-
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Jun 2015Various treatment modalities are available for cutaneous lichen planus. Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled... (Review)
Review
Various treatment modalities are available for cutaneous lichen planus. Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Health Technology Assessment Database were searched for all the systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials related to cutaneous lichen planus. Two systematic reviews and nine relevant randomized controlled trials were identified. Acitretin, griseofulvin, hydroxychloroquine and narrow band ultraviolet B are demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of cutaneous lichen planus. Sulfasalazine is effective, but has an unfavorable safety profile. KH1060, a vitamin D analogue, is not beneficial in the management of cutaneous lichen planus. Evidence from large scale randomized trials demonstrating the safety and efficacy for many other treatment modalities used to treat cutaneous lichen planus is simply not available.
Topics: Acitretin; Administration, Cutaneous; Humans; Lichen Planus
PubMed: 24916211
DOI: 10.3109/09546634.2014.933167 -
Journal of the European Academy of... Sep 2016Eosinophilic cellulitis (Wells syndrome) is a rare inflammatory skin disease defined by erythematous, tender, sometimes urticarial plaques, possibly with vesicles and... (Review)
Review
Eosinophilic cellulitis (Wells syndrome) is a rare inflammatory skin disease defined by erythematous, tender, sometimes urticarial plaques, possibly with vesicles and bullae, and granulomatous eosinophilic infiltrates in the dermis. Usually the disease has a benign course with spontaneous remission within a few weeks. Nevertheless, recurrences are quite frequent and may occur for several years. The objective of this study was to review the so far reported treatment options for Wells syndrome in a systematic manner. This systematic review is based on a search on Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register for English and German articles from 1970 to 2015. Advices on the treatment of Wells syndrome are limited predominately to case reports or to small case series. There are no randomized controlled trials, and control groups are missing. A variety of treatment options for Wells syndrome were reported including topical and systemic corticosteroids, antihistamines, cyclosporine, dapsone, azathioprine, griseofulvin, doxycycline, minocycline, antimalarial medications, oral tacrolimus/topical tacrolimus, sulfasalazine, interferon alpha and gamma, TNF alpha inhibitors, colchicine and PUVA therapy. As well-designed, randomized controlled trials are missing, no guidelines for the treatment of this disease can be given. Due to the small number of patients and the frequent misdiagnosis of this clinical entity, the aim of this systematic overview is to call attention to this rare condition and to help clinicians to diagnose and treat Wells syndrome effectively. Due to the good prognosis and tendency to resolve, systemic treatment should be limited to cases resistant to local therapy or with widespread lesions.
Topics: Cellulitis; Dermatologic Agents; Eosinophilia; Humans
PubMed: 27357601
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.13706 -
Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism Oct 2020Drug therapy could alter fertility in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aimed to perform a systematic review to evaluate if Disease-modifying antirheumatic... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Drug therapy could alter fertility in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aimed to perform a systematic review to evaluate if Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy influences fertility as this is an important point to consider in shared decision making on RA therapy.
METHODS
A search was conducted at 18/10/2019 in EMBASE, PubMed (including MEDLINE) and the Web of Science Core Collection. Our inclusion criteria were studies involving women or men diagnosed with RA, older than 18 years and on DMARD therapy, with as outcome a fertility parameter. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, case series and animal studies were excluded. Studies not in English or Dutch or published before 2004 were excluded. Quality appraisal was performed by the CASP systematic review checklist.
RESULTS
After duplicate removal, 9030 references were identified. After title/abstract screening, 82 articles remained. After full text screening, 4 articles could be retained. No studies were found through backward snowballing. Only studies involving women could be retained. The included studies investigated the effect of methotrexate, certolizumab pegol, etanercept and sulfasalazine on fertility. No detrimental effects of these DMARDs on time-to-pregnancy, anti-Müllerian hormone serum level or presence of a history of infertility, were reported.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review underlines the gap in knowledge regarding the effect of DMARDs on fertility in women and especially men with RA. DMARD treatment, contrary to general belief, seemed to have no harmful effect on fertility, possibly because it resulted in better controlled disease activity. More research is needed to improve guidance for patients with RA with a child wish.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Etanercept; Fertility; Humans
PubMed: 32896703
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2020.07.003 -
Human Reproduction Update Nov 2020Information regarding the possible influence of immunosuppressive drugs on male sexual function and reproductive outcomes is scarce. Men diagnosed with immune-mediated...
