-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016The results from controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for the treatment of active Crohn's disease have been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The results from controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for the treatment of active Crohn's disease have been conflicting and controversial. An updated meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness of these drugs for the induction of remission in active Crohn's disease.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to determine the efficacy and safety of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for induction of remission in active Crohn's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 30 October 2015. Review articles and conference proceedings were also searched to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of oral azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine compared to placebo or active therapy involving adult patients with active Crohn's disease were selected for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted by two independent observers based on the intention-to-treat principle. Outcomes of interest included: clinical remission, clinical improvement, fistula improvement or healing, steroid sparing, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events. We calculated the pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting each outcome was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs (n = 1211 patients) of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine therapy in adult patients were identified: nine included placebo comparators and six included active comparators. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical remission rates between azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine and placebo. Forty-eight per cent (95/197) of patients receiving antimetabolites achieved remission compared to 37% (68/183) of placebo patients (5 studies, 380 patients; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.55). There was no statistically significant difference in clinical improvement rates between azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine and placebo. Forty-eight per cent (107/225) of patients receiving antimetabolites achieved clinical improvement or remission compared to 36% (75/209) of placebo patients (8 studies, 434 patients; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.62). There was a statistically significant difference in steroid sparing (defined as prednisone dose < 10 mg/day while maintaining remission) between azathioprine and placebo. Sixty-four per cent (47/163) of azathioprine patients were able to reduce their prednisone dose to < 10 mg/day compared to 46% (32/70) of placebo patients (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.77). GRADE analyses rated the overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes clinical remission, clinical improvement and steroid sparing as moderate due to sparse data. There was no statistically significant difference in withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events between antimetabolites and placebo. Ten percent of patients in the antimetabolite group withdrew due to adverse events compared to 5% of placebo patients (8 studies, 510 patients; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.08). Serious adverse events were reported in 14% of patients receiving azathioprine compared to 4% of placebo patients (2 studies, 216 patients; RR 2.57, 95% CI 0.92 to 7.13). Common adverse events reported in the placebo controlled studies included: allergic reactions. leukopenia, pancreatitis and nausea. Azathioprine was significantly inferior to infliximab for induction of steroid-free clinical remission. Thirty per cent (51/170) of azathioprine patients achieved steroid-free remission compared to 44% (75/169) of infliximab patients (1 study, 339 patients; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.90). The combination of azathioprine and infliximab was significantly superior to infliximab alone for induction of steroid-free clinical remission. Sixty per cent (116/194) of patients in the combined azathioprine and infliximab group achieved steroid-free remission compared to 48% (91/189) of infliximab patients (2 studies, 383 patients; RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.47). Azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine therapy was found to be no better at inducing steroid free clinical remission compared to methotrexate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.49) and 5-aminosalicylate or sulfasalazine (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.91). There were no statistically significant differences in withdrawals due to adverse events between azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine and methotrexate (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.71); between azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine and 5-aminosalicylate or sulfasalazine (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.54); between azathioprine and infliximab (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.23); or between the combination of azathioprine and infliximab and infliximab (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.80). Common adverse events in the active comparator trials included nausea, abdominal pain, pyrexia and headache.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine offer no advantage over placebo for induction of remission or clinical improvement in active Crohn's disease. Antimetaboilte therapy may allow patients to reduce steroid consumption. Adverse events were more common in patients receiving antimetabolites although differences with placebo were not statistically significant. Azathioprine therapy is inferior to infliximab for induction of steroid-free remission. However, the combination of azathioprine and infliximab was superior to infliximab alone for induction of steroid-free remission.
Topics: Adult; Antimetabolites; Azathioprine; Crohn Disease; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Induction Chemotherapy; Infliximab; Mercaptopurine; Mesalamine; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfasalazine; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 27783843
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000545.pub5 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Nov 2016Oral corticosteroids are the mainstay treatment for induction of ulcerative colitis remission in patients failing or intolerant to aminosalicylate therapy, but the poor... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Oral corticosteroids are the mainstay treatment for induction of ulcerative colitis remission in patients failing or intolerant to aminosalicylate therapy, but the poor tolerability profile of these drugs limits their usefulness. Second-generation, gut-selective corticosteroids may offer a safe alternative to systemic agents.
