-
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies Oct 2020Ulcerative colitis, characterized by diarrhea, bloody stools and abdominal pain, is a chronic, idiopathic inflammatory disease of the colonic mucosa. In recent years,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ulcerative colitis, characterized by diarrhea, bloody stools and abdominal pain, is a chronic, idiopathic inflammatory disease of the colonic mucosa. In recent years, the incidence of ulcerative colitis presents an increasing trend year by year. Acupuncture, as a potential effective treatment for ulcerative colitis, is widely used in clinical practice.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Chinese CBM Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese VIP Information, and Wanfang Database from the date of the establishment of each database up to March, 2019. We included randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) comparing acupuncture versus conventional conventional medicine or comparing acupuncture combined with conventional medicine versus conventional medicine in participants with ulcerative colitis. Two authors screened all references, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data independently. We summarized data using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes. We performed meta-analyses using random effects model. We assessed overall quality of evidence using GRADE.
RESULTS
We included 13 RCTs (1030 participants, 515 in the acupuncture group and 515 in the control group). Only one study tested head acupuncture, and the other 12 tested body acupuncture. The treatment duration ranged from 14 to 60 days. Seven trials compared acupuncture alone versus conventional medicine, and six compared acupuncture combined with conventional medicine versus conventional medicine. Acupuncture combined with mesalazine showed better clinical effect (improved clinical symptoms, colonoscopy results and stool examination results) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.41; 232 participants; 4 trials; low quality evidence) and better colonoscopy curative effect (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.71; 108 participants; 2 trials; moderate quality evidence) compared to mesalazine. Acupuncture showed better clinical effect compared to the combination of metronidazole and sulfasalazine (RR 1.21, 95%CI 1.10, 1.34; 318 participants; 3 trials; moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Both acupuncture alone and acupuncture combined with conventional medicine may be effective in treating ulcerative colitis compared to conventional medicine. Our findings must be interpreted with caution due to high or unclear risk of bias of the included trials.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Colitis, Ulcerative; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33054760
DOI: 10.1186/s12906-020-03101-4 -
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 -
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... 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 -
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 -
Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology :... 2020Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) is a benign, poorly understood disorder that is difficult to manage. Medical interventions such as sucralfate, sulfasalzine, human... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/AIM
Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) is a benign, poorly understood disorder that is difficult to manage. Medical interventions such as sucralfate, sulfasalzine, human fibrin, and a high fibre diet are reported as the first line of treatment. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of medical treatments for SRUS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were searched for randomised clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies that evaluated medical treatments for SRUS. Two authors independently performed selection of eligible studies based on eligiblity criteria. Data extraction from potentially eligible studies was carried out according to predefined data collection methods. Medical treatments, including sucralfate, sulfasalzine, human fibrin, a high fibre diet, and psyllium powder as a single or combination therapy were compared to placebo alone or combined with other treatments. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with ulcer remission; this was presented as pooled prevalence (PP) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The I value and Q statistic test were used to test for heterogeneity. In the presence of heterogeneity, a random-effects model was applied.
RESULTS
A total of 9 studies with 216 patients (males = 118, females = 98) diagnosed with SRUS were analysed in the final meta-analysis. The pooled effect estimate of treatment efficacy revealed that, of the patients receiving medical treatment, 57% had resolution of their ulcers (PP 0.57; 95% CI; 0.41 to 0.73). Statistically significant heterogeneity was observed (I = 63%; τ2 = 0.64, P= <0.01). The scarcity of RCTs comparing medical treatments with other interventions was a major limitation.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of patients receiving medical treatment for the management of SRUS experience resolution of their ulcers.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Case-Control Studies; Cathartics; Child; Disease Management; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fibrin Tissue Adhesive; Gastrointestinal Agents; Hemostatics; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Placebos; Prevalence; Psyllium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Diseases; Sucralfate; Sulfasalazine; Treatment Outcome; Ulcer; Young Adult
PubMed: 31898642
DOI: 10.4103/sjg.SJG_213_19 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic disease of the gut. About 75% of people with CD undergo surgery at least once in their lifetime to induce remission. However, as there...
