-
Journal of Gastroenterology and... Jan 2018Prevalence of colonic diverticulosis is increasing worldwide with age, and up to 25% of patients who have colonic diverticulosis might experience diverticulitis.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Prevalence of colonic diverticulosis is increasing worldwide with age, and up to 25% of patients who have colonic diverticulosis might experience diverticulitis. However, a definitive approach of preventing recurrent diverticulitis remains unknown. 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) agents are anti-inflammatory agents and have been used to prevent recurrent diverticulitis, and there have been some randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, the efficacy results for secondary prevention in uncomplicated diverticulitis differed across studies. Our aim was to clarify the efficacy and safety of 5-ASA agents in the prevention of recurrent diverticulitis.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library with no language restrictions. Two reviewers independently assessed and selected RCTs. The data were pooled using a random effect model and were presented in the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Cochrane's Q and I-squared statistics were used to assess heterogeneity. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO.
RESULTS
Seven articles with eight RCTs from 329 potentially relevant articles were included. 5-ASA agents were not superior to controls in preventing recurrent diverticulitis (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.17, I = 60%) and the incidence of adverse events was not different between 5-ASA agents and controls (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11, I = 45%). However, some included studies were few in number of participants and substantial risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
5-aminosalicylic acid agents were not associated with prevention of recurrent diverticulitis.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aminosalicylic Acids; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Databases, Bibliographic; Diverticulitis; Female; Humans; Male; Mesalamine; Middle Aged; Phenylhydrazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention; Sulfasalazine; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 28623877
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.13846 -
Nutrients Jan 2019Studies of probiotics, fructan-type prebiotics, and synbiotics in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) show significant heterogeneity in methodology and results. Here,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Studies of probiotics, fructan-type prebiotics, and synbiotics in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) show significant heterogeneity in methodology and results. Here, we study the efficacy of such interventions and the reasons for the heterogeneity of their results. Eligible random controlled trials were collected from the PUBMED and SCOPUS databases. A total of 18 placebo-controlled and active treatment-controlled (i.e., mesalazine) studies were selected with a Jadad score ≥ 3, including 1491 patients with UC. Data for prebiotics and synbiotics were sparse and consequently these studies were excluded from the meta-analysis. The UC remission efficacy of probiotics was measured in terms of relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR). Significant effects were observed in patients with active UC whenever probiotics containing bifidobacteria were used, or when adopting the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended scales (UC Disease Activity Index and Disease Activity Index). By the FDA recommended scales, the RR was 1.55 (CI95%: 1.13⁻2.15, -value = 0.007, ² = 29%); for bifidobacteria-containing probiotics, the RR was 1.73 (CI95%: 1.23⁻2.43, -value = 0.002, ² = 35%). No significant effects were observed on the maintenance of remission for placebo-controlled or mesalazine-controlled studies. We conclude that a validated scale is necessary to determine the state of patients with UC. However, probiotics containing bifidobacteria are promising for the treatment of active UC.