AIM
To review the efficacy and safety of systemic and second-generation oral corticosteroids for the induction of remission in ulcerative colitis.
METHODS
The PubMed database was searched for randomised, controlled, and open-label trials of orally administered corticosteroids published between January 1950 and September 2015. Additional trials were identified from review of citation lists. Trials that compared oral corticosteroids with non-oral agents or in combination with agents other than aminosalicylates were excluded.
RESULTS
Of the 240 studies identified, 21 were eligible for inclusion. Few trials directly compared oral systemic and second-generation corticosteroids (n = 4). Some second-generation corticosteroids had questionable efficacy vs. placebo or mesalazine (mesalamine), but beclomethasone dipropionate and budesonide MMX demonstrated a comparative benefit. Only beclomethasone dipropionate was similar to conventional corticosteroids for induction of remission and other clinical endpoints. Direct comparative trials for budesonide MMX were unavailable. Second-generation corticosteroids had an overall favourable safety profile, with minimal adverse effects on cardiovascular and metabolic parameters and a low incidence of adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Beclomethasone dipropionate and budesonide MMX provide greater induction of remission in ulcerative colitis than placebo or mesalazine but additional active-comparator trials are needed to firmly establish the efficacy profile vs. systemic corticosteroids. Second-generation corticosteroids have a more favourable safety and tolerability profile than systemic corticosteroids.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Remission Induction
PubMed: 27650488
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13803 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease. Corticosteroids and 5-aminosalicylates are the most commonly used therapies. However, many patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease. Corticosteroids and 5-aminosalicylates are the most commonly used therapies. However, many patients require immunosuppressive therapy for steroid-refractory and steroid-dependent disease. Methotrexate is a medication that is effective for treating a variety of inflammatory diseases, including Crohn's disease. This review was performed to determine the effectiveness of methotrexate treatment in UC patients. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate for induction of remission in patients with UC.
SEARCH METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and the Cochrane IBD/FBD group specialized trials register were searched from 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 comparing methotrexate with placebo or an active comparator in patients with active ulcerative colitis were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients who achieved clinical remission and withdrawal from steroids as defined by the studies and expressed as a percentage of the total number of patients randomized (intention-to-treat analysis). We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Two studies (n = 101 patients) were included in the review. One study (n = 67) compared oral methotrexate 12.5 mg/week) to placebo. The other study (n = 34) compared oral methotrexate (15 mg/week) to 6-mercaptopurine (1.5 mg/kg/day) and 5-aminosalicylic acid (3 g/day). The placebo-controlled study was judged to be at low risk of bias. The other study was judged to be at high risk of bias due to an open-label design. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical remission rates between methotrexate and placebo patients. Forty-seven per cent (14/30) of methotrexate patients achieved clinical remission and complete withdrawal from steroids during the study period compared to 49% (18/37) of placebo patients (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.59. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (32 events). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients who achieved clinical remission and withdrawal from steroids in the study comparing oral methotrexate to 6-mercaptopurine and 5-aminosalicylic acid. At 30 weeks, 58% (7/12) of methotrexate patients achieved clinical remission and withdrawal from steroids compared to 79% (11/14) of 6-mercaptopurine patients (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.29) and 25% of 5-aminosalicylic acid patients (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.64 to 8.49). GRADE analyses indicated that the overall quality of the evidence was very low due to very sparse data (18 and 9 events respectively) and and high risk of bias. In the placebo-controlled trial two patients (7%) were withdrawn from the methotrexate group due to adverse events (leucopenia, migraine) compared to one patient (3%) who had a rash in the placebo group (RR 2.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 25.91). Adverse events experienced by methotrexate patients in the active comparator study included nausea and dyspepsia, mild alopecia, mild increase in aspartate aminotransferase levels, peritoneal abscess, hypoalbuminemia, severe rash and atypical pneumonia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although methotrexate was well-tolerated, the studies showed no benefit for methotrexate over placebo or active comparators. The results for efficacy outcomes between methotrexate and placebo, methotrexate and 6-mercaptopurine and methotrexate and 5-aminosalicylic acid were uncertain. Whether a higher dose or parenteral administration would be effective for induction therapy is unknown. At present there is no evidence supporting the use of methotrexate for induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis. A trial in which larger numbers of patients receive a higher dose of oral methotrexate should be considered. Currently there are two large ongoing placebo-controlled trials (METEOR and MERIT-UC) assessing the efficacy and safety of intramuscular or subcutaneous methotrexate in patients with active UC which may help resolve the evidence supporting the use of methotrexate as therapy for active of ulcerative colitis.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Induction Chemotherapy; Mercaptopurine; Mesalamine; Methotrexate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25162749
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006618.pub3 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver... Dec 2015Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 (EcN) has been recommended as a therapeutic tool for ulcerative colitis (UC) treatment. However, to date, no meta-analysis has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 (EcN) has been recommended as a therapeutic tool for ulcerative colitis (UC) treatment. However, to date, no meta-analysis has been performed on this topic.
