-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with ulcerative colitis can be put into remission, leaving a group who do not respond to first- or second-line therapies. There is a significant proportion of people who experience adverse effects with current therapies. Consequently, new alternatives for the treatment of ulcerative colitis are constantly being sought. Probiotics are live microbial feed supplements that may beneficially affect the host by improving intestinal microbial balance, enhancing gut barrier function and improving local immune response.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to determine the efficacy of probiotics compared to placebo, no treatment, or any other intervention for the maintenance of remission in people with ulcerative colitis. The secondary objective was to assess the occurrence of adverse events associated with the use of probiotics.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 31 October 2019. We contacted authors of relevant studies and manufacturers of probiotics regarding ongoing or unpublished trials that may be relevant to the review, and we searched ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched references of trials for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared probiotics against placebo or any other intervention, in both adults and children, for the maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis were eligible for inclusion. Maintenance therapy had to be for a minimum of three months when remission has been established by any clinical, endoscopic,histological or radiological relapse as defined by study authors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
In this review, we included 12 studies (1473 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adults. The studies compared probiotics to placebo, probiotics to 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) and a combination of probiotics and 5-ASA to 5-ASA. The studies ranged in length from 12 to 52 weeks. The average age of participants was between 32 and 51, with a range between 18 and 88 years. Seven studies investigated a single bacterial strain, and five studies considered mixed preparations of multiple strains. The risk of bias was high in all except three studies due to selective reporting, incomplete outcome data and lack of blinding. This resulted in low- to very low-certainty of evidence. It is uncertain if there is any difference in occurrence of clinical relapse when probiotics are compared with placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18; 4 studies, 361 participants; very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imbalance in baseline characteristics and imprecision)). It is also uncertain whether probiotics lead to a difference in the number of people who maintain clinical remission compared with placebo (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.37; 2 studies, 141 participants; very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imbalance in baseline characteristics and imprecision)). When probiotics are compared with 5-ASA, there may be little or no difference in clinical relapse (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.22; 2 studies, 452 participants; low-certainty evidence) and maintenance of clinical remission (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25; 1 study, 125 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is any difference in clinical relapse when probiotics, combined with 5-ASA are compared with 5-ASA alone (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.87; 2 studies, 242 participants; very low-certainty evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision)). There may be little or no difference in maintenance of remission when probiotics, combined with 5-ASA, are compared with 5-ASA alone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.24; 1 study, 122 participants; low-certainty evidence). Where reported, most of the studies which compared probiotics with placebo recorded no serious adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events. For the comparison of probiotics and 5-ASA, one trial reported 11/110 withdrawals due to adverse events with probiotics and 11/112 with 5-ASA (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.25; 222 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Discontinuation of therapy was due to gastrointestinal symptoms. One study (24 participants) comparing probiotics combined with 5-ASA with 5-ASA alone, reported no withdrawals due to adverse events; and two studies reported two withdrawals in the probiotic arm, due to avascular necrosis of bilateral femoral head and pulmonary thromboembolism (RR 5.29, 95% CI 0.26 to 107.63; 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life and need for additional therapy were reported infrequently.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effectiveness of probiotics for the maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis remains unclear. This is due to low- to very low-certainty evidence from poorly conducted studies, which contribute limited amounts of data from a small number of participants. Future trials comparing probiotics with 5-ASA rather than placebo will better reflect conventional care given to people with ulcerative colitis. Appropriately powered studies with a minimum length of 12 months are needed.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Mesalamine; Middle Aged; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Remission Induction; Young Adult
PubMed: 32128794
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007443.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic relapsing inflammatory condition. Many patients fail to achieve remission with medical management and require surgical interventions.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic relapsing inflammatory condition. Many patients fail to achieve remission with medical management and require surgical interventions. Purine analogues have been used to maintain surgically-induced remission in CD, but the effectiveness of these agents is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of purine analogues for maintenance of surgically-induced remission in CD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases from inception to 30 April 2014: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Functional Bowel Disorders Group Specialized Trials Register). We also searched the reference lists of all included studies, and contacted personal sources and drug companies to identify additional studies. The searches were not limited by language.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared purine analogues to placebo or another intervention, with treatment durations of at least six months were considered for inclusion. Participants were patients of any age with CD in remission following surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and extracted data. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome measures were clinical and endoscopic relapse as defined by the primary studies. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events and serious adverse events. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis where patients with missing final outcomes were assumed to have relapsed. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes. The Chi(2) and I(2) statistics were used to assess heterogeneity. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcomes and selected secondary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven RCTs (n = 584 patients) were included in the review. Three studies compared azathioprine to 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA). One small study compared azathioprine to both 5-ASA and adalimumab. One study compared azathioprine to placebo and another study compared 6-mercaptopurine to 5-ASA and placebo. One small study compared azathioprine to infliximab. Three studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. Four studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to blinding. The study (n = 22) comparing azathioprine to infliximab found that the effects on the proportion of patients who had a clinical (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 18.98) or endoscopic relapse (RR 4.40, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.07) were uncertain. One study (n = 33) found decreased clinical (RR 5.18, 95% CI 1.35 to 19.83) and endoscopic relapse (RR 10.35, 95% CI 1.50 to 71.32) rates favouring adalimumab over azathioprine. A pooled analysis of two studies (n = 168 patients) showed decreased clinical relapse rates at one or two years favouring purine analogues over placebo. Forty-eight per cent of patients in the purine analogue group experienced a clinical relapse compared to 63% of placebo patients (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.94). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to high risk of bias (one study was single-blind) and sparse data (93 events). One study (87 patients) found a reduction in endoscopic relapse rates favouring 6-mercaptopurine over placebo. Seventeen per cent of 6-mercaptopurine patients had an endoscopic relapse at two years compared to 42% of placebo patients (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.83). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was low due to very sparse data (25 events). A pooled analysis of five studies (n = 425 patients) showed no difference in clinical relapse rates at one or two years between purine analogues and 5-ASA agents. Sixty-three per cent of patients in the purine analogues group experienced a clinical relapse compared to 54% of 5-ASA patients (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.34). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to high risk of bias (two open-label studies), sparse data (249 events) and moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 45%). There was no difference in endoscopic relapse at 12 months between azathioprine and 5-ASA (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.17; 1 study, 35 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was very low due to high risk of bias (open-label study) and very sparse data (26 events). There was a reduction in endoscopic relapse at 24 months favouring 6-mercaptopurine over 5-ASA patients. Seventeen per cent of 6-mercaptopurine patients had an endoscopic relapse compared to 48% of 5-ASA patients (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.72; 1 study, 91 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was low due to very sparse data (29 events). Adverse events that required withdrawal were more common in the purine analogue group compared to 5-ASA. Twenty per cent of patients in the purine analogue group withdrew due to adverse events compared to 10% of 5-ASA patients (RR 2.07, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.39; 5 studies, 423 patients).The results for withdrawal due to adverse events between purine analogues and placebo or for other comparisons were uncertain. Commonly reported adverse events across all studies included leucopenia, arthralgia, abdominal pain or severe epigastric intolerance, elevated liver enzymes, nausea and vomiting, pancreatitis, anaemia, exacerbation of Crohn's disease, nasopharyngitis, and flatulence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Purine analogues may be superior to placebo for maintenance of surgically-induced remission in patients with CD, although this is based on two small studies. The results for efficacy outcomes between purine analogues and 5-ASA agents were uncertain. However, patients taking purine analogues were more likely than 5-ASA patients to discontinue therapy due to adverse events. No firm conclusions can be drawn from the two small studies that compared azathioprine to infliximab or adalimumab. Adalimumab may be superior to azathioprine but further research is needed to confirm these results. Further research investigating the efficacy and safety of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine in comparison to other active medications in patients with surgically-induced remission of CD is warranted.
Topics: Adalimumab; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Azathioprine; Crohn Disease; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Infliximab; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Mercaptopurine; Mesalamine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 25081347
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010233.pub2 -
Value in Health Regional Issues Dec 2018Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is the name given to two inflammatory diseases of the colon and/or small intestine: Crohn disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC)....
BACKGROUND
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is the name given to two inflammatory diseases of the colon and/or small intestine: Crohn disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). There is no information summarizing the complete body of evidence about IBD in developing regions, including Latin America.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the burden of IBD in Latin America.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review searching published and unpublished studies on major international and regional databases from January 2000 to September 2015. Outcomes considered were incidence, prevalence, mortality, hospitalization attributable, treatment patterns, comparative effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes, and adherence to treatment. Pairs of reviewers independently selected, extracted, and assessed the risk of bias of the studies. Discrepancies were solved by consensus.
