-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Oral 5-aminosalicylic (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Oral 5-aminosalicylic (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it was found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo but had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the effectiveness, dose-responsiveness, and safety of 5-ASA preparations used for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives were 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 ulcerative colitis. A secondary objective was 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
A literature search for relevant studies (inception to 9 July 2015) was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Review articles and conference proceedings were also searched to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. Studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, SASP or other 5-ASA formulations were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared once daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes included adherence, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA versus comparator 5-ASA formulation, and 5-ASA dose-ranging. Placebo-controlled trials were subgrouped by dosage. Once daily versus conventional dosing studies were subgrouped by formulation. 5-ASA-controlled trials were subgrouped by common 5-ASA comparators (e.g. Asacol and Salofalk). Dose-ranging studies were subgrouped by 5-ASA formulation. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-one studies (8928 patients) were included. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. Ten studies were rated at high risk of bias. Seven of these studies were single-blind and three studies were open-label. However, two open-label studies and four of the single-blind studies utilized investigator performed endoscopy as an endpoint, which may protect against bias. 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. Forty-one per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 58% of placebo patients (7 studies, 1298 patients; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77). There was a trend towards greater efficacy with higher doses of 5-ASA with a statistically significant benefit for the 1 to 1.9 g/day (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) and the > 2 g/day subgroups (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89). SASP was significantly superior to 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. Forty-eight per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 43% of SASP patients (12 studies, 1655 patients; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome for the placebo and SASP-controlled studies was high. No statistically significant differences in efficacy or adherence were found between once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Twenty-nine per cent of once daily patients relapsed over 12 months compared to 31% of conventionally dosed patients (8 studies, 3127 patients; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.01). Eleven per cent of patients in the once daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 9% of patients in the conventional dosing group (6 studies, 1462 patients; RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Forty-four per cent of patients in the 5-ASA group relapsed compared to 41% of patients in the 5-ASA comparator group (6 studies, 707 patients; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28). A pooled analysis of two studies showed no statistically significant difference in efficacy between Balsalazide 6 g and 3 g/day. Twenty-three per cent of patients in the 6 g/day group relapsed compared to 33% of patients in the 3 g/day group (216 patients; RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.79). One study found Balsalazide 4 g to be superior to 2 g/day. Thirty-seven per cent of patients in the 4 g/day Balsalazide group relapsed compared to 55% of patients in the 2 g/day group (133 patients; RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97). One study found a statistically significant difference between Salofalk granules 3 g and 1.5 g/day. Twenty-five per cent of patients in the Salofalk 3 g/day group relapsed compared to 39% of patients in the 1.5 g/day group (429 patients; RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.86). Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, dyspepsia, and nasopharyngitis. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, 5-ASA and SASP, once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA, 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulations and 5-ASA dose ranging studies. The trials that compared 5-ASA and SASP may have been biased in favour of SASP because most trials enrolled patients known to be tolerant to SASP which may have minimized SASP-related adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
5-ASA was superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis. However, 5-ASA had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily is as effective and safe as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis. There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy or safety between the various formulations of 5-ASA. Patients with extensive ulcerative colitis or with frequent relapses may benefit from a higher dose of maintenance therapy. High dose therapy appears to be as safe as low dose and is not associated with a higher incidence of adverse events.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Aminosalicylic Acids; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Medication Adherence; Mesalamine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Remission Induction; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 27158764
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000544.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Corticosteroids are effective for induction, but not maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Significant concerns exist regarding the risk for adverse events,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Corticosteroids are effective for induction, but not maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Significant concerns exist regarding the risk for adverse events, particularly when corticosteroids are used for long treatment courses. Budesonide is a glucocorticoid with limited systemic bioavailability due to extensive first-pass hepatic metabolism and is effective for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