BACKGROUND
Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic disease of the gut. About 75% of people with CD undergo surgery at least once in their lifetime to induce remission. However, as there is no known cure for the disease, patients usually experience a recurrence even after surgery. Different interventions are routinely used in maintaining postsurgical remission. There is currently no consensus on which treatment is the most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects and harms of interventions for the maintenance of surgically induced remission in Crohn's disease and rank the treatments in order of effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 15 January 2019. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles, abstracts from major gastroenterology meetings, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. There was no restriction on language, date, or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different interventions used for maintaining surgically induced remission in people with CD who were in postsurgical remission. Participants had to have received maintenance treatment for at least three months. We excluded studies assessing enteral diet, diet manipulation, herbal medicine, and nutritional supplementation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected relevant studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by arbitration of a third review author when necessary. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Bayesian approach through Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation. For the pairwise comparisons carried out in Review Manager 5, we calculated risk ratios (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). For the NMA, we presented hazard ratios (HR) with corresponding 95% credible intervals (95% CrI) and reported ranking probabilities for each intervention. For the NMA, we focused on three main outcomes: clinical relapse, endoscopic relapse, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Data were insufficient to assess time to relapse and histologic relapse. Adverse events and serious adverse events were not sufficiently or objectively reported to permit an NMA. We used CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) methods to evaluate our confidence in the findings within networks, and GRADE for entire networks.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 RCTs (3249 participants) in the review. The average age of study participants ranged between 33.6 and 38.8 years. Risk of bias was high in 18 studies, low in four studies, and unclear in 13 studies. Of the 35 included RCTs, 26 studies (2581 participants; 9 interventions) were considered eligible for inclusion in the NMA. The interventions studied included 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), adalimumab, antibiotics, budesonide, infliximab, probiotics, purine analogues, sulfasalazine, and a combination of sulfasalazine and prednisolone. This resulted in 30 direct contrasts, which informed 102 mixed-treatment contrasts.The evidence for the clinical relapse network (21 studies; 2245 participants) and endoscopic relapse (12 studies; 1128 participants) were of low certainty while the evidence for withdrawal due to adverse events (15 studies; 1498 participants) was of very low certainty. This assessment was due to high risk of bias in most of the studies, inconsistency, and imprecision across networks. We mainly judged individual contrasts as of low or very low certainty, except 5-ASA versus placebo, the evidence for which was judged as of moderate certainty.We ranked the treatments based on effectiveness and the certainty of the evidence. For clinical relapse, the five most highly ranked treatments were adalimumab, infliximab, budesonide, 5-ASA, and purine analogues. We found some evidence that adalimumab (HR 0.11, 95% Crl 0.02 to 0.33; low-certainty evidence) and 5-ASA may reduce the probability of clinical relapse compared to placebo (HR 0.69, 95% Crl 0.53 to 0.87; moderate-certainty evidence). However, budesonide may not be effective in preventing clinical relapse (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.27 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence). We are less confident about the effectiveness of infliximab (HR 0.36, 95% CrI 0.02 to 1.74; very low-certainty evidence) and purine analogues (HR 0.75, 95% CrI 0.55 to 1.00; low-certainty evidence). It was unclear whether the other interventions reduced the probability of a clinical relapse, as the certainty of the evidence was very low.Due to high risk of bias and limited data across the network, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of interventions for preventing endoscopic relapse. Whilst there might be some evidence of prevention of endoscopic relapse with adalimumab (HR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01 to 0.32; low-certainty evidence), no other intervention studied appeared to be effective.Due to high risk of bias and limited data across the network, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of interventions for preventing withdrawal due to adverse events. Withdrawal due to adverse events appeared to be least likely with sulfasalazine (HR 1.96, 95% Crl 0.00 to 8.90; very low-certainty evidence) and most likely with antibiotics (HR 53.92, 95% Crl 0.43 to 259.80; very low-certainty evidence). When considering the network as a whole, two adverse events leading to study withdrawal (i.e. pancreatitis and leukopenia) occurred in more than 1% of participants treated with an intervention. Pancreatitis occurred in 2.8% (11/399) of purine analogue participants compared to 0.17% (2/1210) of all other groups studied. Leukopenia occurred in 2.5% (10/399) of purine analogue participants compared to 0.08% (1/1210) of all other groups studied.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to low-certainty evidence in the networks, we are unable to draw conclusions on which treatment is most effective for preventing clinical relapse and endoscopic relapse. Evidence on the safety of the interventions was inconclusive, however cases of pancreatitis and leukopenia from purine analogues were evident in the studies. Larger trials are needed to further understand the effect of the interventions on endoscopic relapse.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antimetabolites; Crohn Disease; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Remission Induction; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 31513295
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013210.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2019Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that can involve any part of the gastrointestinal tract. 5-Aminosalicylates (5-ASAs) are locally acting,...
