-
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2017To critically appraise the efficacy and safety of Kangfuxinye enema combined with mesalamine for the ulcerative colitis (UC) patients and in addition to grade the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To critically appraise the efficacy and safety of Kangfuxinye enema combined with mesalamine for the ulcerative colitis (UC) patients and in addition to grade the quality of evidence by using the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) approach.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang Databases. The search restrictions were patients with UC and RCTs. Studies including other treatments except Kangfuxinye with mesalamine were excluded.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. We found significant benefits of Kangfuxinye combined with mesalamine against mesalamine alone in improving response rate as well as reducing the recurrence rate and inflammation rate; meanwhile, the increase of the adverse events rate was not observed. Furthermore, the symptoms remission rate and the cure time were insignificant statistically. Additionally, GRADE results indicated that the quality of evidence regarding the above 6 outcomes was rated from very low to moderate quality.
CONCLUSIONS
Although Kangfuxinye enema seems effective and safe for treating UC patients in this systematic review, Kangfuxinye enema combined with mesalamine was weakly recommended due to very low to moderate quality of available evidence by the GRADE approach.
PubMed: 28848616
DOI: 10.1155/2017/6019530 -
International Journal of Cardiology Apr 2023Myocarditis and inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are rare conditions, but may coexist. Myocarditis in IBD may be infective, immune-mediated, or due to mesalamine...
BACKGROUND
Myocarditis and inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are rare conditions, but may coexist. Myocarditis in IBD may be infective, immune-mediated, or due to mesalamine toxicity. A gap of knowledge exists on the clinical features of patients that present myocarditis in association with IBD, especially for endomyocardial biopsy-proven cases. Our aims are: 1) to describe the clinical characteristics of patients with an associated diagnosis of myocarditis and IBD in a single-center hospital, 2) to perform a systematic review of the literature of analogous cases.
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed data of patients followed up at the outpatient Cardio-immunology and Gastroenterology Clinic of Padua University Hospital, to identify those with an associated diagnosis of myocarditis and IBD. In addition, a systematic review of the literature was conducted. We performed a qualitative analysis of the overall study population.
RESULTS
The study included 104 patients (21 from our single center cohort, 83 from the literature review). Myocarditis in IBD more frequently affects young (median age 31 years) males (72%), predominantly with infarct-like presentation (58%), within an acute phase of the IBD (67%) and with an overall benign clinical course (87%). Nevertheless, a not negligible quote of patients may present giant cell myocarditis, deserve immunosuppression and have a chronic, or even fatal course. Histological evidence of mesalamine hypersensitivity is scarce and its incidence may be overestimated.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study shows that myocarditis in association with IBD, if correctly managed, may have a spontaneous benign course, but predictors of worse prognosis must be promptly recognized.
Topics: Male; Humans; Adult; Myocarditis; Mesalamine; Retrospective Studies; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Prognosis
PubMed: 36738845
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2023.01.071 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jun 2015Budesonide and mesalazine (mesalamine) are commonly used in the medical management of patients with mild to moderate Crohn's disease. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Budesonide and mesalazine (mesalamine) are commonly used in the medical management of patients with mild to moderate Crohn's disease.
AIM
To assess their comparative efficacy and harm using the methodology of network meta-analysis.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov, through October 2014, was performed to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited adult patients with active or quiescent Crohn's disease, and compared budesonide or mesalazine with placebo, or against each other, or different dosing strategies of one drug.
RESULTS
Twenty-five RCTs were combined using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Budesonide 9 mg/day, or at higher doses (15 or 18 mg/day), was shown superior to placebo for induction of remission [odds ratio (OR), 2.93; 95% credible interval (CrI), 1.52-5.39, and OR, 3.28; CrI, 1.46-7.55 respectively] and ranks at the top of the hierarchy of the competing treatments. For maintenance of remission, budesonide 6 mg/day demonstrated superiority over placebo (OR, 1.69; CrI, 1.05-2.75), being also at the best ranking position among all compared treatment strategies. No other comparisons (i.e. different doses of mesalazine vs. placebo or budesonide, for induction or maintenance of remission) reached significance. The occurrence of withdrawals due to adverse events was not shown different between budesonide, mesalazine and placebo, in both the induction and maintenance phases.