RESULTS
We retrieved 3445 references, finally including 25 studies. Only 19% of the observational studies had a low risk of bias for participant selection and 60% were based on registries. The incidence ranged from 0.74 to 6.76/100,000 person-years for UC and from 0.24 to 3.5/100,000 person-years for CD. The prevalence rate ranged from 0.99 to 44.3/100,000 inhabitants for UC and 0.24 to 16.7/100,000 inhabitants for CD. Mortality rates ranged from 0.60 to 1.02 for UC and from 0.23 to 0.40 for CD. Patient-reported outcomes showed a decrease in quality of life associated with depression and anxiety and correlated with the time of diagnosis. The most frequently used medication in the studies was mesalazine.
CONCLUSIONS
The burden of IBD in Latin America seems to be important, but there is a considerable gap of high-quality evidence in the region.
Topics: Cost of Illness; Developing Countries; Humans; Incidence; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Latin America; Mesalamine; Quality of Life
PubMed: 29936359
DOI: 10.1016/j.vhri.2018.03.010 -
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies Oct 2020Ulcerative colitis, characterized by diarrhea, bloody stools and abdominal pain, is a chronic, idiopathic inflammatory disease of the colonic mucosa. In recent years,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ulcerative colitis, characterized by diarrhea, bloody stools and abdominal pain, is a chronic, idiopathic inflammatory disease of the colonic mucosa. In recent years, the incidence of ulcerative colitis presents an increasing trend year by year. Acupuncture, as a potential effective treatment for ulcerative colitis, is widely used in clinical practice.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Chinese CBM Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese VIP Information, and Wanfang Database from the date of the establishment of each database up to March, 2019. We included randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) comparing acupuncture versus conventional conventional medicine or comparing acupuncture combined with conventional medicine versus conventional medicine in participants with ulcerative colitis. Two authors screened all references, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data independently. We summarized data using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes. We performed meta-analyses using random effects model. We assessed overall quality of evidence using GRADE.
RESULTS
We included 13 RCTs (1030 participants, 515 in the acupuncture group and 515 in the control group). Only one study tested head acupuncture, and the other 12 tested body acupuncture. The treatment duration ranged from 14 to 60 days. Seven trials compared acupuncture alone versus conventional medicine, and six compared acupuncture combined with conventional medicine versus conventional medicine. Acupuncture combined with mesalazine showed better clinical effect (improved clinical symptoms, colonoscopy results and stool examination results) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.41; 232 participants; 4 trials; low quality evidence) and better colonoscopy curative effect (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.71; 108 participants; 2 trials; moderate quality evidence) compared to mesalazine. Acupuncture showed better clinical effect compared to the combination of metronidazole and sulfasalazine (RR 1.21, 95%CI 1.10, 1.34; 318 participants; 3 trials; moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Both acupuncture alone and acupuncture combined with conventional medicine may be effective in treating ulcerative colitis compared to conventional medicine. Our findings must be interpreted with caution due to high or unclear risk of bias of the included trials.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Colitis, Ulcerative; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33054760
DOI: 10.1186/s12906-020-03101-4 -
Journal of Crohn's & Colitis Jul 2022Ulcerative proctitis is a common and often highly symptomatic form of inflammatory bowel disease. We performed a systematic review to assess the efficacy of different...
BACKGROUND
Ulcerative proctitis is a common and often highly symptomatic form of inflammatory bowel disease. We performed a systematic review to assess the efficacy of different therapies in the management of patients with ulcerative proctitis.
METHODS
We identified randomized controlled trials in adults with ulcerative proctitis treated with oral or topical therapies for induction of response or remission, or prevention of relapse.