BACKGROUND
Information regarding the possible influence of immunosuppressive drugs on male sexual function and reproductive outcomes is scarce. Men diagnosed with immune-mediated diseases and a wish to become a father represent an important neglected population since they lack vital information to make balanced decisions about their treatment.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
The aim of this research was to systematically review the literature for the influence of paternal immunosuppressive drug use on many aspects of male sexual health, such as sexual function, fertility, pregnancy outcomes and offspring health outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in the bibliographic databases: Embase (via Elsevier embase.com), MEDLINE ALL via Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Trials (via Wiley) and Web of Science Core Collection. Additionally, Google Scholar and the Clinical trial registries of Europe and the USA were searched. The databases were searched from inception until 31 August 2019. The searches combined keywords regarding male sexual function and fertility, pregnancy outcomes and offspring health with a list of immunosuppressive drugs. Studies were included if they were published in English and if they included original data on male human exposure to immunosuppressive drugs. A meta-analysis was not possible to perform due to the heterogeneity of the data.
OUTCOMES
A total of 5867 references were identified, amongst which we identified 161 articles fulfilling the eligibility criteria. Amongst these articles, 50 included pregnancy and offspring outcomes and 130 included sexual health outcomes. Except for large Scandinavian cohorts, most of the identified articles included a small number of participants. While a clear negative effect on sperm quality was evident for sulfasalazine and cyclophosphamide, a dubious effect was identified for colchicine, methotrexate and sirolimus. In three articles, exposure to tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors in patients diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis resulted in improved sperm quality. The information regarding pregnancy and offspring outcomes was scant but no large negative effect associated with paternal immunosuppressive drug exposure was reported.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
Evidence regarding the safety of immunosuppressive drugs in men with a wish to become a father is inconclusive. The lack of standardisation on how to evaluate and report male sexual function, fertility and reproduction as study outcomes in men exposed to immunosuppressive drugs is an important contributor to this result. Future research on this topic is needed and should be preferably done using standardised methods.
Topics: Adult; Female; Fertility; Gonadal Hormones; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Infant, Newborn; Infertility, Male; Male; Paternal Exposure; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Risk Factors; Sexual Behavior; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological; Young Adult
PubMed: 32743663
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmaa022 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Apr 2016To compare methotrexate based disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naive to or with an inadequate response to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: abridged Cochrane systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare methotrexate based disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naive to or with an inadequate response to methotrexate.
DESIGN
Systematic review and Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis of trials assessing methotrexate used alone or in combination with other conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic drugs, or tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
DATA SOURCES
Trials were identified from Medline, Embase, and Central databases from inception to 19 January 2016; abstracts from two major rheumatology meetings from 2009 to 2015; two trial registers; and hand searches of Cochrane reviews.
STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized or quasi-randomized trials that compared methotrexate with any other DMARD or combination of DMARDs and contributed to the network of evidence between the treatments of interest.
MAIN OUTCOMES
American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response (major clinical improvement), radiographic progression, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.
RESULTS
158 trials were included, with between 10 and 53 trials available for each outcome. In methotrexate naive patients, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%), compared with 41% with methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression, but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of 5 units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate plus infliximab. After an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy, methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate plus leflunomide, methotrexate plus intramuscular gold, methotrexate plus most biologics, and methotrexate plus tofacitinib. The probability of response was 61% with triple therapy and ranged widely (27-70%) with other treatments. No treatment was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate plus abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
Triple therapy (methotrexate plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine) and most regimens combining biologic DMARDs with methotrexate were effective in controlling disease activity, and all were generally well tolerated in both methotrexate naive and methotrexate exposed patients.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Factors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Methotrexate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27102806
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i1777 -
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology Feb 2016Cutaneous lichen planus (CLP) is an inflammatory dermatosis. Its chronic relapsing course and frequently spontaneous regression hamper the assessment of treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cutaneous lichen planus (CLP) is an inflammatory dermatosis. Its chronic relapsing course and frequently spontaneous regression hamper the assessment of treatment effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of available treatment modalities for CLP.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov registry.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the current literature. All randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized case-control studies, and cohort studies with more than one treatment arm were included. The primary outcomes were complete response and time to complete response. The secondary outcomes were partial response, relapse, time to relapse, reduction of itch, the adverse event rate, and withdrawal due to adverse events.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 11 were randomized controlled trials. Most trials had a small sample size. In the rare studies in which variants other than generalized or classic lichen planus were included, they could not be analyzed separately. Body-of-evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. Acitretin, sulfasalazine, and griseofulvin were associated with increased overall response rates in comparison with placebo. Narrow-band ultraviolet B radiation (NBUVB) was more effective than 6 weeks' low-dose prednisolone in achieving a complete response, and prednisolone was more effective than enoxaparin. Hydroxychloroquine was more effective than griseofulvin in achieving an overall response. Betamethasone valerate 0.1% ointment had comparable efficacy to calcipotriol ointment. Methotrexate was effective, with a nonsignificant difference in the complete response rate in comparison with oral betamethasone. In nonrandomized controlled trials, oral psoralen plus ultraviolet A photochemotherapy (PUVA) had comparable efficacy to a PUVA bath and NBUVB. Psoralen plus sunlight exposure (PUVASOL) and betamethasone dipropionate 0.05% cream were effective relative to a short course of oral metronidazole.
