rate of 82.5%. Comparison with historical data from a previous clinical study using the older Acidosalus® formulation demonstrated a highly similar clinical performance profile, confirming continuity of therapeutic effect. Conclusion / Discussion: By Day 10, Overall subjective discomfort reduction reached 89.6% and 97.5% in Acidosalus and Bioapifit group, respectively with no statistically significant difference between them. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no adverse events. The new Acidosalus® formulation maintained clinical efficacy which is slightly but not significantly better for all time points.

Keywords

• Haemorrhoids
• Acidosalus
• suppositories
• Bioapifit anti hemorrhoidal ointment
• clinical performance
• clinical safety

References

1. Alonso-Coello, P., Zhou, Q., Martinez-Zapata, M. J., Mills, E., Heels-Ansdell, D., Johanson, J. F., & Guyatt, G., 2006. Meta-analysis of flavonoids for the treatment of haemorrhoids. British Journal of Surgery, 93(8), 909–920. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5378
2. 2. Chiaretti, M., Alunni Fegatelli, D., Pappalardo, G., Dello Spedale Venti, M., & Italia Chiaretti, A., 2020. Comparison of Centella with flavonoids for treatment of hemorrhoidal disease. Scientific Reports, 10, 14476. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64772-0
3. 3. Hashempur, M. H., Khademi, F., Rahmanifard, M., & Zarshenas, M. M., 2017. An evidence-based study on medicinal plants for hemorrhoids in medieval Persia. Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine, 22(4), 969–981. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156587216688597
4. 4. Liang, Y., Ren, T., Li, R., Yu, Z., Wang, Y., Zhang, X., Qin, Z., Li, J., Hu, J., & Luo, C., 2024. Natural products with potential effects on hemorrhoids: A review. Molecules, 29(11), 2673. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29112673 5. Lusby, P. E., Coombes, A., & Wilkinson, J. M., 2002. Honey: A potent agent for wound healing? Wounds, 14(8), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1067/mjw.2002.129073
5. 6. Misra, M. C., & Parshad, R., 2000. Randomized clinical trial of micronized flavonoids in the early control of bleeding from acute internal haemorrhoids. British Journal of Surgery, 87(7), 868–872. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01448.x
6. 7. Oreščanin, V., Findri Guštek, Š., & Rodić, J., 2018. Bioapifit® anti-hemorrhoidal ointment efficiency – a comparison with standard approach. Global Journal for Research Analysis, 7(9), 49–53. https://www.doi.org/10.36106/gjra
7. 8. Rahimi, R., & Abdollahi, M., 2013. Evidence-based review of medicinal plants used for the treatment of hemorrhoids. International Journal of Pharmacology, 9(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijp.2013.1.11
8. 9. Rehman, S., Miles, W., Sains, P., & Sajid, M. S., 2019. Role of flavonoids in the management of acutely symptomatic haemorrhoids: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. British Journal of Surgery, 106(S5), 110. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11342

9. 10. Saikaly, S. K., & Khachemoune, A., 2017. Honey and wound healing: An update. American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, 18(2), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40257-016-0247-8
10. 11. Shi, N., Li, N., Duan, X., & Niu, H., 2017. Interaction between the gut microbiome and mucosal immunity. Cellular & Molecular Immunology, 14(3), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40779-017-0122-9
11. 12. Smith, P. M., Howitt, M. R., Panikov, N. S., Michaud, M., Gallini, C. A., Bohlooly-Y, M., Glickman, J. N., & Garrett, W. S., 2011. The microbial metabolites and mucosal T cells establish host–microbiota mutualism. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2, 111. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2011.00111
12. 13. Sun, Z., & Migaly, J., 2016. Review of hemorrhoid disease: Presentation and management. Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery, 29(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1568144