METHODS
We performed a literature search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Science Direct and EMBASE. We evaluated success rates for induction of remission, relapse rates and side effects, expressed as Intention-To-Treat. Odd ratios (OR), pooled OR and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, based on the Mantel-Haenszel method. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the χ2 and I2 statistics and, if present, a random-effects model was adopted.
RESULTS
We selected six eligible trials, with 719 patients, 390 assigned to the study group and 329 to the control group. EcN induced remission in 61.6% of cases, while in the control group (mesalazine) the remission was achieved in 69.5% of cases, with a mean difference of 7.9%. The pooled OR was 0.92 (95% CI 0.15-9.66, p=0.93). A single study showed a better performance of EcN than the placebo. A relapse of the disease occurred in 36.8% in the EcN group and in 36.1% in the control group (mesalazine), with a mean difference of 0.8%, OR=1.07, with a 95% CI of 0.70-1.64 (p=0.74). Side effects were comparable (OR=1.44, 95% CI 0.80-2.59, p=0.22).
CONCLUSIONS
EcN is equivalent to mesalazine in preventing disease relapse, thus confirming current guideline recommendations. EcN seems to be as effective as controls in inducing remission and therefore, its use cannot be recommended as in one study the comparison was performed against placebo. Further studies may be helpful for this subject.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chi-Square Distribution; Colitis, Ulcerative; Colon; Escherichia coli; Gastrointestinal Agents; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Mesalamine; Odds Ratio; Probiotics; Recurrence; Remission Induction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26697577
DOI: 10.15403/jgld.2014.1121.244.ecn -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015Corticosteroids are commonly used for the induction of remission in Crohn's disease. However, traditional corticosteroids can cause significant adverse events.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Corticosteroids are commonly used for the induction of remission in Crohn's disease. However, traditional corticosteroids can cause significant adverse events. Budesonide is an alternative glucocorticoid with limited systemic bioavailability.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for the induction of remission in Crohn's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
The following electronic databases were searched up to June 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane IBD/FBD Group Specialised Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Reference lists of articles, as well as conference proceedings were manually searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing budesonide to a placebo or active comparator were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed study quality. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.5 software. The primary outcome was induction of remission (defined by a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) < 150) by week 8 to 16 of treatment. Secondary outcomes included: time to remission, mean change in CDAI, clinical, histological or endoscopic improvement, improvement in quality of life, adverse events and early withdrawal. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each dichotomous outcome and the mean difference and corresponding 95% CI for each continuous outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. A random-effects model was used for the pooled analyses. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcomes and selected secondary outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen studies (1805 patients) were included: Nine (779 patients) compared budesonide to conventional corticosteroids, three (535 patients) were placebo-controlled, and two (491 patients) compared budesonide to mesalamine. Ten studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. Three studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to open label design. One study was judged to be at high risk of bias due to selective reporting. After eight weeks of treatment, 9 mg budesonide was significantly more effective than placebo for induction of clinical remission. Forty-seven per cent (115/246) of budesonide patients achieved remission at 8 weeks compared to 22% (29/133) of placebo patients (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.73; 3 studies, 379 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (144 events). Budesonide was significantly less effective than conventional steroids for induction of remission at eight weeks. Fifty-two per cent of budesonide patients achieved remission at week 8 compared to 61% of patients who received conventional steroids (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; 8 studies, 750 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate due to risk of bias. Budesonide was significantly less effective than conventional steroids among patients with severe disease (CDAI > 300) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.95). Studies comparing budesonide to mesalamine were not pooled due to heterogeneity (I(2) = 81%). One study (n = 182) found budesonide to be superior to mesalamine for induction of remission at 8 weeks. Sixty-eight per cent (63/93) of budesonide patients were in remission at 8 weeks compared to 42% (37/89) of mesalamine patients (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16). The other study found no statistically significant difference in remission rates at eight weeks. Sixty-nine per cent (107/154) of budesonide patients were in remission at 8 weeks compared to 62% (132/242) of mesalamine patients (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.32). Fewer adverse events occurred in those treated with budesonide compared to conventional steroids (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76) and budesonide was better than conventional steroids in preserving adrenal function (RR for abnormal ACTH test 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.78).