CONCLUSIONS
Several effective treatment options are available for CLP. Further well-designed studies are warranted to investigate the efficacy of topical glucocorticoids-the current first-line therapy-as well as other treatment modalities, and the treatment of different variants of CLP.
Topics: Acitretin; Administration, Cutaneous; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antifungal Agents; Calcitriol; Dermatologic Agents; Enoxaparin; Female; Fibrinolytic Agents; Ficusin; Glucocorticoids; Griseofulvin; Humans; Keratolytic Agents; Lichen Planus; Male; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; PUVA Therapy; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfasalazine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26507510
DOI: 10.1007/s40257-015-0160-6 -
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Apr 2023Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disease that commonly affects joints. Although many treatment options exist, the most common, disease-modifying... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disease that commonly affects joints. Although many treatment options exist, the most common, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), have been associated with pulmonary infections. These types of infections (specifically pneumonia) can be detrimental to RA patients. This leads providers to utilize other treatment modalities such as glucocorticoids (GCs). GCs are commonly utilized to treat RA; however, the role of GCs in the onset of pneumonia in RA patients is not fully understood.
OBJECTIVES
The goal of this study was to systematically review and statistically analyze pooled data documenting pneumonia as an adverse event in RA patients on DMARDs as a monotherapy vs RA patients on DMARDs and GCs as combination therapy utilizing the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) framework.
METHODS
On August 1, 2021, a search was conducted and completed on six databases: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and ClinicalTrials.gov. A total of 12 researchers were involved with the search and screening of articles (K.E., P.R.; V.A., D.P.C.; C.B., D.C.; T.A., E.S.; S.H., L.B.; K.S., C.S.). Search terms were identified utilizing Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree and included "glucocorticoids," "rheumatoid arthritis," "pneumonia," and "respiratory tract infections," Inclusion criteria included human subjects over the age of 18 with seropositive RA, on a combination of GC (prednisone, methylprednisolone, or prednisolone) with DMARD (methotrexate [MTX], hydroxychloroquine [HCQ], or sulfasalazine [SSZ]) and developed pneumonia of bacterial, viral, or fungal origin. The control groups were on a DMARD monotherapy regimen. Articles were excluded if they were not in English, had less than 20 participants, were case reports or literature reviews, included animal subjects, and did not adhere to the established PICO framework. Five teams of two researchers individually sorted through abstracts of articles based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The same teams individually sorted through full-text articles of selected abstracts based on the same criteria. Conflicts between each team were resolved by a separate researcher. Odds ratios were utilized to quantify the effect sizes of combined studies from a random effects model. Chi-square tests and I2 statistics were utilized to analyze heterogeneity.
RESULTS
A total of 3360 articles were identified from all databases, and 416 duplicate articles were removed. Thus, a total of 2944 articles abstracts were screened, of which 2819 articles either did not meet the inclusion criteria or did meet the exclusion criteria. A total of 125 articles were retrieved and assessed for full-text eligibility, of which only three observational articles were included for meta-analysis. Statistical results revealed that patients treated with DMARDs monotherapy are 95% (95% CI: 0.65-0.99) less likely to develop pneumonia compared to patients treated with a DMARD and GCs (p=0.002).
CONCLUSIONS
Our data suggest that RA patients have a higher probability of developing pneumonia on combination therapy with GCs, compared to monotherapy with DMARDs. To our knowledge, our findings are the first to systematically review and statistically evaluate the relationship between the use of GCs and show an increased chance of developing pneumonia.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Middle Aged; Glucocorticoids; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Antirheumatic Agents; Methotrexate; Pneumonia
PubMed: 36691851
DOI: 10.1515/jom-2022-0177 -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Feb 2018Knowledge of effectiveness and safety of the nonbiologic, nonantihistamine treatments used for chronic urticaria is important as in some cases the principal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Knowledge of effectiveness and safety of the nonbiologic, nonantihistamine treatments used for chronic urticaria is important as in some cases the principal guideline-recommended drug; omalizumab, has limited effect, side effects or is too expensive or unavailable. Herein, we systematically review the evidence for the use of the nonbiologic treatments in antihistamine-refractory chronic urticaria.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature using PubMed and Webofscience and identified studies that reported use of one or more of the nonbiological, nonantihistamine treatment options for chronic urticaria. The studies were evaluated based on study design, number of patients, effect of treatment and safety.
