-
World Journal of Clinical Cases Dec 2018To assess the effects of probiotic Medilac-S as adjunctive therapy for the induction of remission of ulcerative colitis (UC) in a Chinese population through a systematic...
AIM
To assess the effects of probiotic Medilac-S as adjunctive therapy for the induction of remission of ulcerative colitis (UC) in a Chinese population through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted to find randomized, controlled trials in a Chinese population with at least two study arms - a control arm which receives a conventional, oral aminosalicylate drug, and a treatment arm, which administers the same conventional drug in conjunction with the probiotic Medilac-S . Both English and Chinese databases were searched, including PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and VIP Search, and study data was extracted onto standardized abstraction sheets. Meta-analyses were conducted for primary and secondary outcomes of interest using a fixed or random effects model. The primary outcome was the induction of clinical remission and the secondary outcomes included changes in Sutherland index, endoscopic and histological scores, proportion of reported clinical symptoms and adverse events (AEs). For outcomes with sufficient data, the type of conventional drug therapy was also assessed to determine if the effects of combination therapy with Medilac-S was influenced by drug type. All tests were conducted using a type I error rate of 0.05 and all confidence intervals (CI) were based on a 95% confidence level. Review protocol was uploaded to PROSPERO (CRD42018085658 upon completion).
RESULTS
Fifty-three clinical trials with a total of 3984 participants were identified and included in the review. Medilac-S adjunctive therapy significantly improved induction of clinical remission (RR = 1.21; 95%CI: 1.18-1.24; < 0.0001) with the estimated likelihood of effective treatment, on average, 21% higher for those consuming the probiotic. Sutherland index scores showed the control mean was on average 3.10 (CI: 2.41-3.78; = 0.0428) units greater than the treatment mean, thereby demonstrating significant improvement in participants taking the probiotic. Similarly, a significant difference was seen between the overall reduction of endoscopic and histological scores of control and treatment arm participants, with score decreases in the control groups 0.71 (CI: 0.3537-1.0742) and 1.1 (CI: 0.9189-1.2300) units smaller than treatment group score decreases. The proportion of participants reporting clinical symptoms, (abdominal pain, tenesmus, blood and mucous in stool, and diarrhea) was significantly reduced after combination therapy with Medilac-S ( < 0.0001) and estimated to be on average 44% (RR = 0.44, CI: 0.32-0.59), 53% (RR = 0.53, CI: 0.38-74), 40% (RR = 0.40, CI: 0.28-0.58) and 47% (RR = 0.47 CI: 0.36-0.42) respectively, of the proportion of individuals reporting the aforementioned symptoms after conventional therapy alone. The risk of AEs was also significantly reduced with adjunctive Medilac-S therapy. The proportion of individuals in the treatment groups reporting AEs was an estimated 72% of the proportion of individuals in the control groups reporting AEs (RR = 0.72, CI: 0.55-0.94, = 0.0175). Upon comparing effect means for different drug types in conjunction with Medilac-S, evidence of significant variability ( < 0.0001) was observed, and sulfasalazine was found to be the most effective drug in both primary and secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Evidence suggests Medilac-S adjunctive therapy should be considered standard care for UC in a Chinese population because it aids in the induction of clinical remission, improves symptoms of the gastrointestinal tract and reduces risk of AEs.
PubMed: 30568952
DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v6.i15.961 -
Acta Bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis Dec 2018Historical studies have demonstrated that the prevalence of symptomatic nephrolithiasis is higher in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), compared to general...
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK
Historical studies have demonstrated that the prevalence of symptomatic nephrolithiasis is higher in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), compared to general population. The aim of the review was to analyze literature data in order to identify the main risk conditions described in literature and the proposed treatment.
METHODS
A research on the databases PubMed, Medline, Embase and Google Scholar was performed by using the keywords "renal calculi/lithiasis/stones" and "inflammatory bowel diseases". A research on textbooks of reference for Pediatric Nephrology was also performed, with focus on secondary forms of nephrolithiasis.
