-
Journal of the American Academy of... Jun 2022Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune, nonscarring hair loss disorder with slightly greater prevalence in children than adults. Various treatment modalities exist;... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune, nonscarring hair loss disorder with slightly greater prevalence in children than adults. Various treatment modalities exist; however, their evidence in pediatric AA patients is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the evidence of current treatment modalities for pediatric AA.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review on the PubMed database in October 2019 for all published articles involving patients <18 years old. Articles discussing AA treatment in pediatric patients were included, as were articles discussing both pediatric and adult patients, if data on individual pediatric patients were available.
RESULTS
Inclusion criteria were met by 122 total reports discussing 1032 patients. Reports consisted of 2 randomized controlled trials, 4 prospective comparative cohorts, 83 case series, 2 case-control studies, and 31 case reports. Included articles assessed the use of aloe, apremilast, anthralin, anti-interferon gamma antibodies, botulinum toxin, corticosteroids, contact immunotherapies, cryotherapy, hydroxychloroquine, hypnotherapy, imiquimod, Janus kinase inhibitors, laser and light therapy, methotrexate, minoxidil, phototherapy, psychotherapy, prostaglandin analogs, sulfasalazine, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical nitrogen mustard, and ustekinumab.
LIMITATIONS
English-only articles with full texts were used. Manuscripts with adult and pediatric data were only incorporated if individual-level data for pediatric patients were provided. No meta-analysis was performed.
CONCLUSION
Topical corticosteroids are the preferred first-line treatment for pediatric AA, as they hold the highest level of evidence, followed by contact immunotherapy. More clinical trials and comparative studies are needed to further guide management of pediatric AA and to promote the potential use of pre-existing, low-cost, and novel therapies, including Janus kinase inhibitors.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Alopecia; Alopecia Areata; Autoimmune Diseases; Child; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 33940103
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.04.077 -
Clinical Rheumatology Sep 2023Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality... (Review)
Review
Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality CPG recommendations, highlighting areas of consistency, and inconsistency. Electronic searches of five databases and four online guideline repositories were performed. RA management CPGs were eligible for inclusion if they were written in English and published between January 2015 and February 2022; focused on adults ≥ 18 years of age; met the criteria of a CPG as defined by the Institute of Medicine; and were rated as high quality on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. RA CPGs were excluded if they required additional payment to access; only addressed recommendations for the system/organization of care and did not include interventional management recommendations; and/or included other arthritic conditions. Of 27 CPGs identified, 13 CPGs met eligibility criteria and were included. Non-pharmacological care should include patient education, patient-centered care, shared decision-making, exercise, orthoses, and a multi-disciplinary approach to care. Pharmacological care should include conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), with methotrexate as the first-line choice. If monotherapy conventional synthetic DMARDs fail to achieve a treatment target, this should be followed by combination therapy conventional synthetic DMARDs (leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), biologic DMARDS and targeted synthetic DMARDS. Management should also include monitoring, pre-treatment investigations and vaccinations, and screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis. Surgical care should be recommended if non-surgical care fails. This synthesis offers clear guidance of evidence-based RA care to healthcare providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UB3Y7 ).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Hydroxychloroquine; Methotrexate; Sulfasalazine; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 37291382
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-023-06654-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with ulcerative colitis can be put into remission, leaving a group who do not respond to first- or second-line therapies. There is a significant proportion of people who experience adverse effects with current therapies. Consequently, new alternatives for the treatment of ulcerative colitis are constantly being sought. Probiotics are live microbial feed supplements that may beneficially affect the host by improving intestinal microbial balance, enhancing gut barrier function and improving local immune response.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of probiotics compared with placebo or standard medical treatment (5-aminosalicylates, sulphasalazine or corticosteroids) for the induction of remission in people with active ulcerative colitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 31 October 2019. We contacted authors of relevant studies and manufacturers of probiotics regarding ongoing or unpublished trials that may be relevant to the review, and we searched ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched references of trials for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of probiotics compared to standard treatments or placebo in the induction of remission of active ulcerative colitis. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