Topics: Colitis, Ulcerative; Fructans; Humans; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Remission Induction; Synbiotics
PubMed: 30704039
DOI: 10.3390/nu11020293 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2008Lymphocytic colitis is a cause of chronic diarrhea. Therapy is based mainly on case series and uncontrolled trials, or by extrapolation of data for treating collagenous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Lymphocytic colitis is a cause of chronic diarrhea. Therapy is based mainly on case series and uncontrolled trials, or by extrapolation of data for treating collagenous colitis, a related disorder. This review was performed to identify therapies for lymphocytic colitis that have been proven in randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
To determine effective treatments for patients with clinically active lymphocytic colitis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The MEDLINE, PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched using the search criteria "microscopic colitis" or "lymphocytic colitis" and "treatment" or "therapy" or "management" to identify relevant papers published between 1970 and December 2007. Manual searches from the references of identified papers and relevant review papers were performed. Abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings were searched to identify research submitted in abstract form only. The trial registry website www.ClinicalTrials.gov was searched to identify registered but unpublished trials. Finally, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Functional Bowel Disorders Group Specialized Trials Register were searched for other studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Five randomized controlled trials were identified. Three of these studies, which assessed bismuth subsalicylate vs. placebo, budesonide vs. placebo, and mesalazine vs. mesalazine vs. cholestyramine in treating active disease, are included in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted independently by each author onto 2x2 tables (treatment versus placebo or active comparator and response versus no response). For therapies assessed in one trial only, P values were derived using the chi-square test.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-one patients were enrolled in the trial studying budesonide (9 mg/day for 6 weeks versus placebo). Budesonide was more effective than placebo at inducing both clinical (P = 0.004; NNT = 3) and histological responses (P = 0.04; NNT = 3). Forty-one patients were enrolled in the study assessing mesalazine versus mesalazine plus cholestyramine. A high proportion of patients in each group responded to treatment. However, no statistically significant difference in clinical response was found between the two treatment groups (P = 0.95). Five patients were enrolled in the trial studying bismuth subsalicylate (nine 262 mg tablets daily for 8 weeks vs. placebo). There were no differences in clinical (P=0.10) or histological responses (P=0.71) in patients treated with bismuth subsalicylate compared with placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
A single trial studying budesonide suggests that it may be effective for the treatment of active lymphocytic colitis. An ongoing placebo-controlled trial may confirm the benefit of budesonide. There is weaker evidence that mesalazine with or without cholestyramine may be effective for the treatment of lymphocytic colitis, but this benefit needs to be confirmed in a placebo-controlled study. No conclusions can be made regarding bismuth subsalicylate. These agents require further study before they can be recommended as treatment options for lymphocytic colitis. Further trials studying interventions for lymphocytic colitis are warranted.
Topics: Antidiarrheals; Bismuth; Budesonide; Cholestyramine Resin; Colitis, Lymphocytic; Humans; Mesalamine; Organometallic Compounds; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salicylates
PubMed: 18425936
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006096.pub3 -
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 -
Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology... Nov 2011Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are costly chronic gastrointestinal diseases, with pediatric IBD representing increased costs per patient compared to adult disease.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are costly chronic gastrointestinal diseases, with pediatric IBD representing increased costs per patient compared to adult disease. Health care expenditures for ulcerative colitis (UC) are >$2 billion annually. It is not clear whether the addition of VSL#3 to standard medical therapy in UC induction and maintenance of remission is a cost-effective strategy.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature and created a Markov model simulating a cohort of 10-year-old patients with severe UC, studying them until 100 years of age or death. We compared 2 strategies: standard medical therapy versus medical therapy + VSL#3. For both strategies, we assumed that patients progressed through escalating therapies--mesalamine, azathioprine, and infliximab--before receiving a colectomy + ileal pouch anal anastamosis (IPAA) if the 3 medical therapy options were exhausted. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the difference of costs between strategies for each quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed on variables to determine the key variables affecting cost-effectiveness.
RESULTS
Standard medical care accrued a lifetime cost of $203,317 per patient, compared to $212,582 per patient for medical therapy + VSL#3. Lifetime QALYs gained was comparable for standard medical therapy and medical therapy + VSL#3 at 24.93 versus 25.05, respectively. Using the definition of ICER <50,000/QALY as a cost-effective intervention, medical therapy + VSL#3 produced an ICER of $79,910 per QALY gained, making this strategy cost-ineffective. Sensitivity analyses showed that 4 key parameters could affect the cost-effectiveness of the 2 strategies: cost of colectomy + IPAA, maintenance cost after surgery, probability of developing pouchitis after surgery, and the quality of life after a colectomy + IPAA. High surgical and postsurgical costs, a high probability of developing pouchitis, and a low quality of life after a colectomy + IPAA could make adjunct VSL#3 use a cost-effective strategy.
CONCLUSIONS
Given present data, adjunct VSL#3 use for pediatric UC induction and maintenance of remission is not cost-effective, although several key parameters could make this strategy cost-effective. The quality of life after an IPAA is the single most important variable predicting whether this procedure benefits patients over escalating standard medical therapy.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Azathioprine; Child; Colectomy; Colitis, Ulcerative; Combined Modality Therapy; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Health Care Costs; Humans; Infliximab; Mesalamine; Models, Economic; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Standard of Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21694634
DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e3182293a5e -
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2022Ulcerative colitis (UC), a chronic inflammatory bowel disease, is characterized by abdominal pain, diarrhea, and mucopurulent bloody stool. In recent years, the...