RESULTS
Historical studies have demonstrated that the prevalence of symptomatic nephrolithiasis is higher in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), compared to general population, typically in patients who underwent extensive small bowel resection or in those with persistent severe small bowel inflammation. In IBD, kidney stones may arise from chronic inflammation, changes in intestinal absorption due to inflammation, surgery or intestinal malabsorption. Kidney stones are more closely associated with Crohn's Disease (CD) than Ulcerative Colitis (UC) in adult patients for multiple reasons: mainly for malabsorption, but in UC intestinal resection may be an additional risk. Nephrolithiasis is often under-diagnosed and might be a rare but noticeable extra-intestinal presentation of pediatric IBD. Secondary enteric hyperoxaluria the main risk factor of UL in IBD, this has been mainly studied in CD, whether in UC has not been completely explained. In the long course of CD recurrent urolithiasis and calcium-oxalate deposition may cause severe chronic interstitial nephritis and, as a consequence, chronic kidney disease. ESRD and systemic oxalosis often develop early, especially in those patients with multiple bowel resections. Even if we consider that many additional factors are present in IBD as hypomagnesuria, acidosis, hypocitraturia, and others, the secondary hyperoxaluria seems to finally have a central role. Some medications as parenteral vitamin D, long-term and high dose steroid treatment, sulfasalazine are reported as additional risk factors. Hydration status may also play an important role in this process. Intestinal surgery is a widely described independent risk factor. Patients with ileostomy post bowel resection may have relative dehydration from liquid stool, which, added to the acidic pH from bicarbonate loss, is responsible for this process. In this acidic pH, the urinary citrate level excretion reduces. The stones most commonly seen in these patients contain uric acid or are mixed. In addition, the risk of calcium containing stones also increases with ileostomy. The treatment of UL in IBD involves correction of the basic gastrointestinal tract inflammation, restricted dietary oxalate intake, and, at times, increased calcium intake. Citrate therapy that increases both urine pH and urinary citrate could also provide an additional therapeutic benefit. Finally, patients with IBD in a pediatric study had less urologic intervention for their calculosis compared with pediatric patients without IBD.
Topics: Bicarbonates; Child; Citrates; Dehydration; Disease Susceptibility; Humans; Inflammation; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Malabsorption Syndromes; Oxalates; Risk; Urolithiasis
PubMed: 30561398
DOI: 10.23750/abm.v89i9-S.7908 -
The Lancet. Gastroenterology &... Nov 2018The majority of patients with ulcerative colitis have mildly to moderately active disease. To inform the management of patients with left-sided or extensive mildly to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The majority of patients with ulcerative colitis have mildly to moderately active disease. To inform the management of patients with left-sided or extensive mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis, we assessed the comparative efficacy and tolerability of different therapies.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched Epub, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to Dec 14, 2015, and updated on MEDLINE on March 1, 2018, for randomised controlled trials in adults (age ≥17 years) with left-sided or extensive mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. Studies were included if patients were treated with oral sulfasalazine, diazo-bonded 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs), mesalazine (low dose <2 g/day, standard dose 2-3 g/day, or high dose >3 g/day), controlled ileal-release budesonide, or budesonide multimatrix, alone or in combination with rectal 5-ASA therapy, and were compared with each other or placebo for induction or maintenance of clinical remission. The minimum duration of therapy was 4 weeks for trials of induction and 24 weeks for trials of maintenance therapy. We did pairwise and random-effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach, and calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs; agents were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to appraise quality of evidence. We examined heterogeneity with the I statistic.
FINDINGS
Our search identified 1316 unique studies, from which 75 randomised trials with 12 215 patients were eligible for analysis. Based on 48 induction randomised trials (8020 participants) that met inclusion criteria, combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs (SUCRA 0·99) and high-dose mesalazine (>3 g/day; SUCRA 0·82) were ranked highest for induction of remission. Both interventions were superior to standard-dose mesalazine (2-3 g/day; failure to induce remission with combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs OR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·77; high-dose mesalazine 0·78, 0·66-0·93) with moderate confidence in estimates. On the basis of 28 randomised trials (4218 participants) that met inclusion criteria, all interventions were superior to placebo for maintenance of remission; however, neither combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs nor high-dose mesalazine were superior to standard-dose mesalazine.