The following databases were searched from inception to 12 June 2014: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, 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
Randomized controlled trials comparing budesonide to a control treatment, or comparing two doses of budesonide, were included. The study population included patients of any age with quiescent Crohn's disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was maintenance of remission at various reported follow-up times during the study. Secondary outcomes included: time to relapse, mean change in CDAI, clinical, histological, improvement in quality of life, adverse events and study withdrawal. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi(2) and I(2) statistics were used to assess heterogeneity. Random-effects models were used to allow for expected clinical and statistical heterogeneity. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve studies (n = 1273 patients) were included in the review: eight studies compared budesonide to placebo, one compared budesonide to 5-aminosalicylates, one compared budesonide to traditional systemic corticosteroids, one compared budesonide to azathioprine, and one compared two doses of budesonide. Nine studies used a controlled ileal release form of budesonide, while three used a pH-modified release formulation. Nine studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. Three studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to blinding and one of these studies also had inadequate allocation concealment. Budesonide 6 mg daily was no more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission at 3 months, 6 months or 12 months. At three months 64% of budesonide 6 mg patients remained in remission compared to 52% of placebo patients (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.58; 6 studies, 540 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was low due to moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 56%) and sparse data (315 events). At six months 61% of budesonide 6 mg patients remained in remission compared to 52% of placebo patients (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.39; 5 studies, 420 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (238 events). At 12 months 55% of budesonide 6 mg patients remained in remission compared to 48% of placebo patients (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.35; 5 studies, 420 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (215 events). Similarly, there was no significant benefit for budesonide 3 mg compared to placebo at 6 and 12 months. There was no statistically significant difference in continued remission at 12 months between budesonide and weaning doses of prednisolone (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13; 1 study, 90 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (51 events) and high risk of bias (no blinding). Budesonide 6 mg was better than mesalamine 3 g/day at 12 months (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.12; 1 study, 57 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to very sparse data (18 events) and high risk of bias (no blinding). There was no statistically significant difference in continued remission at 12 months between budesonide and azathioprine (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.08; 1 study 77 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to sparse data (55 events) and high risk of bias (single-blind and no allocation concealment). The use of budesonide 6 mg resulted in slight improvements in CDAI scores when assessed at 6 months (MD -24.30, 95% CI -46.31 to -2.29) and 12 months (MD -23.49, 95% CI -46.65 to -0.32) and mean time to relapse of disease (MD 59.93 days, 95% CI 19.02 to 100.84). Mean time to relapse was significantly shorter for patients receiving budesonide than for those receiving azathioprine (MD -58.00, 95% CI -96.68 to -19.32). Adverse events were not more common in patients treated with budesonide compared to placebo (6 mg: RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.52; 3 mg: RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.24). These events were relatively minor and did not result in increased rates of study withdrawal. Commonly reported treatment-related adverse effects included acne, moon facies, hirsutism, mood swings, insomnia, weight gain, striae, and hair loss. Abnormal adrenocorticoid stimulation tests were seen more frequently in patients receiving both 6 mg (RR 2.88, 95% CI 1.72 to 4.82) and 3 mg daily (RR 2.73, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.57) compared to placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
These data suggest budesonide is not effective for maintenance of remission in CD, particularly when used beyond three months following induction of remission. Budesonide does have minor benefits in terms of lower CDAI scores and longer time to relapse of disease. However, these benefits are offset by higher treatment-related adverse event rates and more frequent adrenocorticoid suppression in patients receiving budesonide.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Budesonide; Crohn Disease; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 25141071
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002913.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it was found that 5-ASA drugs in doses of at least 2 g/day, were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP for inducing remission in ulcerative colitis. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the efficacy and safety of 5-ASA preparations used for the treatment of mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis. A secondary objective of this systematic review was 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