In this review, we included 14 studies (865 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of the studies looked at adult participants and two studies looked at paediatric participants with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, the average age was between 12.5 and 47.7 years. The studies compared probiotics to placebo, probiotics to 5-ASA and a combination of probiotics plus 5-ASA compared to 5-ASA alone. Seven studies used a single probiotic strain and seven used a mixture of strains. The studies ranged from two weeks to 52 weeks. The risk of bias was high for all except two studies due to allocation concealment, blinding of participants, incomplete reports of outcome data and selective reporting. This led to GRADE ratings of the evidence ranging from moderate to very low. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may induce clinical remission when compared to placebo (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.54; 9 studies, 594 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to imprecision and risk of bias, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5). Probiotics may lead to an improvement in clinical disease scores (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.63; 2 studies, 54 participants; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.59; 7 studies, 520 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal bloating and discomfort. Probiotics did not lead to any serious adverse events in any of the seven studies that reported on it, however five adverse events were reported in the placebo arm of one study (RR 0.09, CI 0.01 to 1.66; 1 study, 526 participants; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to high risk of bias and imprecision). Probiotics may make little or no difference to withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.72; 4 studies, 401 participants; low-certainty evidence). Probiotics versus 5-ASA There may be little or no difference in the induction of remission with probiotics when compared to 5-ASA (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.16; 1 study, 116 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.33; 1 study, 116 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal pain, nausea, headache and mouth ulcers. There were no serious adverse events with probiotics, however perforated sigmoid diverticulum and respiratory failure in a patient with severe emphysema were reported in the 5-ASA arm (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; 1 study, 116 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Probiotics combined with 5-ASA versus 5-ASA alone Low-certainty evidence from a single study shows that when combined with 5-ASA, probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission (based on the Sunderland disease activity index) compared to 5-ASA alone (RR 1.22 CI 1.01 to 1.47; 1 study, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to unclear risk of bias and imprecision). No information about adverse events was reported. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes (progression to surgery, need for additional therapy, quality of life scores, or steroid withdrawal) were reported in any of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence suggests that probiotics may induce clinical remission in active ulcerative colitis when compared to placebo. There may be little or no difference in clinical remission with probiotics alone compared to 5-ASA. There is limited evidence from a single study which failed to provide a definition of remission, that probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission when used in combination with 5-ASA. There was no evidence to assess whether probiotics are effective in people with severe and more extensive disease, or if specific preparations are superior to others. Further targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies and the use of standardised participant groups and outcome measures in line with the wider field are needed, as well as reporting to minimise risk of bias.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Child; Colitis, Ulcerative; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Mesalamine; Middle Aged; Numbers Needed To Treat; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Sample Size; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 32128795
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005573.pub3 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. It was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. It was previously 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 (UC). This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators (i.e. other formulations of 5-ASA) for induction of remission in active UC. A secondary objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of oral 5-ASA versus conventional dosing regimens (two or three times daily).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library on 11 June 2019. We also searched references, conference proceedings and study registers to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (aged 18 years or more) with active UC for inclusion. We included studies that compared oral 5-ASA therapy with placebo, SASP, or other 5-ASA formulations. We also included studies that compared once-daily to conventional dosing as well as dose-ranging studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Outcomes include failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, adherence, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), withdrawals due to AEs, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. We analyzed five comparisons: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once-daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA (e.g. MMX mesalamine, Ipocol, Balsalazide, Pentasa, Olsalazine and 5-ASA micropellets) versus comparator 5-ASA (e.g. Asacol, Claversal, Salofalk), and 5-ASA dose-ranging. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% 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