RESULTS
We identified 118 studies or case series with 13 different treatments (azathioprine, chloroquine, colchicine, cyclosporine, dapsone, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), methotrexate, montelukast, mycophenolate mofetil, plasmapheresis, sulfasalazine, tranexamic acid and ultraviolet light (UV) A, UVB) totaling 1682 patients. There was a paucity of controlled trials for most of the treatments reviewed albeit the strongest evidence in favor of a beneficial effect in chronic urticaria was, apart from montelukast and cyclosporine, seen for UV therapy and dapsone followed by IVIG.
CONCLUSION
The treatment options reviewed should be seen as potential alternatives in treatment-resistant chronic urticaria where guideline-based selections have failed. However, larger controlled trials are warranted to advance the level of evidence, possibly supporting some treatments' future recommendation in selected patients.
Topics: Anti-Allergic Agents; Chronic Disease; Cyclosporine; Dapsone; Databases, Factual; Drug Resistance; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Plasmapheresis; Ultraviolet Therapy; Urticaria
PubMed: 28513247
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2017.1329505 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Methotrexate, a folate antagonist, is an immunosuppressant drug that is effective for treating several inflammatory disorders including Crohn's disease. Ulcerative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Methotrexate, a folate antagonist, is an immunosuppressant drug that is effective for treating several inflammatory disorders including Crohn's disease. Ulcerative colitis, a related chronic inflammatory bowel disease, can be challenging to treat. T his updated systematic review summarizes the current evidence on the use of methotrexate for induction maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review were to assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate for maintenance of remission in patients with ulcerative colitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and the Cochrane IBD/FBD group specialized trials register from inception to June 26, 2014. Study references and review papers were also searched for additional trials. Abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings were searched to identify research published in abstract form only.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials in which methotrexate was compared to placebo or an active comparator in patients with quiescent ulcerative were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each study. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinical or endoscopic relapse as defined by the primary studies. Secondary outcomes included frequency and nature of adverse events, change of disease activity score and steroid-sparing effect. We calculated the risk ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval for dichotomous outcomes. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials (165 patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. One study compared oral methotrexate (12.5 mg/week) to placebo, another compared oral methotrexate (15 mg/week) to 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP, 1.5 mg/kg/day) or 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA, 3 g/day) and the other compared methotrexate (15 mg/week) in combination sulfasalazine (3 g/day) to sulfasalazine. The placebo-controlled study was rated as low risk of bias. The study comparing methotrexate to 6-MP and 5-ASA was rated as high risk of bias and the study assessing methotrexate and sulfasalazine was rated as unclear risk of bias for sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding. The placebo-controlled study found no statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients who maintained remission. At nine months, 36% (5/14) of methotrexate patients maintained remission compared to 54% (10/18) of placebo patients (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.45). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was low due to very sparse data (15 events). The study comparing combination therapy to sulfasalazine found no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who maintained remission. At 12 months, 100% (14/14) of patients in the combination group maintained remission compared to 75% (9/12) of sulfasalazine patients (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.86), A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was very low due to unknown risk of bias and very sparse data (23 events). There were no statistically significant differences in maintenance of remission rates between methotrexate and 6-MP or between methotrexate and 5-ASA. At 76 weeks, 14% (1/7) of methotrexate patients maintained remission compared to 64% (7/11) of 6-MP patients (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.45) and 0% (0/2) of 5-ASA patients (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.06 to 20.71). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence from this study was very low due to high risk of bias and very sparse data. Adverse events reported in these studies included transient leucopenia, migraine, nausea and dyspepsia, mild alopecia, mild increase in aspartate aminotransferase levels, peritoneal abscess, hypoalbuminemia, severe rash and atypical pneumonia
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results for efficacy and safety outcomes between methotrexate and placebo, methotrexate and sulfasalazine, methotrexate and 6-mercaptopurine and methotrexate and 5-aminosalicylic acid were uncertain. Whether a higher dose or parenteral administration of methotrexate would be effective in quiescent ulcerative colitis is unknown. At present there is no evidence supporting the use of methotrexate for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. More studies are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of methotrexate maintenance therapy in patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis. Large scale methodologically rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed. These studies should investigate higher doses of methotrexate (e.g. 15 to 25 mg/week) and parenteral administration.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Mercaptopurine; Mesalamine; Methotrexate; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 26263042
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007560.pub3 -
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