A computer-assisted literature search for relevant studies (inception to July 9, 2015) was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Review articles and conference proceedings were also searched to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized controlled clinical trials of parallel design, with a minimum treatment duration of four weeks. Studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of patients with active ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, SASP or other formulations of 5-ASA were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared once daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA (two or three times daily) and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The outcomes of interest were the failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, adherence, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA versus comparator 5-ASA, and 5-ASA dose-ranging. Placebo-controlled trials were subgrouped by dosage. SASP-controlled trials were subgrouped by 5-ASA/SASP mass ratios. Once daily versus conventional dosing studies were subgrouped by formulation. 5-ASA-controlled trials were subgrouped by common 5-ASA comparators (e.g. Asacol, Claversal, Salofalk and Pentasa). Dose-ranging studies were subgrouped by 5-ASA formulation. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty-three studies (8548 patients) were included. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo with regard to all measured outcome variables. Seventy-one per cent of 5-ASA patients failed to enter clinical remission compared to 83% of placebo patients (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89). A dose-response trend for 5-ASA was also observed. No statistically significant differences in efficacy were found between 5-ASA and SASP. Fifty-four per cent of 5-ASA patients failed to enter remission compared to 58% of SASP patients (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04). No statistically significant differences in efficacy or adherence were found between once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Forty-five per cent of once daily patients failed to enter clinical remission compared to 48% of conventionally dosed patients (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07). Eight per cent of patients dosed once daily failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 6% of conventionally dosed patients (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.86). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Fifty per cent of patients in the 5-ASA group failed to enter remission compared to 52% of patients in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.02). A pooled analysis of 3 studies (n = 1459 patients) studies found no statistically significant difference in clinical improvement between Asacol 4.8 g/day and 2.4 g/day used for the treatment of moderately active ulcerative colitis. Thirty-seven per cent of patients in the 4.8 g/day group failed to improve clinically compared to 41% of patients in the 2.4 g/day group (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). Subgroup analysis indicated that patients with moderate disease may benefit from the higher dose of 4.8 g/day. One study compared (n = 123 patients) Pentasa 4 g/day to 2.25 g/day in patients with moderate disease. Twenty-five per cent of patients in the 4 g/day group failed to improve clinically compared to 57% of patients in the 2.25 g/day group (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71). A pooled analysis of two studies comparing MMX mesalamine 4.8 g/day to 2.4 g/day found no statistically significant difference in efficacy (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA, 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulation and 5-ASA dose ranging (high dose versus low dose) studies. Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache and worsening ulcerative colitis. SASP was not as well tolerated as 5-ASA. Twenty-nine percent of SASP patients experienced an adverse event compared to 15% of 5-ASA patients (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.63).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
5-ASA was superior to placebo and no more effective than SASP. Considering their relative costs, a clinical advantage to using oral 5-ASA in place of SASP appears unlikely. 5-ASA dosed once daily appears to be as efficacious and safe as conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Adherence does not appear to be enhanced by once daily dosing in the clinical trial setting. It is unknown if once daily dosing of 5-ASA improves adherence in a community-based setting. There do not appear to be any differences in efficacy or safety among the various 5-ASA formulations. A daily dosage of 2.4 g appears to be a safe and effective induction therapy for patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. Patients with moderate disease may benefit from an initial dose of 4.8 g/day.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Mesalamine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfasalazine; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 27101467
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000543.pub4 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Nov 2022Between people with and without inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), there was no statistically significant difference in the probability of contracting the severe acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Between people with and without inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), there was no statistically significant difference in the probability of contracting the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, the risk of adverse outcomes in IBD patients after virus infection remains unclear.
METHODS
Eligible studies conducted from January 1, 2020 to March 17, 2022 were obtained by searching PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Information was collected in tables from the included studies. Random-effects and fixed-effects models were used as measures for the pooled estimates. All data were estimated by R version 4.1.3.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies were included. The risk ratio (RR) of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients with IBD increased by 32% (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.06-1.66) relative to COVID-19 patients without IBD. The RR of mortality was higher in COVID-19 patients with IBD from Europe (RR 1.72; 95% CI 1.11-2.67) than in those that were not from Europe (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.79-1.26; χ = 4.67; P = 0.03). Patients with ulcerative colitis were at higher risk of adverse outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection than patients with Crohn's disease patients (RR1.38; 95% CI 1.27-1.50). The IBD drugs treatment was associated with the risk of adverse outcomes, the pooled odds ratio (OR) of mesalazine (1.79; 95% CI 1.59-2.02), immunomodulators (1.30; 95% CI 1.10-1.53), and anti-TNF (0.47; 95% CI 0.41-0.53) were assessed.
CONCLUSION
COVID-19 patients with IBD had an increased risk of adverse outcomes than those without IBD, whereas anti-TNF treatment might reduce the risk.