RESULTS
A total of 32 randomized controlled trials were included [27 induction/2839 participants, five maintenance/334 participants]. Follow-up varied from 3 to 8 weeks for induction, and from 6 to 24 months for maintenance of remission. 5-Aminosalicylic acid [5-ASA] suppository was the most frequently evaluated treatment [14/32, 43.7%], followed by steroid enema [7/32, 21.9%]. Topical 5-ASA demonstrated effectiveness for induction of clinical response or remission and prevention of relapse in several studies. Combined topical steroids and 5-ASA was more effective than topical 5-ASA or topical steroids alone to induce response [100% of patients for combination vs 70% for beclomethasone alone and 76% for 5-ASA alone]. One observational study suggested azathioprine may be effective in patients with ulcerative proctitis. Only two cohort studies evaluated the efficacy of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in ulcerative proctitis. Small molecules, anti-integrins and anti-interleukin therapies have not been evaluated in isolated ulcerative proctitis.
CONCLUSION
The role of topical 5-ASA as a treatment for ulcerative proctitis has been confirmed in this systematic literature review, for induction and maintenance of remission. Future trials are needed to investigate the efficacy of more recent and upcoming drug classes in patients with ulcerative proctitis.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Mesalamine; Observational Studies as Topic; Proctitis; Recurrence
PubMed: 34850857
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab218 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jun 2018Mesalazine is the most commonly prescribed medication for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. It is generally well tolerated with some reported side effects.
BACKGROUND
Mesalazine is the most commonly prescribed medication for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. It is generally well tolerated with some reported side effects.
AIM
To summarise adverse drug events to mesalazine and recommend techniques for management. Furthermore, to determine if there is a dose-dependent relationship between high (>2.4 g/day) vs low dosing (≤2.4 g/day) and occurrence of adverse drug events.
METHODS
A literature search for relevant studies from inception to 1 December 2017 of the MEDLINE database was conducted. Two reviewers screened all titles identified. Data obtained from randomised controlled trials was used to estimate incidence rates of each adverse event. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological risk of bias and performed data extraction.
RESULTS
3581 articles were initially considered. Of these, 3573 were screened, 622 reviewed and 91 included. Adverse events attributed to mesalazine included inflammatory reactions, pancreatitis, cardiotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, musculoskeletal complaints, respiratory symptoms, nephropathies and sexual dysfunction. There does not appear to be a dose-dependent relationship of mesalazine and occurrence of adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Patients on mesalazine should be monitored for worsening of ulcerative colitis and development of new onset organ dysfunction. High-dose mesalazine appears to have similar safety profile as low dose, and is not associated with greater risk of adverse events. Prior to placing a patient on mesalazine, baseline liver and renal function should be evaluated. Renal function should be periodically assessed, whereas other testing should be performed depending on development of symptoms.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Mesalamine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29722441
DOI: 10.1111/apt.14688 -
PloS One 2016Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic and remitting inflammatory disease that is characterized by chronic idiopathic inflammation of the colon and bloody diarrhea.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic and remitting inflammatory disease that is characterized by chronic idiopathic inflammation of the colon and bloody diarrhea. Currently drug treatment is the main intervention for patients with mild to moderate UC. Mesalazine (5-ASA) and beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) have been widely used for the treatment of UC and have yielded satisfactory results. This study compared the effectiveness of 5-ASA and BDP in the treatment of UC.
METHODS
The PubMed, Medline, SinoMed, Embase, and Cochrane Librinary databases were searched for eligible studies. Data were extracted by two of the coauthors independently and were analyzed using RevMan statistical software, version 5.3. Weighted mean differences (WMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Seven randomized controlled trials that compared BDP with 5-ASA in treating UC were identified as eligible. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from low to moderate. A pooled analysis of effectiveness based on the Disease Activity Index (DAI) or other assessment method after treatment revealed that in the treatment of UC, there are no obvious differences between BDP and 5-ASA in inducing remission and clinical improvement (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.56-1.03, P = 0.08). The total numbers of adverse events associated with BDP and 5-ASA treatments for UC were similar (OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.71-2.09, P = 0.48). The safety profiles for these two drugs are good. According to subgroup-analysis, we found no obvious differences of clinical efficacy between BDP and 5-ASA no matter oral or enema administration was used in the treatment of UC. A sensitivity analysis demonstrated the stability of the pooled results.