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Budesonide is more effective than placebo for induction of remission in Crohn's disease. Although short-term efficacy with budesonide is less than with conventional steroids, particularly in those with severe disease or more extensive colonic involvement, the likelihood of adverse events and adrenal suppression with budesonide is lower. The current evidence does not allow for a firm conclusion on the relative efficacy of budesonide compared to 5-ASA products.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Budesonide; Crohn Disease; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Mesalamine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26039678
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000296.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Maintenance of remission is a major issue in inflammatory bowel disease. In ulcerative colitis, the evidence for the effectiveness of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Maintenance of remission is a major issue in inflammatory bowel disease. In ulcerative colitis, the evidence for the effectiveness of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for the maintenance of remission is still controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis.
SEARCH METHODS
The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to 30 July 2015. Both full randomized controlled trials and associated abstracts were included.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials of at least 12 months duration that compared azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine with placebo or standard maintenance therapy (e.g. mesalazine) were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data using standard forms. Disagreements were solved by consensus including a third author. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. Analyses were performed separately by type of control (placebo, or active comparator). Pooled risk ratios were calculated based on the fixed-effect model unless heterogeneity was shown. The GRADE approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for pooled outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven studies including 302 patients with ulcerative colitis were included in the review. The risk of bias was high in three of the studies due to lack of blinding. Azathioprine was shown to be significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of remission. Fourty-four per cent (51/115) of azathioprine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 65% (76/117) of placebo patients (4 studies, 232 patients; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86). A GRADE analysis rated the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome as low due to risk of bias and imprecision (sparse data). Two trials that compared 6-mercaptopurine to mesalazine, or azathioprine to sulfasalazine showed significant heterogeneity and thus were not pooled. Fifty per cent (7/14) of 6-mercaptopurine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 100% (8/8) of mesalazine patients (1 study, 22 patients; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.90). Fifty-eight per cent (7/12) of azathioprine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 38% (5/13) of sulfasalazine patients (1 study, 25 patients; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.50). One small study found that 6-mercaptopurine was superior to methotrexate for maintenance of remission. In the study, 50% (7/14) of 6-mercaptopurine patients and 92% (11/12) of methotrexate patients failed to maintain remission (1 study, 26 patients; RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.95). One very small study compared azathioprine with cyclosporin and found that there was no significant difference between patients failing remission on azathioprine (50%, 4/8) or cyclosporin (62.5%, 5/8) (1 study, 16 patients, RR 0.80 95% CI 0.33 to 1.92). When placebo-controlled studies were pooled with aminosalicylate-comparator studies to assess adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between azathioprine and control in the incidence of adverse events. Nine per cent (11/127) of azathioprine patients experienced at least one adverse event compared to 2% (3/130) of placebo patients (5 studies, 257 patients; RR 2.82, 95% CI 0.99 to 8.01). Patients receiving azathioprine were at significantly increased risk of withdrawing due to adverse events. Eight per cent (8/101) of azathioprine patients withdrew due to adverse events compared to 0% (0/98) of control patients (5 studies, 199 patients; RR 5.43, 95% CI 1.02 to 28.75). Adverse events related to study medication included acute pancreatitis (3 cases, plus 1 case on cyclosporin) and significant bone marrow suppression (5 cases). Deaths, opportunistic infection or neoplasia were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Azathioprine therapy appears to be more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine may be effective as maintenance therapy for patients who have failed or cannot tolerate mesalazine or sulfasalazine and for patients who require repeated courses of steroids. More research is needed to evaluate superiority over standard maintenance therapy, especially in the light of a potential for adverse events from azathioprine. This review updates the existing review of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis which was published in the Cochrane Library (September 2012).