Topics: Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Colitis, Ulcerative
PubMed: 36271206
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-022-04265-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015The therapeutic role of 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and azathioprine (AZA) remains controversial due to their perceived relatively slow-acting effect and adverse effects. An... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The therapeutic role of 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and azathioprine (AZA) remains controversial due to their perceived relatively slow-acting effect and adverse effects. An updated meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of these agents for the maintenance of remission in quiescent Crohn's disease.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of AZA and 6-MP for maintenance of remission in quiescent Crohn's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 30, 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials of oral azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine compared to placebo or active therapy involving adult patients (> 18 years) with quiescent Crohn's disease were considered for inclusion. Patients with surgically-induced remission were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcomes was maintenance of remission. Secondary outcomes included steroid sparing, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events. All data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome and selected secondary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven studies (881 participants) were included. Comparisons included AZA versus placebo (7 studies, 532 participants), AZA or 6-MP versus mesalazine or sulfasalazine (2 studies, 166 participants), AZA versus budesonide (1 study, 77 participants), AZA and infliximab versus infliximab (1 study, 36 patients), 6-MP versus methotrexate (1 study, 31 patients), and early AZA versus conventional management (1 study, 147 participants). Two studies were rated as low risk of bias. Three studies were rated as high risk of bias for being non-blinded. Six studies were rated as unclear risk of bias. A pooled analysis of six studies (489 participants) showed that AZA (1.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day) was significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of remission over a 6 to 18 month period. Seventy-three per cent of patients in the AZA group maintained remission compared to 62% of placebo patients (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.34). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was nine. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (327 events) and unclear risk of bias. A pooled analysis of two studies (166 participants) showed no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who maintained remission between AZA (1.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day) or 6-MP (1.0 mg/day) and mesalazine (3 g/day) sulphasalazine (0.5 g/15 kg) therapy. Sixty-nine per cent of patients in the AZA/6-MP group maintained remission compared to 67% of mesalazine/sulphasalazine patients (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (113 events) and high or unclear risk of bias. One small study found AZA (2.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day) to be superior to budesonide (6 to 9 mg/day) for maintenance of remission at one year. Seventy-six per cent (29/38) of AZA patients maintained remission compared to 46% (18/39) of budesonide patients (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.42). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (47 events) and high risk of bias. One small study found no difference in maintenance of remission rates at one year between combination therapy with AZA (2.5 mg/kg) and infliximab (5 mg/kg every 8 weeks) compared to infliximab monotherapy. Eighty-one per cent (13/16) of patients in the combination therapy group maintained remission compared to 80% (16/20) of patients in the infliximab group (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.40). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to very sparse data (29 events) and unclear risk of bias. One small study found no difference in maintenance of remission rates at one year between 6-MP (1 mg/day) and methotrexate (10 mg/week). Fifty per cent (8/16) of 6-MP patients maintained remission at one year compared to 53% (8/15) of methotrexate patients (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.85). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to very sparse data (16 events) and high risk of bias. One study (147 participants) failed to show any significant benefit for early azathioprine treatment over a conventional management strategy. In the early azathioprine treatment group 67% (11-85%) of the trimesters were spent in remission compared to 56% (29-73%) in the conventional management group. AZA when compared to placebo had significantly increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.64), withdrawal due to adverse events (3.12, 95% CI 1.59 to 6.09) and serious adverse events (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 4.90). AZA/6-MP also demonstrated a significantly higher risk of serious adverse events when compared to mesalazine or sulphasalazine (RR 9.37, 95% CI 1.84 to 47.7). AZA/6-MP did not differ significantly from other active therapies with respect to adverse event data. Common adverse events included pancreatitis, leukopenia, nausea, allergic reaction and infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low quality evidence suggests that AZA is more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Although AZA may be effective for maintenance of remission its use is limited by adverse effects. Low quality evidence suggests that AZA may be superior to budesonide for maintenance of remission but because of small study size and high risk of bias, this result should be interpreted with caution. No conclusions can be drawn from the other active comparator studies because of low and very low quality evidence. Adequately powered trials are needed to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of AZA and 6-MP compared to other active maintenance therapies. Further research is needed to assess the efficacy and safety of the use of AZA with infliximab and other biologics and to determine the optimal management strategy for patients quiescent Crohn's disease.