CONCLUSION
During induction treatment of mild to moderate UC, there is no obvious difference between the two groups with respect to remission and clinical improvement. Given that the upper confidence limit for the OR barely exceeds 1.0 and that the p-value is close to 0.05 for this primary efficacy outcome as well as that the horizontal block lies to the left of the vertical line, it indicates that the clinical efficacy of BDP may be better than 5-ASA. However, taking into account that BDP has the risk of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA) suppression, 5-ASA has a potential advantage of safety in the treatment of mild to moderate UC.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Beclomethasone; Colitis, Ulcerative; Gastrointestinal Agents; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Mesalamine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27501314
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160500 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018An increasing number of people survive cancer but a significant proportion have gastrointestinal side effects as a result of radiotherapy (RT), which impairs their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
An increasing number of people survive cancer but a significant proportion have gastrointestinal side effects as a result of radiotherapy (RT), which impairs their quality of life (QoL).
OBJECTIVES
To determine which prophylactic interventions reduce the incidence, severity or both of adverse gastrointestinal effects among adults receiving radiotherapy to treat primary pelvic cancers.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in September 2016 and updated them on 2 November 2017. We also searched clinical trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to prevent adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy among adults receiving radiotherapy to treat primary pelvic cancers, including radiotherapy techniques, other aspects of radiotherapy delivery, pharmacological interventions and non-pharmacological interventions. Studies needed a sample size of 20 or more participants and needed to evaluate gastrointestinal toxicity outcomes. We excluded studies that evaluated dosimetric parameters only. We also excluded trials of interventions to treat acute gastrointestinal symptoms, trials of altered fractionation and dose escalation schedules, and trials of pre- versus postoperative radiotherapy regimens, to restrict the vast scope of the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology. We used the random-effects statistical model for all meta-analyses, and the GRADE system to rate the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 92 RCTs involving more than 10,000 men and women undergoing pelvic radiotherapy. Trials involved 44 different interventions, including radiotherapy techniques (11 trials, 4 interventions/comparisons), other aspects of radiotherapy delivery (14 trials, 10 interventions), pharmacological interventions (38 trials, 16 interventions), and non-pharmacological interventions (29 trials, 13 interventions). Most studies (79/92) had design limitations. Thirteen studies had a low risk of bias, 50 studies had an unclear risk of bias and 29 studies had a high risk of bias. Main findings include the following:Radiotherapy techniques: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) versus 3D conformal RT (3DCRT) may reduce acute (risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.88; participants = 444; studies = 4; I = 77%; low-certainty evidence) and late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.65; participants = 332; studies = 2; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Conformal RT (3DCRT or IMRT) versus conventional RT reduces acute GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.82; participants = 307; studies = 2; I = 0%; high-certainty evidence) and probably leads to less late GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.09; participants = 517; studies = 3; I = 44%; moderate-certainty evidence). When brachytherapy (BT) is used instead of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in early endometrial cancer, evidence indicates that it reduces acute GI toxicity (grade 2+) (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18; participants = 423; studies = 1; high-certainty evidence).Other aspects of radiotherapy delivery: There is probably little or no difference in acute GI toxicity grade 2+ with reduced radiation dose volume (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.81; participants = 211; studies = 1; moderate-certainty evidence) and maybe no difference in late GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.97; participants = 107; studies = 1; low-certainty evidence). Evening delivery of RT may reduce acute GI toxicity (diarrhoea) grade 2+ during RT compared with morning delivery of RT (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; participants = 294; studies = 2; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in acute (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.62 to 7.93, participants = 110; studies = 1) and late GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.65; participants = 81; studies = 1) between a bladder volume preparation of 1080 mls and that of 540 mls (low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence on balloon and hydrogel spacers suggests that these interventions for prostate cancer RT may make little or no difference to GI outcomes.Pharmacological interventions: Evidence for any beneficial effects of aminosalicylates, sucralfate, amifostine, corticosteroid enemas, bile acid sequestrants, famotidine and selenium is of a low or very low certainty. However, evidence on certain aminosalicylates (mesalazine, olsalazine), misoprostol suppositories, oral magnesium oxide and octreotide injections suggests that these agents may worsen GI symptoms, such as diarrhoea or rectal bleeding.Non-pharmacological interventions: Low-certainty evidence suggests that protein supplements (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.74; participants = 74; studies = 1), dietary counselling (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.60; participants = 74; studies = 1) and probiotics (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.82; participants = 923; studies = 5; I = 91%) may reduce acute RT-related diarrhoea (grade 2+). Dietary counselling may also reduce diarrhoeal symptoms in the long term (at five years, RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.78; participants = 61; studies = 1). Low-certainty evidence from one study (108 participants) suggests that a high-fibre diet may have a beneficial effect on GI symptoms (mean difference (MD) 6.10, 95% CI 1.71 to 10.49) and quality of life (MD 20.50, 95% CI 9.97 to 31.03) at one year. High-certainty evidence indicates that glutamine supplements do not prevent RT-induced diarrhoea. Evidence on various other non-pharmacological interventions, such as green tea tablets, is lacking.Quality of life was rarely and inconsistently reported across included studies, and the available data were seldom adequate for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Conformal radiotherapy techniques are an improvement on older radiotherapy techniques. IMRT may be better than 3DCRT in terms of GI toxicity, but the evidence to support this is uncertain. There is no high-quality evidence to support the use of any other prophylactic intervention evaluated. However, evidence on some potential interventions shows that they probably have no role to play in reducing RT-related GI toxicity. More RCTs are needed for interventions with limited evidence suggesting potential benefits.