INTERPRETATION
In patients with mildly to moderately active left-sided or extensive ulcerative colitis, combined oral and topical mesalazine therapy and high-dose mesalazine are superior to standard-dose mesalazine for induction of remission, but not maintenance of remission. Standard-dose mesalazine might be preferred for maintenance in most patients.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Rectal; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Budesonide; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Mesalamine; Network Meta-Analysis; Remission Induction; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 30122356
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(18)30231-0 -
Andrology Jul 2017Beside cytotoxic drugs, other drugs can impact men's fertility through various mechanisms. Via the modification of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis hormones or by... (Review)
Review
Beside cytotoxic drugs, other drugs can impact men's fertility through various mechanisms. Via the modification of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis hormones or by non-hormonal mechanisms, drugs may directly and indirectly induce sexual dysfunction and spermatogenesis impairment and alteration of epididymal maturation. This systematic literature review summarizes existing data about the negative impact and associations of pharmacological treatments on male fertility (excluding cytotoxic drugs), with a view to making these data more readily available for medical staff. In most cases, these effects on spermatogenesis/sperm maturation/sexual function are reversible after the discontinuation of the drug. When a reprotoxic treatment cannot be stopped and/or when the impact on semen parameters/sperm DNA is potentially irreversible (Sulfasalazine Azathioprine, Mycophenolate mofetil and Methotrexate), the cryopreservation of spermatozoa before treatment must be proposed. Deleterious impacts on fertility of drugs with very good or good level of evidence (Testosterone, Sulfasalazine, Anabolic steroids, Cyproterone acetate, Opioids, Tramadol, GhRH analogues and Sartan) are developed.
Topics: Animals; Cryopreservation; DNA Damage; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Fertility; Fertility Preservation; Humans; Infertility, Male; Male; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Sexual Behavior; Sperm Banks; Spermatogenesis; Spermatozoa
PubMed: 28622464
DOI: 10.1111/andr.12366 -
RMD Open 2017Clinical trials have not consistently demonstrated differences between tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) plus methotrexate and triple therapy (methotrexate plus...
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor-methotrexate combination therapy versus triple therapy in rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVE
Clinical trials have not consistently demonstrated differences between tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) plus methotrexate and triple therapy (methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine plus sulfasalazine) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The study objective was to estimate the efficacy, radiographic benefits, safety and patient-reported outcomes of TNFi-methotrexate versus triple therapy in patients with RA.
METHODS
A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials of TNFi-methotrexate or triple therapy as one of the treatment arms in patients with an inadequate response to or who were naive to methotrexate was conducted. American College of Rheumatology 70% response criteria (ACR70) at 6 months was the prespecified primary endpoint to evaluate depth of response. Data from direct and indirect comparisons between TNFi-methotrexate and triple therapy were pooled and quantitatively analysed using fixed-effects and random-effects Bayesian models.
RESULTS
We analysed 33 studies in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate and 19 in patients naive to methotrexate. In inadequate responders, triple therapy was associated with lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.35, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.19 to 0.64). Most secondary endpoints tended to favour TNFi-methotrexate in terms of OR direction; however, no clear increased likelihood of achieving these endpoints was observed for either therapy. The odds of infection were lower with triple therapy than with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.08, 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.57). There were no differences observed between the two regimens in patients naive to methotrexate.
CONCLUSIONS
In this NMA, triple therapy was associated with 65% lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate. Although secondary endpoints numerically favoured TNFi-methotrexate, no clear differences were observed. The odds of infection were greater with TNFi-methotrexate. No differences were observed for patients naive to methotrexate. These results may help inform care of patients who fail methotrexate first-line therapy.
PubMed: 28123782
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2016-000371 -
Reumatologia Clinica 2018Due to the clinical heterogeneity of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), recommendations have been developed by international groups to guide therapeutic decisions of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Due to the clinical heterogeneity of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), recommendations have been developed by international groups to guide therapeutic decisions of the rheumatologist. The objective of the current systematic review (RS) was to evaluate the evidence of efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in PsA.
METHODS
Literature search in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, from 2008 to 2014. We included RS, randomized clinical trials and observational studies, in patients with PsA and an evaluation of efficiency of conventional DMARDs (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide), according to the following outcomes: peripheral and axial symptoms; peripheral radiological damage; enthesitis according to power Doppler ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (enthesitis count before and after therapy); dactylitis; uveitis.
RESULTS
Title and abstract were used to retrieve 1,662 documents for this review (Medline, n=433; EMBASE n=1,132; Cochrane, n=97), and 48 studies were selected for detailed reading; finally, 8 studies were included.