BACKGROUND
Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that can involve any part of the gastrointestinal tract. 5-Aminosalicylates (5-ASAs) are locally acting, anti-inflammatory compounds that reduce inflammation of the colonic mucosa with release profiles that vary among various commercially available formulations. This updated Cochrane review summarizes current evidence on the use of 5-ASA formulations for maintenance of surgically-induced remission in CD.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of 5-ASA agents for the maintenance of surgically-induced remission in CD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 16 July 2018. We also searched references, conference abstracts, and trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with CD in remission following surgery and compared 5-ASAs to no treatment, placebo or any other active intervention with duration of at least three months were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was clinical relapse. Secondary outcomes included endoscopic recurrence, radiologic and surgical relapse, adverse events, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs (1867 participants) were included in the review. Participants (15 to 70 years) were recruited from gastroenterology hospitals and medical clinics in Europe and North America and followed up between 3 and 72 months. The risk of bias was assessed as 'low' in one study, 'unclear' in seven and as 'high' in six.At 12 months, 36% (20/55) of participants in the 5-ASA group experienced clinical relapse compared to 51% (28/55) in the no treatment control group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.10; low certainty evidence). Moderate certainty evidence suggests that 5-ASAs are more effective for preventing clinical relapse than placebo. During a follow-up period of 12 to 72 months, 36% (131/361) of 5-ASA participants relapsed compared to 43% (160/369) of placebo participants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). At 12 months, 17% (17/101) of the 4 g/day mesalamine group relapsed compared to 26% (27/105) of the 2.4 g/day group (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.13; moderate certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in clinical relapse rates when 5-ASA compounds were compared to purine antimetabolites. At 24 months, 61% (103/170) of mesalamine participants relapsed compared to 67% (119/177) of azathioprine participants (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; I² = 28%; low certainty evidence). During 24 months, 50% (9/18) of 5-ASA participants had clinical relapse compared to 13% (2/16) of adalimumab participants (RR 4.0, 95% CI 1.01 to 15.84; low certainty evidence). The effects of sulphasalazine compared to placebo on clinical relapse rate is uncertain. After 18 to 36 months, 66% (95/143) of participants treated with sulphasalazine relapsed compared to 71% (110/155) in the placebo group (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38; I² = 38%; low certainty evidence).The effect of 5-ASA drugs on safety was uncertain. During 24 months follow-up, 4% (2/55) of 5-ASA participants experienced adverse events compared to none (0/55) in the no treatment control group (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 101.81; very low certainty evidence). An equal proportion of 5-ASA participants (10%; 23/241) and placebo (9%; 20/225) groups experienced an adverse event during a follow-up of 3 to 72 months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.91; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Adverse event rates were similar in the 5-ASA and purine analogues groups. However, serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in participants who received purine analogues than 5-ASA. At 52 weeks to 24 months, 52% (107/207) of 5-ASA participants had an adverse event compared to 47% (102/218) of purine analogue participants (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.27, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Four per cent (6/152) of 5-ASA participants had a serious adverse event compared to 17% (27/159) of purine analogue participants (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80; very low certainty evidence). Eight per cent (17/207) of 5-ASA participants withdrew due to an adverse event compared to 19% (42/218) of purine analogue participants (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.83; low certainty evidence). Adverse event rates were similar in high and low dose mesalamine participants. After 12 months, 2% (2/101) of 4 g/day mesalamine participants had an adverse event compared to 2% (2/105) of 2.4 g/day participants (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.24; low certainty evidence). The proportion of participants who experienced adverse events over a 24 month follow-up in the mesalamine group was 78% (14/18) compared to 69% (11/16) of adalimumab participants (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.71; very low certainty evidence). None (0/32) of the sulphasalazine participants had an adverse event at 18 months follow-up compared to 3% (1/34) of the placebo group (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.38; very low certainty evidence). Commonly reported adverse events in the included studies were diarrhoea, nausea, increased liver function tests, pancreatitis, and abdominal pain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