Topics: Azathioprine; Crohn Disease; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Mercaptopurine; Prodrugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26517527
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000067.pub3 -
Acta Medica Indonesiana Oct 2017treatment guidelines for ulcerative colitis (UC) not yet established. Currently, mesalazine, corticosteroids, and immunomodulators are treatment options for UC. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
treatment guidelines for ulcerative colitis (UC) not yet established. Currently, mesalazine, corticosteroids, and immunomodulators are treatment options for UC. However, they are known to have unpleaseant side effects such as nausea, vomiting, headaches, hepatitis, and male infertility. Curcumin is found in Turmeric plants (Curcuma longa L.), which possesses both anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. This study aimed to determine whether curcumin as adjuvant therapy can induce or maintain remission in UC patients.
METHODS
structured search in three database (Cochrane, PubMed, Proquest) using "Curcumin", "remission" and "Ulcerative Colitis" as keywords. Inclusion criteria is randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analysis, or systematic review using curcumin as adjuvant therapy in adult UC patients.
RESULTS
we found 49 articles. After exclusion, three RCTs were reviewed; two examined curcumin efficacy to induce remission and one for remision maintenance in UC. Curcumin was significantly more effective than placebo in all RCTs. The efficacy of curcumin could be explained by its anti-inflammatory properties, which inhibit NF-kB pathway. Regulation of oxidant/anti-oxidant balance can modify the release of cytokines. However, methods varied between RCTs. Therefore, they cannot be compared objectively. Futhermore, the sample size were small (n= 50, 45, 89) therefore the statistical power was not enough to generate representative results in all UC patients.
CONCLUSION
Available evidence showed that curcumin has the potential to induce and maintain remission in UC patients with no serious side effects. However, further studies with larger sample size are needed to recommend it as adjuvant therapy of ulcerative colitis.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Colitis, Ulcerative; Curcumin; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction
PubMed: 29348389
DOI: No ID Found -
Gastroenterology Jan 2015There are several drugs that might decrease the risk of relapse of Crohn's disease (CD) after surgery, but it is unclear whether one is superior to others. We estimated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
There are several drugs that might decrease the risk of relapse of Crohn's disease (CD) after surgery, but it is unclear whether one is superior to others. We estimated the comparative efficacy of different pharmacologic interventions for postoperative prophylaxis of CD, through a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of the literature through March 2014. We identified randomized controlled trials that compared the abilities of mesalamine, antibiotics, budesonide, immunomodulators, anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNF) (started within 3 months of surgery), and/or placebo or no intervention to prevent clinical and/or endoscopic relapse of CD in adults after surgical resection. We used Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence and estimate the relative effects of treatment.
RESULTS
We identified 21 trials comprising 2006 participants comparing 7 treatment strategies. In a network meta-analysis, compared with placebo, mesalamine (relative risk [RR], 0.60; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.37-0.88), antibiotics (RR, 0.26; 95% CrI, 0.08-0.61), immunomodulator monotherapy (RR, 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.17-0.63), immunomodulator with antibiotics (RR, 0.11; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.51), and anti-TNF monotherapy (RR, 0.04; 95% CrI, 0.00-0.14), but not budesonide (RR, 0.93; 95% CrI, 0.40-1.84), reduced the risk of clinical relapse. Likewise, compared with placebo, antibiotics (RR, 0.41; 95% CrI, 0.15-0.92), immunomodulator monotherapy (RR, 0.33; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.68), immunomodulator with antibiotics (RR, 0.16; 95% CrI, 0.04-0.48), and anti-TNF monotherapy (RR, 0.01; 95% CrI, 0.00-0.05), but neither mesalamine (RR, 0.67; 95% CrI, 0.39-1.08) nor budesonide (RR, 0.86; 95% CrI, 0.61-1.22), reduced the risk of endoscopic relapse. Anti-TNF monotherapy was the most effective pharmacologic intervention for postoperative prophylaxis, with large effect sizes relative to all other strategies (clinical relapse: RR, 0.02-0.20; endoscopic relapse: RR, 0.005-0.04).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on Bayesian network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect treatment comparisons, anti-TNF monotherapy appears to be the most effective strategy for postoperative prophylaxis for CD.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Bayes Theorem; Chi-Square Distribution; Combined Modality Therapy; Crohn Disease; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Odds Ratio; Recurrence; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 25263803
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.09.031 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Mar 2022The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the role of colonoscopy for diagnostic evaluation of colorectal...