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antimetabolites; Azathioprine; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Mercaptopurine; Mesalamine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 27192092
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000478.pub4 -
Oncotarget Jan 2017The chemopreventive effect of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been widely studied; however, the results remain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The chemopreventive effect of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been widely studied; however, the results remain conflicting. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature and update evidence concerning effects of 5-ASA on the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and dysplasia (Dys) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD).
RESULTS
5-ASA showed a chemopreventive effect against CRC/Dys in IBD patients (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.45-0.75). However, this effect was significant only in clinical-based studies (OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.39-0.65), but not in population-based studies (OR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.46-1.09). Moreover, this effect was noticeable in patients with UC (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.34-0.61), but not in CD (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.42-1.03), and on the outcome of CRC (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.39-0.74), but not Dys (OR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.20-1.10). In IBD patients, mesalazine dosage ≥ 1.2 g/day showed greater protective effects against CRC/Dys than dosages < 1.2 g/day. However, Sulphasalazine therapy did not show any noticeable protective function regardless of the dosage administered.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis of 26 observational studies involving 15,460 subjects to evaluate the risks of developing CRC and Dys in IBD patients receiving 5-ASA treatment. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each evaluation index.
CONCLUSIONS
5-ASA has a chemopreventive effect on CRC (but not Dys) in IBD patients. Moreover, UC patients can benefit more from 5-ASA than CD patients. Mesalazine maintenance dosage ≥ 1.2 g/day is an effective treatment for reducing CRC risk in IBD patients.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chemoprevention; Cohort Studies; Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Hyperplasia; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Mesalamine; Odds Ratio; Population Surveillance; Publication Bias; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27906680
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.13715 -
The Lancet. Gastroenterology &... Nov 2018The majority of patients with ulcerative colitis have mildly to moderately active disease. To inform the management of patients with left-sided or extensive mildly to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The majority of patients with ulcerative colitis have mildly to moderately active disease. To inform the management of patients with left-sided or extensive mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis, we assessed the comparative efficacy and tolerability of different therapies.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched Epub, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to Dec 14, 2015, and updated on MEDLINE on March 1, 2018, for randomised controlled trials in adults (age ≥17 years) with left-sided or extensive mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. Studies were included if patients were treated with oral sulfasalazine, diazo-bonded 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs), mesalazine (low dose <2 g/day, standard dose 2-3 g/day, or high dose >3 g/day), controlled ileal-release budesonide, or budesonide multimatrix, alone or in combination with rectal 5-ASA therapy, and were compared with each other or placebo for induction or maintenance of clinical remission. The minimum duration of therapy was 4 weeks for trials of induction and 24 weeks for trials of maintenance therapy. We did pairwise and random-effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach, and calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs; agents were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to appraise quality of evidence. We examined heterogeneity with the I statistic.
FINDINGS
Our search identified 1316 unique studies, from which 75 randomised trials with 12 215 patients were eligible for analysis. Based on 48 induction randomised trials (8020 participants) that met inclusion criteria, combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs (SUCRA 0·99) and high-dose mesalazine (>3 g/day; SUCRA 0·82) were ranked highest for induction of remission. Both interventions were superior to standard-dose mesalazine (2-3 g/day; failure to induce remission with combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs OR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·77; high-dose mesalazine 0·78, 0·66-0·93) with moderate confidence in estimates. On the basis of 28 randomised trials (4218 participants) that met inclusion criteria, all interventions were superior to placebo for maintenance of remission; however, neither combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs nor high-dose mesalazine were superior to standard-dose mesalazine.