5-ASA preparations are superior to placebo for the maintenance of surgically-induced clinical remission in patients with CD (moderate certainty). The number needed to treat to prevent one relapse was 13 patients. The evidence for endoscopic remission is uncertain. The sulphasalazine class of 5-ASA agents failed to demonstrate superiority against placebo, 5-ASAs failed to demonstrate superiority compared to no treatment (very low and low certainty). The efficacy of two different doses of the same 5-ASA and the efficacy of 5-ASA compared to purine antimetabolites (azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine) in maintaining surgically-induced remission of CD remains unclear. However, purine analogues lead to more serious adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events. There is a low certainty that 5-ASA is inferior for maintaining surgically-induced remission of CD compared to biologics (anti TNF-ɑ). 5-ASA formulations appear to be safe with no difference in the occurrence of adverse events or withdrawal when compared with placebo, no treatment or biologics.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Crohn Disease; Humans; Mesalamine; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence
PubMed: 31220875
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008414.pub3 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Mar 2019Despite the advent of biological drugs, conventional therapy continues to be used in moderate to severe inflammatory bowel disease (MS-IBD). This study hypothesized that...
BACKGROUND
Despite the advent of biological drugs, conventional therapy continues to be used in moderate to severe inflammatory bowel disease (MS-IBD). This study hypothesized that as a standard of treatment and the primary alternative to biologics, conventional therapy should present robust effectiveness results in IBD outcomes.
AIM
To investigate the effectiveness of conventional therapy for MS-IBD.
METHODS
A systematic review with no time limit was conducted in July 2017 through the Cochrane Collaboration, MEDLINE, and LILACS databases. The inclusion criteria encompassed meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials, observational and case-control studies concerning conventional therapy in adult patients with MS-IBD, including Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Corticosteroids (prednisone, hydrocortisone, budesonide, prednisolone, dexamethasone), 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) derivatives (mesalazine and sulfasalazine) and immunosuppressants [azathioprine (AZA), methotrexate (MTX), mycophenolate, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP)] were considered conventional therapy. The exclusion criteria were sample size below 50; narrative reviews; specific subpopulations (., pregnant women, comorbidities); studies on postoperative IBD; and languages other than English, Spanish, French or Portuguese. The primary outcome measures were clinical remission (induction or maintenance), clinical response and mucosal healing. As secondary outcomes, fecal calprotectin, hospitalization, death, and surgeries were analyzed. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.
RESULTS
The search strategy identified 1995 citations, of which 27 were considered eligible (7 meta-analyses, 20 individual studies). For induction of clinical remission, four meta-analyses were selected (AZA and 6-MP showed no advantage over placebo, MTX or 5-ASA in CD; MTX showed no statistically significant difference versus placebo, 6-MP, or 5-ASA in UC; tacrolimus was superior to placebo for UC in two meta-analyses). Only one meta-analysis evaluated clinical remission maintenance, showing no statistically significant difference between MTX and placebo, 5-ASA, or 6-MP in UC. AZA and 6-MP had no advantage over placebo in induction of clinical response in CD. Three meta-analyses showed the superiority of tacrolimus placebo for induction of clinical response in UC. The clinical response rates for cyclosporine were 41.7% in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 55.4% in non-RCTs for UC. For induction of mucosal healing, one meta-analysis showed a favorable rate with tacrolimus versus placebo for UC. For secondary outcomes, no meta-analyses specifically evaluated fecal calprotectin, hospitalization or death. Two meta-analyses were retrieved evaluating colectomy rates for tacrolimus and cyclosporine in UC. Most of the twenty individual studies retrieved contained a low or very low quality of evidence.
CONCLUSION
High-quality evidence assessing conventional therapy in MS-IBD treatment is scarce, especially for remission maintenance, mucosal healing and fecal calprotectin.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colitis, Ulcerative; Colon; Crohn Disease; Feces; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Intestinal Mucosa; Leukocyte L1 Antigen Complex; Remission Induction; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30863001
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i9.1142