BACKGROUND
Ulcerative colitis (UC), a chronic inflammatory bowel disease, is characterized by abdominal pain, diarrhea, and mucopurulent bloody stool. In recent years, the incidence and prevalence of UC have been increasing consistently. Five-flavor enteric-coated capsule (FSEC), a licensed Chinese patent medicine, was specifically used to treat UC. This review was aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of FSEC for the treatment of UC.
METHODS
Six electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing FSEC or FSEC plus conventional Western medicine with conventional Western medicine in participants with UC were included. Two authors screened all references, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data independently. Binary data were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and metric data as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. The overall certainty of the evidence was assessed by GRADE.
RESULTS
We included 15 RCTs (1194 participants, 763 in the FSEC group and 431 in the control group). The treatment duration ranged from 42 to 64 days. Twelve trials compared FSEC with conventional Western medicine, and two trials compared FSEC plus conventional medicine with conventional medicine. Another trial compared FSEC plus mesalazine with compound glutamine enteric capsules plus mesalazine. FSEC showed a higher clinical effective rate (improved clinical symptoms, colonoscopy results, and stools) (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.20; 729 participants; 8 trials; low-quality evidence) as well as the effective rate of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) syndromes (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.20; 452 participants; 5 trials; low-quality evidence) compared to mesalazine. There was no significant difference in the adverse events between FSEC and control groups.
CONCLUSIONS
FSEC may show effectiveness in UC treatment compared to conventional medicine, and the use of FSEC may not increase the risk of adverse events. Due to the limited number of clinical trials and low methodological quality of the included trials, our findings must be interpreted with discretion.
PubMed: 35069773
DOI: 10.1155/2022/9633048 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Corticosteroids are first-line therapy for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis. Although corticosteroids may improve symptoms, they have significant adverse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Corticosteroids are first-line therapy for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis. Although corticosteroids may improve symptoms, they have significant adverse effects. Steroids which act topically, with less systemic side-effects may be more desirable. Budesonide is a topically acting corticosteroid with extensive first pass hepatic metabolism. There are currently three formulations of budesonide: two standard formulations including a controlled-ileal release capsule and a pH-dependent capsule both designed to release the drug in the distal small intestine and right colon; and the newer Budesonide-MMX® capsule designed to release the drug throughout the entire colon.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for the induction of remission in ulcerative colitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialised Register from inception to April 2015. We also searched reference lists of articles, conference proceedings and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing oral budesonide to placebo or another active therapy for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis were considered eligible. There were no exclusions based on patient age or the type, dose, duration or formulation of budesonide therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted 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. The primary outcome was induction of remission (as defined by the primary studies) at week eight. Secondary outcomes included clinical, endoscopic and histologic improvement, adverse events and early withdrawal. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each dichotomous outcome and the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI for each continuous outcome. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies (1808 participants) were included. Four studies compared budesonide-MMX® with placebo, one small pilot study looked at clinical remission at week four, and was subsequently followed by three large, studies that assessed combined clinical and endoscopic remission at week eight. Although two placebo-controlled studies had mesalamine and Entocort (standard budesonide) treatment arms, these studies were not sufficiently powered to compare Budesonide-MMX® with these active comparators. One small study compared standard budesonide with prednisolone and one study compared standard budesonide to mesalamine. Four studies were rated as low risk of bias and two studies had an unclear risk of bias. A pooled analysis of three studies (900 participants) showed that budesonide-MMX® 9 mg was significantly superior to placebo for inducing remission (combined clinical and endoscopic remission) at 8 weeks. Fifteen per cent (71/462) of budesonide-MMX® 9 mg patients achieved remission compared to 7% (30/438) of placebo patients (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.50 to 3.39). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (101 events). A subgroup analysis by concurrent mesalamine use suggests higher efficacy in the 442 patients who were not considered to be mesalamine-refractory (RR 2.89, 95% CI 1.59 to 5.25). A subgroup analysis by disease location suggests budesonide is most effective in patients with left-sided disease (RR 2.98, 95% CI 1.56 to 5.67; 289 patients). A small pilot study reported no statistically significant difference in endoscopic remission between budesonide and prednisolone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.42; 72 patients). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to unclear risk of bias and very sparse data (10 events). Standard oral budesonide was significantly less likely to induce clinical remission than oral mesalamine after 8 weeks of therapy (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 1 study, 343 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (161 events). Another study found no difference in remission rates between budesonide-MMX® 9 mg and mesalamine (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.71; 247 patients). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (37 events). One study found no difference in remission rates between budesonide-MMX® 9 mg and standard budesonide 9 mg (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.65; 212 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (32 events). Suppression of plasma cortisol was more common in prednisolone-treated patients (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.33). While budesonide does appear to suppress morning cortisol to some extent, mean morning cortisol values remained within the normal range in 2 large studies (n = 899) and there was no difference in glucocorticoid-related side-effects across different treatment groups. Further, study withdrawal due to adverse events was not more common in budesonide compared with placebo treated patients (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.38). Common adverse events included worsening ulcerative colitis, headache, pyrexia, insomnia, back pain, nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, flatulence and nasopharyngitis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate quality evidence to supports the use of oral budesonide-MMX® at a 9 mg daily dose for induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis, particularly in patients with left-sided colitis. Budesonide-MMX® 9 mg daily is effective for induction of remission in the presence or absence of concurrent 5-ASA therapy. Further, budesonide-MMX® appears to be safe, and does not lead to significant impairment of adrenocorticoid function compared to placebo. Moderate quality evidence from a single study suggests that mesalamine may be superior to standard budesonide for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis. Low quality evidence from one study found no difference in remission rates between budesonide MMX® and mesalamine. Very low quality evidence from one small study showed no difference in endoscopic remission rates between standard budesonide and prednisolone. Low quality evidence from one study showed no difference in remission rates between budesonide-MMX® and standard budesonide. Adequately powered studies are needed to allow conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of budesonide versus prednisolone, budesonide-MMX® versus standard budesonide and budesonide versus mesalamine.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Budesonide; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Mesalamine; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26497719
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007698.pub3 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jan 2010Mesalazine (mesalamine) (5-ASA) is considered an anti-inflammatory drug for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. It is well tolerated by most patients and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mesalazine (mesalamine) (5-ASA) is considered an anti-inflammatory drug for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. It is well tolerated by most patients and induces mucosal healing specifically in ulcerative colitis. Besides its anti-inflammatory properties, 5-ASA has been studied for cancer inhibitory activities as it seems to reduce colorectal cancer incidence in patients using this drug for long periods of time. However, detailed molecular mechanisms of drug action are vague.
AIMS
To evaluate known molecular mechanisms of 5-ASA on chemoprevention of colorectal malignancy.
METHODS
Systematic review with search terms '5 aminosalicylic acid, mesalazine, 5-ASA, mesalazine, molecular mechanisms, chemoprevention' between 2006 and August 2009.
RESULTS
A total of 48 studies were retrieved that link 5-ASA chemopreventive properties to five distinct pathways. These include interference with cell cycle progression (12 references), scavenging of reactive oxygen- or nitrogen-derived metabolites (16 references), TNF-alpha/TGF-ss signalling (11 references), WNT/beta-catenin signalling (5 references) and anti-bacterial properties (4 references).
CONCLUSIONS
In the recent years, a large amount of molecular data has accumulated supporting the notion that 5-ASA biological effects interfere with colorectal cancer development. These molecular pathways are of special interest in the search for 5-ASA's molecular target(s) and development of novel chemopreventive compounds.
Topics: Cell Line, Tumor; Chemoprevention; Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Intestinal Mucosa; Mesalamine; Precancerous Conditions
PubMed: 19891667
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04195.x -
United European Gastroenterology Journal Oct 2022We performed a systematic review to investigate the definition of mild to moderate active ulcerative colitis (UC), and to describe predictors of good response to... (Review)
Review
We performed a systematic review to investigate the definition of mild to moderate active ulcerative colitis (UC), and to describe predictors of good response to treatment in clinical trials assessing 5-ASA and/or budesonide. Thirty-nine randomized controlled trials were included. The UC Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) was the most frequent score used for defining mild to moderate active UC (16 studies, 41%), followed by Clinical Activity Index in 11 studies (28.2%). Four different cut-offs were used to define mild to moderate active UC using the UCDAI. The most frequently reported predictors of good response to treatment was a mild and moderate disease activity. There is heterogeneity in the definition of mild to moderate active UC in randomized clinical trials. A standardized definition of mild to moderate active UC used for inclusion of patients in clinical trials is needed.