CONCLUSIONS
Budesonide, at the doses of 9 mg/day, or higher, for induction of remission in active mild or moderate Crohn's disease, and at 6 mg/day for maintenance of remission, appears to be the best treatment choice.
Topics: Adult; Bayes Theorem; Budesonide; Crohn Disease; Humans; Mesalamine; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25864873
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13190 -
PloS One 2017Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic disease placing a large health and economic burden on health systems worldwide. The treatment landscape is complex with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic disease placing a large health and economic burden on health systems worldwide. The treatment landscape is complex with multiple strategies to induce and maintain remission while avoiding long-term complications. The extent to which rising treatment costs, due to expensive biologic agents, are offset by improved outcomes and fewer hospitalisations and surgeries needs to be evaluated. This systematic review aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for IBD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in March 2017 to identify economic evaluations of pharmacological and surgical interventions, for adults diagnosed with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were adjusted to reflect 2015 purchasing power parity (PPP). Risk of bias assessments and a narrative synthesis of individual study findings are presented.
RESULTS
Forty-nine articles were included; 24 on CD and 25 on UC. Infliximab and adalimumab induction and maintenance treatments were cost-effective compared to standard care in patients with moderate or severe CD; however, in patients with conventional-drug refractory CD, fistulising CD and for maintenance of surgically-induced remission ICERs were above acceptable cost-effectiveness thresholds. In mild UC, induction of remission using high dose mesalazine was dominant compared to standard dose. In UC refractory to conventional treatments, infliximab and adalimumab induction and maintenance treatment were not cost-effective compared to standard care; however, ICERs for treatment with vedolizumab and surgery were favourable.
CONCLUSIONS
We found that, in general, while biologic agents helped improve outcomes, they incurred high costs and therefore were not cost-effective, particularly for use as maintenance therapy. The cost-effectiveness of biologic agents may improve as market prices fall and with the introduction of biosimilars. Future research should identify optimal treatment strategies reflecting routine clinical practice, incorporate indirect costs and evaluate lifetime costs and benefits.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
PubMed: 28973005
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185500 -
PloS One 2016We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the available evidence comparing efficacy and safety of oral prolonged released beclomethasone dipropionate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the available evidence comparing efficacy and safety of oral prolonged released beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) to active oral controls in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). A subgroup-analysis compared the effectiveness of BDP and 5-ASA.
METHODS
Literature research was performed in different databases, as well as manual search to identify abstracts from international meetings with data not included in extensive publications. Experts in the field and companies involved in BDP development and manufacture were contacted to identify unpublished studies used for registration purposes. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain odds ratio meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials that compared oral BDP 5mg/day vs. all oral active controls in treating UC were identified as eligible. Efficacy and safety have been addressed after 4-week treatment period. One study evaluated efficacy and safety of BDP vs. prednisone and 4 of BDP vs. 5-ASA. Treatment with oral BDP 5 mg/day induces a significant better clinical response compared to oral 5-ASA (OR 1.86, 95% CI = 1.23-2.82, P = 0.003). The effect is detectable even when the comparison to prednisone is added (OR 1.41, 95% CI = 1.03-1.93, P = 0.03). Data on remission indicate that the potential clinical efficacy of BDP may be better than 5-ASA (OR 1.55, 95% CI = 1.00-2.40, P = 0.05). This difference is lost when the comparison with prednisone is added (OR 1.30, 95% CI = 0.76-2.23, P = 0.34). The safety analysis showed no differences between BDP and 5-ASA (OR 0.55, 95% CI = 0.24-1.27, P = 0.16). The lack of difference is maintained even when the study with prednisone is added (OR 0.67, 95% CI = 0.44-1.01, P = 0.06). However, the trend of difference is clear and indicates a more favourable safety profile of BDP compared to 5-ASA and PD.