CONCLUSIONS
Since the studies included are not robust, and there are arguments to support the effectiveness of methotrexate, the evidence observed with the treatment of DMARDs in PsA is not conclusive.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28089501
DOI: 10.1016/j.reuma.2016.10.005 -
Oncotarget Jan 2017The chemopreventive effect of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been widely studied; however, the results remain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The chemopreventive effect of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been widely studied; however, the results remain conflicting. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature and update evidence concerning effects of 5-ASA on the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and dysplasia (Dys) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD).
RESULTS
5-ASA showed a chemopreventive effect against CRC/Dys in IBD patients (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.45-0.75). However, this effect was significant only in clinical-based studies (OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.39-0.65), but not in population-based studies (OR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.46-1.09). Moreover, this effect was noticeable in patients with UC (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.34-0.61), but not in CD (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.42-1.03), and on the outcome of CRC (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.39-0.74), but not Dys (OR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.20-1.10). In IBD patients, mesalazine dosage ≥ 1.2 g/day showed greater protective effects against CRC/Dys than dosages < 1.2 g/day. However, Sulphasalazine therapy did not show any noticeable protective function regardless of the dosage administered.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis of 26 observational studies involving 15,460 subjects to evaluate the risks of developing CRC and Dys in IBD patients receiving 5-ASA treatment. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each evaluation index.
CONCLUSIONS
5-ASA has a chemopreventive effect on CRC (but not Dys) in IBD patients. Moreover, UC patients can benefit more from 5-ASA than CD patients. Mesalazine maintenance dosage ≥ 1.2 g/day is an effective treatment for reducing CRC risk in IBD patients.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chemoprevention; Cohort Studies; Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Hyperplasia; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Mesalamine; Odds Ratio; Population Surveillance; Publication Bias; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27906680
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.13715 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016The results from controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for the treatment of active Crohn's disease have been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The results from controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for the treatment of active Crohn's disease have been conflicting and controversial. An updated meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness of these drugs for the induction of remission in active Crohn's disease.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to determine the efficacy and safety of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for induction of remission in active Crohn's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 30 October 2015. Review articles and conference proceedings were also searched to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of oral azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine compared to placebo or active therapy involving adult patients with active Crohn's disease were selected for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted by two independent observers based on the intention-to-treat principle. Outcomes of interest included: clinical remission, clinical improvement, fistula improvement or healing, steroid sparing, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events. We calculated the pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting each outcome was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs (n = 1211 patients) of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine therapy in adult patients were identified: nine included placebo comparators and six included active comparators. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical remission rates between azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine and placebo. Forty-eight per cent (95/197) of patients receiving antimetabolites achieved remission compared to 37% (68/183) of placebo patients (5 studies, 380 patients; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.55). There was no statistically significant difference in clinical improvement rates between azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine and placebo. Forty-eight per cent (107/225) of patients receiving antimetabolites achieved clinical improvement or remission compared to 36% (75/209) of placebo patients (8 studies, 434 patients; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.62). There was a statistically significant difference in steroid sparing (defined as prednisone dose < 10 mg/day while maintaining remission) between azathioprine and placebo. Sixty-four per cent (47/163) of azathioprine patients were able to reduce their prednisone dose to < 10 mg/day compared to 46% (32/70) of placebo patients (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.77). GRADE analyses rated the overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes clinical remission, clinical improvement and steroid sparing as moderate due to sparse data. There was no statistically significant difference in withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events between antimetabolites and placebo. Ten percent of patients in the antimetabolite group withdrew due to adverse events compared to 5% of placebo patients (8 studies, 510 patients; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.08). Serious adverse events were reported in 14% of patients receiving azathioprine compared to 4% of placebo patients (2 studies, 216 patients; RR 2.57, 95% CI 0.92 to 7.13). Common adverse events reported in the placebo controlled studies included: allergic reactions. leukopenia, pancreatitis and nausea. Azathioprine was significantly inferior to infliximab for induction of steroid-free clinical remission. Thirty per cent (51/170) of azathioprine patients achieved steroid-free remission compared to 44% (75/169) of infliximab patients (1 study, 339 patients; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.90). The combination of azathioprine and infliximab was significantly superior to infliximab alone for induction of steroid-free clinical remission. Sixty per cent (116/194) of patients in the combined azathioprine and infliximab group achieved steroid-free remission compared to 48% (91/189) of infliximab patients (2 studies, 383 patients; RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.47). Azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine therapy was found to be no better at inducing steroid free clinical remission compared to methotrexate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.49) and 5-aminosalicylate or sulfasalazine (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.91). There were no statistically significant differences in withdrawals due to adverse events between azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine and methotrexate (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.71); between azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine and 5-aminosalicylate or sulfasalazine (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.54); between azathioprine and infliximab (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.23); or between the combination of azathioprine and infliximab and infliximab (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.80). Common adverse events in the active comparator trials included nausea, abdominal pain, pyrexia and headache.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine offer no advantage over placebo for induction of remission or clinical improvement in active Crohn's disease. Antimetaboilte therapy may allow patients to reduce steroid consumption. Adverse events were more common in patients receiving antimetabolites although differences with placebo were not statistically significant. Azathioprine therapy is inferior to infliximab for induction of steroid-free remission. However, the combination of azathioprine and infliximab was superior to infliximab alone for induction of steroid-free remission.