Colonoscopy for Diagnostic Evaluation and Interventions to Prevent Recurrence After Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.
DESCRIPTION
The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the role of colonoscopy for diagnostic evaluation of colorectal cancer (CRC) after a presumed diagnosis of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and on the role of pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions to prevent recurrence after initial treatment of acute complicated and uncomplicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis. This guideline is based on the current best available evidence about benefits and harms, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences.
METHODS
The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) based these recommendations on a systematic review on the role of colonoscopy after acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions after initial treatment. The systematic review evaluated outcomes rated by the CGC as critical or important. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method.
TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION
The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adults with recent episodes of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis.
RECOMMENDATION 1
RECOMMENDATION 2
RECOMMENDATION 3
Topics: Adult; Colonoscopy; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Humans; Physicians; United States
PubMed: 35038270
DOI: 10.7326/M21-2711 -
Revista de Gastroenterologia de Mexico... 2019Since the publication of the 2008 guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diverticular disease of the colon by the Asociación Mexicana de Gastroenterología,...
Since the publication of the 2008 guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diverticular disease of the colon by the Asociación Mexicana de Gastroenterología, significant advances have been made in the knowledge of that disease. A systematic review of articles published in the medical literature from January 2008 to July 2018 was carried out to revise and update the 2008 guidelines and provide new evidence-based recommendations. All high-quality articles in Spanish and English published within that time frame were included. The final versions of the 43 statements accepted in the three rounds of voting, utilizing the Delphi method, were written, and the quality of evidence and strength of the recommendations were established for each statement, utilizing the GRADE system. The present consensus contains new data on the definition, classification, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and risk factors of diverticular disease of the colon. Special emphasis is given to the usefulness of computed tomography and colonoscopy, as well as to the endoscopic methods for controlling bleeding. Outpatient treatment of uncomplicated diverticulitis is discussed, as well as the role of rifaximin and mesalazine in the management of complicated acute diverticulitis. Both its minimally invasive alternatives and surgical options are described, stressing their indications, limitations, and contraindications. The new statements provide guidelines based on updated scientific evidence. Each statement is discussed, and its quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendation are presented.
Topics: Colonic Diseases; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Diverticular Diseases; Diverticulitis; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Mexico
PubMed: 31014749
DOI: 10.1016/j.rgmx.2019.01.002 -
The Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology... Jun 2021To identify risk factors for hypovitaminosis D in inflammatory bowel disease and conduct a comprehensive systematic review with meta-analysis to quantify the impact on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To identify risk factors for hypovitaminosis D in inflammatory bowel disease and conduct a comprehensive systematic review with meta-analysis to quantify the impact on vitamin D deficiency.
METHODS
We conducted a literature search of studies through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. In addition, relevant articles were searched manually. Studies were included if the odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI of each risk factor were reported or could be calculated. We will use the fixed-effects or random-effects model to estimate the pooled effect.
RESULTS
Out of 1018 articles, 25 eligible studies were identified, including 5826 participants. The risk factors associated with hypovitaminosis D were non-Caucasian (OR: 3.79, 95% CI: 2.68-5.34), Crohn's disease (OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.21-1.56), disease activity (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.61-2.13), inflammatory bowel disease-related surgery (OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.38-1.89), exposure to steroid (OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.28-2.03), and biologics (OR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.48-2.14). In 30 ng/mL and adjusted OR subgroup, male (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.47-2.31) and winter season (OR: 2.49, 95% CI: 1.69-3.67) also were risk factors, respectively. 5-aminosalicylic acid (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.74-1.63) and smoking (OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.98-1.45) were unrelated to vitamin D deficiency.
CONCLUSIONS
For vitamin D deficiency in inflammatory bowel disease, non-Caucasian, Crohn's disease, disease activity, surgery, exposure to steroid and biologics, males are risk factors, while 5-aminosalicylic acid and smoking are not. The relationship between body mass index, winter season, exposure to immunomodulators, and vitamin D deficiency remains unclear.
Topics: Biological Products; Colitis; Crohn Disease; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Male; Mesalamine; Quality of Life; Risk Factors; Vitamin D; Vitamin D Deficiency; Vitamins
PubMed: 34405817
DOI: 10.5152/tjg.2021.20614