CONCLUSIONS
Oral prolonged release BDP showed a superior efficacy vs. oral 5-ASA in inducing clinical improvement of mild-to-moderate UC with a similar safety profile.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Beclomethasone; Colitis, Ulcerative; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Mesalamine; Patient Safety; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27846307
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166455 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Lymphocytic colitis is a cause of chronic diarrhea. It is a subtype of microscopic colitis characterized by chronic, watery, non-bloody diarrhea and normal endoscopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Lymphocytic colitis is a cause of chronic diarrhea. It is a subtype of microscopic colitis characterized by chronic, watery, non-bloody diarrhea and normal endoscopic and radiologic findings. The etiology of this disorder is unknown.Therapy is based mainly on case series and uncontrolled trials, or by extrapolation of data for treating collagenous colitis, a related disorder. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatments for clinically active lymphocytic colitis.
SEARCH METHODS
The MEDLINE, PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to 11 August 2016 to identify relevant papers. Manual searches from the references of included studies and relevant review articles were performed.Abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings were also searched to identify research submitted in abstract form only. The trial registry web site www.ClinicalTrials.gov was searched to identify registered but unpublished trials. Finally, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Functional Bowel Disorders Group Specialized Trials Register were searched for other studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials assessing medical therapy for patients with biopsy-proven lymphocytic colitis were considered for inclusion DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was independently extracted by at least two authors. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. The primary outcome was clinical response as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcome measures included histological response as defined by the included studies, quality of life as measured by a validated instrument and the occurrence of adverse events. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome and selected secondary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE criteria. Data were combined for analysis if they assessed the same treatments. Dichotomous data were combined using a pooled RR along with corresponding 95% CI. A fixed-effect model was used for the pooled analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Five RCTs (149 participants) met the inclusion criteria. These studies assessed bismuth subsalicylate versus placebo, budesonide versus placebo, mesalazine versus mesalazine plus cholestyramine and beclometasone dipropionate versus mesalazine. The study which assessed mesalazine versus mesalazine plus cholestyramine and the study which assessed beclometasone dipropionate versus mesalazine were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. The study which compared bismuth subsalicylate versus us placebo was judged as low quality due to a very small sample size and limited data. The other 3 studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. Budesonide (9 mg/day for 6 to 8 weeks) was significantly more effective than placebo for induction of clinical and histological response. Clinical response was noted in 88% of budesonide patients compared to 38% of placebo patients (2 studies; 57 participants; RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.33; GRADE = low). Histological response was noted in 78% of budesonide patients compared to 33% of placebo patients (2 studies; 39 patients; RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.28; GRADE = low). Forty-one patients were enrolled in the study assessing mesalazine (2.4 g/day) versus mesalazine plus cholestyramine (4 g/day). Clinical response was noted in 85% of patients in the mesalazine group compared to 86% of patients in the mesalazine plus cholestyramine group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; GRADE = low). Five patients were enrolled in the trial studying bismuth subsalicylate (nine 262 mg tablets daily for 8 weeks versus placebo). There were no differences in clinical (P=0.10) or histological responses (P=0.71) in patients treated with bismuth subsalicylate compared with placebo (GRADE = very low). Forty-six patients were enrolled in the trial studying beclometasone dipropionate (5 mg/day or 10 mg/day) versus mesalazine (2.4 g/day). There were no differences in clinical remission at 8 weeks (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.24; GRADE = low) and 12 months of treatment (RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.40 to 4.18; GRADE = very low). Although patients receiving beclometasone dipropionate (84%) and mesalazine (86%) achieved clinical remission at 8 weeks, it was not maintained at 12 months (26% and 20%, respectively). Adverse events reported in the budesonide studies include nausea, vomiting, neck pain, abdominal pain, hyperhidrosis and headache. Nausea and skin rash were reported as adverse events in the mesalazine study. Adverse events in the beclometasone dipropionate trial include nausea, sleepiness and change of mood. No adverse events were reported in the bismuth subsalicylate study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low quality evidence suggests that budesonide may be effective for the treatment of active lymphocytic colitis. This benefit needs to be confirmed by a large placebo -controlled trial. Low quality evidence also suggests that mesalazine with or without cholestyramine and beclometasone dipropionate may be effective for the treatment of lymphocytic colitis, however this needs to be confirmed by large placebo-controlled studies. No conclusions can be made regarding bismuth subsalicylate due to the very small number of patients in the study, Further trials studying interventions for lymphocytic colitis are warranted.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antidiarrheals; Beclomethasone; Bismuth; Budesonide; Cholestyramine Resin; Colitis, Lymphocytic; Humans; Mesalamine; Organometallic Compounds; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salicylates
PubMed: 28702956
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006096.pub4 -
Oxidative Medicine and Cellular... 2022To systematically assess effectiveness and safety of Bifidobacterium quadruple viable bacteria combined with mesalamine against ulcerative colitis (UC) in the Asian... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically assess effectiveness and safety of Bifidobacterium quadruple viable bacteria combined with mesalamine against ulcerative colitis (UC) in the Asian population.