Topics: Diarrhea; Gastrointestinal Agents; Gastrointestinal Tract; Humans; Pelvic Neoplasms; Placebo Effect; Radiation Injuries; Radiotherapy, Conformal; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29360138
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012529.pub2 -
Scientific Reports Apr 2017Topical 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) and corticosteroids are used frequently in the treatment of active distal ulcerative colitis (UC). Our study aimed to determine the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Topical 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) and corticosteroids are used frequently in the treatment of active distal ulcerative colitis (UC). Our study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of different topical drugs used to treat active distal UC. A random-effects model within a Bayesian framework was utilized to compare treatment effects and safety as odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrI). The surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) and median rank (MR) with corresponding 95% CrI were calculated to rank the treatment outcomes. In the induction of clinical and endoscopic remission, most regimens showed significant advantages over placebo except topical budesonide 0.5 mg/d and hydrocortisone 100 mg/d. According to SUCRA and MR values, rectal 5-ASA 1.5 to 2.0 g/d + Beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 3 mg/d rendered the highest probability of being the best regimen to achieve clinical and endoscopic remission, followed by the separate use of 5-ASA 4 g/d and BDP 3 mg/d. The occurrence of adverse events was not significantly different between each treatments and placebo. In conclusion, the combined use of topical 5-ASA and BDP proved to be the best choice for active distal UC and further well-designed researches are warranted to assess its efficacy and safety.
Topics: Administration, Rectal; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Mesalamine; Safety; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28440311
DOI: 10.1038/srep46693 -
Journal of Gastroenterology and... May 2020Aminosalicylic acids are recognized to be the first-line treatment options for ulcerative colitis. Currently, the effectiveness of curcumin as an adjuvant treatment in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Aminosalicylic acids are recognized to be the first-line treatment options for ulcerative colitis. Currently, the effectiveness of curcumin as an adjuvant treatment in ulcerative colitis has been investigated, which was still controversial. This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy and safety of curcumin as an adjuvant treatment in ulcerative colitis.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from original to July 2019, and relevant randomized controlled clinical trials were enrolled and analyzed. The primary outcomes were clinical and endoscopic remission; meanwhile, the secondary outcomes were clinical and endoscopic improvement. Subgroup analyses of doses, delivery way, form, and intervention time of curcumin were also conducted.
RESULTS
Six randomized controlled clinical trials with a total of 349 patients were included. Eligible trials suggested that adjuvant curcumin treatment in ulcerative colitis was effective in inducing clinical remission (odds ratio [OR] = 5.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.84-14.56, P = 0.002), endoscopic remission (OR = 5.69, 95% CI: 1.28-25.27, P = 0.02), and endoscopic improvement (OR = 17.05, 95% CI: 1.30-233.00, P = 0.03), but not in clinical improvement (OR = 4.79, 95% CI: 1.02-22.43, P = 0.05). We can see the potential advantages in large dosage, topical enema, special drug form, and longer duration from the enrolled studies. There were no severe side effects reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Curcumin, as an adjuvant treatment of mesalamine, was proved to be effective and safe in ulcerative colitis. Better efficacy can be achieved with suitable dose, delivery way, formation, and intervention time, which needs further study to verify.
Topics: Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Colitis, Ulcerative; Curcumin; Dosage Forms; Phytotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31696975
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.14911