Topics: Adult; Antimetabolites; Azathioprine; Crohn Disease; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Induction Chemotherapy; Infliximab; Mercaptopurine; Mesalamine; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfasalazine; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 27783843
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000545.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016The prevention of relapse is a major issue in the management of Crohn's disease. Corticosteroids, the mainstay of treatment of acute exacerbations, are not effective for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The prevention of relapse is a major issue in the management of Crohn's disease. Corticosteroids, the mainstay of treatment of acute exacerbations, are not effective for maintenance of remission and its chronic use is limited by numerous adverse events. Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) agents for maintenance of medically-induced remission in Crohn's disease have produced conflicting results.
OBJECTIVES
To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral 5-ASA agents for the maintenance of medically-induced remission in Crohn's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and the IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 8 June 2016. We also searched reference lists and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that compared oral 5-ASA agents to either placebo or sulphasalazine in patients with quiescent Crohn's disease. The trials had to have a treatment duration of at least six months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data and performed the risk of bias assessment. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of relapse as defined by the primary studies. Secondary outcomes included time to relapse, adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events and serious adverse events. We calculated the pooled risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using a fixed-effect model. All data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis and drop-outs were considered to be relapses. Sensitivity analyses included an available case analysis where drop-outs were ignored and using a random-effects model. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve studies (2146 participants) that compared 5-ASA to placebo were included. We did not identify any studies that compared sulphasalazine to placebo. Seven studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. The other studies were judged to have an unclear risk of bias for various items due to insufficient details to allow for a judgement. There was no statistically significant difference in relapse rates at 12 months. Fifty-three per cent (526/998) of 5-ASA patients (dose 1.6 g to 4 g/day) relapsed at 12 months compared to 54% (544/1016) of placebo patients (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07; 11 studies; 2014 patients; moderate-quality evidence). Sensitivity analyses based on an available case analysis and a random-effects model had no impact on the results. One study found no difference in relapse rates at 24 months. Fifty-four per cent (31/57) of 5-ASA patients (dose 2 g/day) relapsed at 24 months compared to 58% (36/62) of placebo patients (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29, 119 patients; low-quality evidence). One paediatric study found no statistically significant difference in relapse rates at 12 months. Sixty-two per cent (29/47) of paediatric 5-ASA patients (dose 50 mg/kg/day) relapsed at 12 months compared to 64% (35/55) of paediatric placebo patients (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.31; 102 patients; moderate-quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who experienced an adverse event, withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events. Thirty-four per cent (307/900) of 5-ASA patients had at least one adverse event compared to 33% (301/914) of placebo patients (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 10 studies; 1814 patients). Fourteen per cent (127/917) of 5-ASA patients withdrew due to adverse events compared to 13% (119/916) of placebo patients (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.38; 9 studies; 1833 patients). One per cent (3/293) of 5-ASA patients had a serious adverse event compared to 0.7% (2/283) of placebo patients (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.83; 3 studies; 576 patients). Common adverse events reported in the studies included diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain, headache and skin rash.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence in this review to suggest that oral 5-ASA preparations are superior to placebo for the maintenance of medically-induced remission in patients with Crohn's disease. Additional randomised trials may not be justified.
PubMed: 27681657
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003715.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2016Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs.
OBJECTIVES
To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.
METHODS
We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.
MAIN RESULTS
158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Methotrexate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27571502
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010227.pub2