METHODS
An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang databases for a random collection of controlled trials of Bifidobacterium quadruple viable bacteria combined with mesalamine against UC. Following data screening and extraction, a Cochrane risk assessment tool was adopted to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and RevMan 5.3 and Stata/SE 15.1 software were used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Nineteen articles which enrolled 1,707 subjects were included ultimately in this study. The experimental group performed better than the control group in improving the Mayo score (MD = -1.94, 95% CI = (-2.69, -1.19), < 0.00001), increasing the total clinical efficiency (OR = 5.10, 95% CI (3.53, 7.38), < 0.00001), reducing the levels of IL-8 (SMD = -1.79, 95% CI (-2.36, -1.12), < 0.00001), increasing the levels of IL-4 (SMD = 1.00, 95% CI (0.60, 1.41), < 0.00001), and reducing the levels of hsCRP (MD = -3.26, 95% CI (-4.28, -2.25), < 0.00001), TNF- (MD = -7.11, 95% CI (-9.23, -5.00), < 0.00001), ox-LDL (MD = -14.46, 95% CI (-17.20, -11.72), < 0.00001), and LPO (MD = -3.55, 95% CI (-4.70, -2.39), < 0.0001) as well as increasing SOD level (SMD = 1.68, 95% CI (1.02, 2.35), < 0.00001), and adverse reactions were substantially less than that of control (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = (0.28, 0.66), = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the current meta-analysis shows that Bifidobacterium quadruple viable bacterium combined with mesalamine has a satisfactory effect in the treatment of UC in China, and its safety is better than that of mesalamine or Bifidobacterium quadruple viable bacteria alone. However, randomized controlled trials with standardized designs and large sample sizes are still needed for further validation.
Topics: Bifidobacterium; C-Reactive Protein; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Interleukin-4; Interleukin-8; Mesalamine; Superoxide Dismutase; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 36238645
DOI: 10.1155/2022/8272371 -
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2020To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mesalamine in conjunction with probiotics for ulcerative colitis.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mesalamine in conjunction with probiotics for ulcerative colitis.
METHODS
Random controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP (VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals) from inception to October 2019. Methodological quality was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The quality of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Data analysis was carried out in Review Manager 5.3.
RESULTS
A total of fifteen studies met the criteria for inclusion. Thirteen studies reported the clinical efficacy, three studies provided data on the clinical symptom scores, two trials reported disease activity index, four studies evaluated endoscopic score, and twelve studies reported adverse events. For ulcerative colitis (UC), mesalamine and probiotics had better clinical efficacy than mesalamine alone (≤8 weeks: RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.07-1.18, < 0.0001; >8 weeks: RR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.11-1.41, =0.0003). On the clinical symptom scores, disease activity index, and endoscopic score, UC patients receiving mesalamine and probiotics had significant difference than patients receiving mesalazine alone (MD = -2.02, 95% CI: -3.28 to -0.76, =0.002; MD = -1.20, 95% CI: -1.76 to -0.65, < 0.001; and MD = -0.42, 95% CI: -0.61 to -0.23, < 0.0001, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events between the two groups (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.43, =0.60).
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis results supported that mesalamine and probiotics were effective and safe in treating ulcerative colitis.