We include 54 studies (9612 participants). We rated most studies at low risk of bias. Seventy-one per cent (1107/1550) of 5-ASA participants failed to enter clinical remission compared to 83% (695/837) of placebo participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89; 2387 participants, 11 studies; high-certainty evidence). We also observed a dose-response trend for 5-ASA. There was no difference in clinical remission rates between 5-ASA and SASP. Fifty-four per cent (150/279) of 5-ASA participants failed to enter remission compared to 58% (144/247) of SASP participants (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04; 526 participants, 8 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no difference in remission rates between once-daily dosing and conventional dosing. Sixty per cent (533/881) of once-daily participants failed to enter clinical remission compared to 61% (538/880) of conventionally-dosed participants (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 1761 participants, 5 studies; high-certainty evidence). Eight per cent (15/179) of participants dosed once daily failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 6% (11/179) of conventionally-dosed participants (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.86; 358 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Fifty per cent (507/1022) of participants in the 5-ASA group failed to enter remission compared to 52% (491/946) of participants in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.02; 1968 participants, 11 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, once-daily and conventionally-dosed 5-ASA, and 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulation studies. Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache and worsening UC. SASP was not as well tolerated as 5-ASA. Twenty-nine per cent (118/411) of SASP participants experienced an AE compared to 15% (72/498) of 5-ASA participants (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.63; 909 participants, 12 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is superior to placebo, and moderate-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is not more effective than SASP. Considering relative costs, a clinical advantage to using oral 5-ASA in place of SASP appears unlikely. High-certainty evidence suggests 5-ASA dosed once daily appears to be as efficacious as conventionally-dosed 5-ASA. There may be little or no difference in efficacy or safety among the various 5-ASA formulations.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Colitis, Ulcerative; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Mesalamine; Patient Dropouts; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Sulfasalazine; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 32786164
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000543.pub5 -
Cureus Mar 2021Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic condition of the bowel that can be further categorized into ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Rarely, this condition... (Review)
Review
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic condition of the bowel that can be further categorized into ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Rarely, this condition can be associated with pericarditis, which can be an extraintestinal manifestation of the disease or drug-induced. This review aims to determine the pathogenesis and management of pericarditis in IBD. In this review, the goal is to elucidate the pathogenesis of pericarditis in IBD and determine if pericarditis is an extraintestinal manifestation of IBD or a complication of current drug therapy used to manage IBD. Additionally, this review intends to explain the first-line management of pericarditis in IBD and explore the role of biologicals in attenuating pericarditis. An electronic search was conducted to identify relevant reports of pericarditis in IBD, and a quality assessment was conducted to identify high-quality articles according to the inclusion criteria. Full-text articles from inception to November 2020 were included, while non-English articles, gray literature, and animal studies were excluded. The majority of studies suggest that pericarditis arises as a complication of drug therapy by 5-aminosalicylic acid derivatives such as sulfasalazine, mesalamine, and balsalazide, and it occurs due to IgE-mediated allergic reactions, direct cardiac toxicity, cell-mediated hypersensitivity reactions, and humoral antibody response to therapy. Drug cessation or the initiation of a corticosteroid regimen seems to be the most effective means of managing pericarditis in IBD due to drug therapy or an extraintestinal manifestation.
PubMed: 33884251
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.14010 -
Scientific Reports Feb 2020N-acetyltransferase 2 (NAT2) acetylator status can be classified into three groups depending on the number of rapid alleles (e.g., NAT2*4): rapid, intermediate, and slow... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
N-acetyltransferase 2 (NAT2) acetylator status can be classified into three groups depending on the number of rapid alleles (e.g., NAT2*4): rapid, intermediate, and slow acetylators. Such acetylator status may influence the occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) during sulfasalazine treatment. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between NAT2 acetylator status and ADRs of sulfasalazine. We searched for qualified studies in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the strength of the association between NAT2 acetylator status and ADRs of sulfasalazine. Nine cohort studies involving 1,077 patients were included in the meta-analysis. NAT2 slow acetylators were associated with an increase in overall ADRs (OR 3.37, 95% CI: 1.43 to 7.93; p = 0.005), discontinuation due to overall ADRs (OR 2.89, 95% CI: 1.72 to 4.86; p < 0.0001), and dose-related ADRs (OR 5.20, 95% CI: 2.44 to 11.08; p < 0.0001), compared with rapid and intermediate acetylators. In conclusion, NAT2 slow acetylators are at risk of ADRs during sulfasalazine treatment. Based on our findings, NAT2 genotyping may be useful to predict the occurrence of ADRs during sulfasalazine treatment.