Topics: Budesonide; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Mesalamine
PubMed: 36029157
DOI: 10.1002/ueg2.12283 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Antibiotics have been considered to treat ulcerative colitis (UC) due to their antimicrobial properties against intestinal bacteria linked to inflammation. However,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Antibiotics have been considered to treat ulcerative colitis (UC) due to their antimicrobial properties against intestinal bacteria linked to inflammation. However, there are concerns about their efficacy and safety.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether antibiotic therapy is safe and effective for the induction and maintenance of remission in people with UC.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched five electronic databases on 10 December 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antibiotic therapy to placebo or an active comparator.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered people with UC of all ages, treated with antibiotics of any type, dose, and route of administration for inclusion. Induction studies required a minimum duration of two weeks for inclusion. Maintenance studies required a minimum duration of three months to be considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome for induction studies was failure to achieve remission and for maintenance studies was relapse, as defined by the primary studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 RCTs (847 participants). One maintenance of remission study used sole antibiotic therapy compared with 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA). All other trials used concurrent medications or standard care regimens and antibiotics as an adjunct therapy or compared antibiotics with other adjunct therapies to examine the effect on induction of remission. There is high certainty evidence that antibiotics (154/304 participants) compared to placebo (175/304 participants) result in no difference in failure to achieve clinical remission (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.06). A subgroup analysis found no differences when steroids, steroids plus 5-ASA, or steroids plus 5-ASA plus probiotics were used as additional therapies to antibiotics and placebo. There is low certainty evidence that antibiotics (102/168 participants) compared to placebo (121/175 participants) may result in no difference in failure to achieve clinical response (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.22). A subgroup analysis found no differences when steroids or steroids plus 5-ASA were used as additional therapies to antibiotics and placebo. There is low certainty evidence that antibiotics (6/342 participants) compared to placebo (5/349 participants) may result in no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.71). A subgroup analysis found no differences when steroids were additional therapies to antibiotics and placebo. There is low certainty evidence that antibiotics (3/342 participants) compared to placebo (1/349 participants) may result in no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 2.06, 95% CI 0.27 to 15.72). A subgroup analysis found no differences when steroids or steroids plus 5-ASA were additional therapies to antibiotics and placebo. It is unclear if there is any difference between antibiotics in combination with probiotics compared to no treatment or placebo for failure to achieve clinical remission (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.19), serious adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.08), or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.08). The certainty of the evidence is very low. It is unclear if there is any difference between antibiotics compared to 5-ASA for failure to achieve clinical remission (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.14). The certainty of the evidence is very low. It is unclear if there is any difference between antibiotics compared to probiotics for failure to achieve clinical remission (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.94). The certainty of the evidence is very low. It is unclear if there is any difference between antibiotics compared to 5-ASA for failure to maintain clinical remission (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.06). The certainty of the evidence is very low. It is unclear if there is any difference between antibiotics compared to no treatment for failure to achieve clinical remission in a mixed population of people with active and inactive disease (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.07). The certainty of the evidence is very low. For all other outcomes, no effects could be estimated due to a lack of data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high certainty evidence that there is no difference between antibiotics and placebo in the proportion of people who achieve clinical remission at the end of the intervention period. However, there is evidence that there may be a greater proportion of people who achieve clinical remission and probably a greater proportion who achieve clinical response with antibiotics when compared with placebo at 12 months. There may be no difference in serious adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events between antibiotics and placebo. No clear conclusions can be drawn for any other comparisons. A clear direction for future research appears to be comparisons of antibiotics and placebo (in addition to standard therapies) with longer-term measurement of outcomes. Additionally. As there were single studies of other head-to-head comparisons, there may be scope for future studies in this area.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Mesalamine; Remission Induction
PubMed: 35583095
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013743.pub2