PubMed: 32308714
DOI: 10.1155/2020/6923609 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; also known as mesalazine or mesalamine) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; also known as mesalazine or mesalamine) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. In an earlier version of this review, we found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis (UC), but had a significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. In this version, we have rerun the search to bring the review up to date.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness, and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC and to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a literature search for studies on 11 June 2019 using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. In addition, we searched review articles and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. We considered studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of participants with quiescent UC compared with placebo, SASP, or other 5-ASA formulations. We also included studies that compared once-daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose-ranging studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes were adherence, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), withdrawals due to AEs, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus SASP, once-daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA (balsalazide, Pentasa, and olsalazine) versus comparator 5-ASA formulation (Asacol and Salofalk), and 5-ASA dose-ranging. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome. We analyzed data on an intention-to-treat basis, and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
The search identified 44 studies (9967 participants). Most studies were at low risk of bias. Ten studies were at high risk of bias. Seven of these studies were single-blind and three were open-label. 5-ASA is more effective than placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. About 37% (335/907) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 12 months compared to 55% (355/648) of placebo participants (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.76; 8 studies, 1555 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication was not reported for this comparison. SAEs were reported in 1% (6/550) of participants in the 5-ASA group compared to 2% (5/276) of participants in the placebo group at six to 12 months (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.84; 3 studies, 826 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18; 5 studies, 1132 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). SASP is more effective than 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. About 48% (416/871) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 43% (336/784) of SASP participants (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27; 12 studies, 1655 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication and SAEs were not reported for this comparison. There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.40; 7 studies, 1138 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in clinical or endoscopic remission rates between once-daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. About 37% (717/1939) of once-daily participants relapsed over 12 months compared to 39% (770/1971) of conventional-dosing participants (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; 10 studies, 3910 participants; high-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in medication adherence rates. About 10% (106/1152) of participants in the once-daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 8% (84/1154) of participants in the conventional-dosing group (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.93; 9 studies, 2306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). About 3% (41/1587) of participants in the once-daily group experienced a SAE compared to 2% (35/1609) of participants in the conventional-dose group at six to 12 months (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.87; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in the incidence of AEs at six to 13 months' follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 8 studies, 3497 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the efficacy of different 5-ASA formulations. About 44% (158/358) of participants in the 5-ASA group relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 41% (142/349) of participants in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28; 6 studies, 707 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in UC. There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is inferior compared to SASP. There is probably little or no difference between 5-ASA and placebo, and 5-ASA and SASP in commonly reported AEs such as flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, and dyspepsia. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily has a similar benefit and harm profile as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Aminosalicylic Acids; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Colitis, Ulcerative; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Medication Adherence; Mesalamine; Patient Dropouts; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Remission Induction; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 32856298
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000544.pub5 -
Danish Medical Journal Dec 2016Refractory coeliac disease (RCD) is a rare and severe malabsorptive disease. The condition has two subtypes: RCDI and RCDII. Different treatments have been tested: and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Refractory coeliac disease (RCD) is a rare and severe malabsorptive disease. The condition has two subtypes: RCDI and RCDII. Different treatments have been tested: and because RCD has a poor prognosis due to progress to enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, the aim was to review the epidemiologic aspects and the therapeutic options for RCD.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in 18 databases, and 122 records were identified. Incidence, prevalence, treatment methods and their efficacy were evaluated.
RESULTS
Among coeliac disease patients, the cumulative incidence of RCD is 1-4% per ten-year period and the prevalence is 0.31-0.38%. In the general population, the prevalence of RCD is 0.002%. Treatment of RCDI is azathioprine (effect 100%), mesalamine (effect 60%) or tioguanine (effect 83%). Treatment for RCDII is the antimetabolite cladribine (effect 81%) and autologous haematopoetic stem cell transplantation (effect 85%).
CONCLUSION
RCD is a very rare disease. The current evidence for RCDI treatment includes prednisolone in combination with the immunosuppressants azathioprine, mesalamine or tioguanine. The current evidence for RCDII treatment documents use of the antimetabolite cladribine, and if there is no effect, autologous haematopoetic stem cell transplantation may be attempted. In the future, there is a need for more effective treatments which will also prevent further progression to enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Azathioprine; Celiac Disease; Cladribine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Incidence; Mesalamine; Prednisolone; Prevalence; Thioguanine
PubMed: 27910801
DOI: No ID Found