Topics: Arylamine N-Acetyltransferase; Humans; Polymorphism, Genetic; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 32107440
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-60467-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammation of the colon characterised by periods of relapse and remission. It starts in the rectum and can extend throughout the...
BACKGROUND
Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammation of the colon characterised by periods of relapse and remission. It starts in the rectum and can extend throughout the colon. UC and Crohn's disease (CD) are the most common inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). However, UC tends to be more common than CD. It has no known cure but can be managed with medication and surgery. However, studies have shown that abdominal pain persists in up to one-third of people with UC in remission. Abdominal pain could be a symptom of relapse of the disease due to adverse effects of medication, surgical complications and strictures or adhesions secondary to UC.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of interventions for managing abdominal pain in people with ulcerative colitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and five other databases and clinical trials registries on 28 April 2021. We contacted authors of relevant studies and ongoing or unpublished trials that may be relevant to the review. We also searched references of trials and systematic reviews for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published, unpublished and ongoing randomised trials that compared interventions for the management of abdominal pain with other active interventions or standard therapy, placebo or no therapy were included. People with both active and inactive disease were included. We excluded studies that did not report on any abdominal pain outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments. We analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs), respectively, with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five studies (360 randomised participants). Studies considered mainly participants in an inactive state of the disease. No conclusions could be drawn about the efficacy of any of the interventions on pain frequency, pain intensity, and treatment success. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all comparisons because of imprecision due to sparse data, and risk of bias. One study compared a low FODMAPs diet (n=13) to a sham diet (n=13). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain frequency (MD -4.00, 95% CI -20.61 to 12.61) and intensity (MD -9.00, 95% CI -20.07 to 2.07). Treatment success was not reported. One study compared relaxation training (n=20) to wait-list (n=20). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain frequency at end of intervention (MD 2.60, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.06) and 6-month follow-up (MD 3.30, 95% CI 1.64 to 4.96). Similarly, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity at end of intervention (MD -1.70, 95% CI -2.92 to -0.48) and 6-month follow-up (MD -2.30, 95% CI -3.70 to -0.90). Treatment success was not reported. One study compared yoga (n=30) to no intervention (n=30). The study defined treatment success as the presence or absence of pain; however, the data they provided was unclear. Pain frequency and intensity were not reported. One study compared a kefir diet (Lactobacillus bacteria, n=15) to no intervention (n=15). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.57). Pain frequency and treatment success were not reported. One study compared a stellate ganglion block treatment (n=90) to sulfasalazine treatment (n=30). The study defined treatment success as "stomachache"; however, the data they provided was unclear. Pain frequency and intensity were not reported. Two studies reported withdrawals due to adverse events. One study reported withdrawals due to adverse events as zero. Two studies did not report this outcome. We cannot draw any conclusions about the effects of any of the interventions on withdrawals due to adverse events because of the very limited evidence. The reporting of secondary outcomes was inconsistent. Adverse events tended to be very low or zero. However, we can make no clear judgements about adverse events for any of the interventions, due to the low number of events. Anxiety was measured and reported at end of intervention in only one study (yoga versus no intervention), and depression was not measured in any of the studies. We can therefore draw no meaningful conclusions about these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found very low-certainty evidence on the efficacy and safety of interventions for the management of abdominal pain in ulcerative colitis. Pervasive issues with very serious imprecision from small samples size and high risk of bias have led to very low-certainty outcomes, precluding conclusions. While few adverse events and no serious adverse events were reported, the certainty of these findings was again very low for all comparisons, so no conclusions can be drawn. There is a need for further research. We have identified eight ongoing studies in this review, so an update will be warranted. It is key that future research addresses the issues leading to reduced certainty of outcomes, specifically sample size and reporting that leads to high risk of bias. It is also important that if researchers are considering pain as a critical outcome, they should report clearly if participants were pain-free at baseline; in that case, data would be best presented as separate subgroups throughout their research.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adult; Bias; Colitis, Ulcerative; Diet, Carbohydrate-Restricted; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Kefir; Lactobacillus; Middle Aged; Nerve Block; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Relaxation Therapy; Stellate Ganglion; Sulfasalazine; Waiting Lists; Yoga
PubMed: 34291816
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013589.pub2