INTERPRETATION
In patients with mildly to moderately active left-sided or extensive ulcerative colitis, combined oral and topical mesalazine therapy and high-dose mesalazine are superior to standard-dose mesalazine for induction of remission, but not maintenance of remission. Standard-dose mesalazine might be preferred for maintenance in most patients.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Rectal; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Budesonide; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Mesalamine; Network Meta-Analysis; Remission Induction; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 30122356
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(18)30231-0 -
European Journal of Medical Research Apr 2022Acute interstitial nephritis (AIN) is an important cause of kidney injury accounting for up to 27% of unexplained renal impairment. In up to 70% of cases, drugs,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute interstitial nephritis (AIN) is an important cause of kidney injury accounting for up to 27% of unexplained renal impairment. In up to 70% of cases, drugs, including aminosalicylates, are reported as the underlying cause. Following two recent paediatric cases of suspected mesalazine induced AIN within our own department, we performed a systematic review of the literature to address the following question: In patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), is interstitial nephritis associated with 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) treatment? Our primary objective was to identify the number of cases reported in the literature of biopsy-proven 5-ASA induced interstitial nephritis, in children and adults with IBD. We also aimed to identify which variables influence the onset, severity and recovery of 5-ASA interstitial nephritis.
METHODS
Embase and PubMed databases were searched from inception to 07/10/20. Search terms had three main themes: "inflammatory bowel disease", "interstitial nephritis" and "aminosalicylates". Studies were included if they reported an outcome of AIN, confirmed on biopsy, suspected to be secondary to a 5-ASA drug in those with IBD. A narrative synthesis was performed.
RESULTS
Forty-one case reports were identified. Mesalazine was the most frequently reported aminosalicylate associated with AIN (95%). The median duration of treatment before AIN was diagnosed was 2.3 years (Interquartile Range (IQR) 12-48 months). The median rise in creatinine was 3.3 times the baseline measurement (IQR 2.5-5.5). Aminosalicylate withdrawal and steroids were the most frequently used treatments. Despite treatment, 15% of patients developed end-stage renal failure.
CONCLUSIONS
AIN is a serious adverse drug reaction associated with aminosalicylates, with mesalazine accounting for most reports. The current guidance of annual monitoring of renal function may not be sufficient to identify cases early. Given the severity of AIN and reports in the literature that early treatment with steroids may be beneficial, we would recommend at least 6 monthly monitoring of renal function. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020205387.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Child; Chronic Disease; Female; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Male; Mesalamine; Nephritis, Interstitial
PubMed: 35488310
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-022-00687-y -
Pharmaceutics Jun 2022Due to ethical and practical reasons, a knowledge gap exists on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related drugs in pregnant women with IBD.... (Review)
Review
Due to ethical and practical reasons, a knowledge gap exists on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related drugs in pregnant women with IBD. Before evidence-based dosing can be proposed, insight into the PK has to be gained to optimize drug therapy for both mother and fetus. This systematic review aimed to describe the effect of pregnancy and IBD on the PK of drugs used for IBD. One aminosalicylate study, two thiopurine studies and twelve studies with biologicals were included. Most drugs within these groups presented data over multiple moments before, during and after pregnancy, except for mesalazine, ustekinumab and golimumab. The studies for mesalazine, ustekinumab and golimumab did not provide enough data to demonstrate an effect of pregnancy on concentration and PK parameters. Therefore, no evidence-based dosing advice was given. The 6-thioguanine nucleotide levels decreased during pregnancy to 61% compared to pre-pregnancy levels. The potentially toxic metabolite 6-methylmercaptopurine (6-MMP) increased to maximal 209% of the pre-pregnancy levels. Although the PK of the thiopurines changed throughout pregnancy, no evidence-based dosing advice was provided. One study suggested that caution should be exercised when the thiopurine dose is adjusted, due to shunting 6-MMP levels. For the biologicals, infliximab levels increased, adalimumab stayed relatively stable and vedolizumab levels tended to decrease during pregnancy. Although the PK of the biologicals changed throughout pregnancy, no evidence-based dosing advice for biologicals was provided. Other drugs retrieved from the literature search were mesalazine, ustekinumab and golimumab. We conclude that limited studies have been performed on PK parameters during pregnancy for drugs used in IBD. Therefore, more extensive research to determine the values of PK parameters is warranted. After gathering the PK data, evidence-based dosing regimens can be developed.
PubMed: 35745812
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14061241