Can oral 5-aminosalicylic acid be administered once daily in the treatment of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis? A meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

Efficacy and safety of once daily versus twice daily mesalazine for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety between once daily (OD) and twice daily (BD) regime dosing of mesalazine for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, and Web of Science from 1990 to November 2018 were investigated. We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OD with BD regime dosing of mesalazine for mild-to-moderate UC. The software Review Manager 5.3 was used to pool the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Eight RCTs containing 3495 patients were identified. Regardless of induction of remission or maintenance of remission of UC, OD regime dosing of mesalazine was as effective as BD regime dosing in clinical and endoscopic remission and clinical remission. Also, no obvious difference was found between OD and BD regime dosing of mesalazine regardless of total adverse events, treatment-related adverse events or serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

OD is as effective and safe as BD regime dosing of mesalazine for active UC.

Induction and maintenance treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: A comprehensive review

Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) are the two major types of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We conducted a comprehensive review of meta-analyses to summarize the reported effectiveness of different drugs for IBD. We performed a literature search and a total of 110 meta-analyses from 66 articles were summarized and re-analyzed (62 in UC and 48 in CD). In summary, 5-ASA was more effective than placebo in both induction and maintenance treatment of UC, but there were conflicting results on the effect of 5-ASA on the induction treatment or relapse of CD. The use of immunomodulatory agents in the induction or maintenance phase of UC and CD using immunomodulators appeared to be more effective than placebo, but the results were impacted by small number of patients, discordant results with the largest study and risk of biases. Anti-TNF-α and anti-integrin therapeutic antibodies in both, induction and maintenance, showed a better efficacy than placebo in a large proportion of patients analyzed. Other agents, such as probiotics, antibiotics, omega-3, were shown to be more effective than placebo, but the same issues arose as stated above with the use of immunomodulatory agents. In conclusion, we performed a comprehensive review of meta-analysis on comparative efficacy of pharmacotherapy used in the management of IBD. Our review will augment our understanding of the treatment of UC and CD by providing a guideline for interpreting the statistically significant findings and discusses the optimal choice for IBD treatment.

Probiotics combined with aminosalicylic acid affiliates remission of ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial

We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of probiotic combined with aminosalicylic on induction remission maintenance treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). We conducted systematic searches in several Chinese and English databases from inception to June 2018, screening randomized controlled trials about effect of probiotics combined with aminosalicylic acid on UC. The evaluation indicator was the rate of remission. The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. A total of 27 studies with 1942 patients were included. The results indicated that the remission rate was significantly higher in the group using probiotics combined with aminosalicylic acid than that in the group using aminosalicylic acid alone (RR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.27–1.53, P=0.000). The subgroup analysis indicated that probiotics combined with aminosalicylic acid can significantly elevate the remission rate in both mild to moderate (RR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.16–1.54, P=0.000) and active stage (RR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.27–1.64, P=0.000) UC. In different number of bacterium, drug types and treatment periods, the combination with probiotics can significantly increase the remission rate UC. The funnel plot shows slight publication bias. Probiotics in conjunction with aminosalicylic can obviously increase the clinical remission rate of activity UC than drug alone. There was no significant difference between combined with mesalazine group and salicylazosulfapyridine group.

Systematic review: safety of mesalazine in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Mesalazine is the most commonly prescribed medication for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. It is generally well tolerated with some reported side effects.

AIM

To summarise adverse drug events to mesalazine and recommend techniques for management. Furthermore, to determine if there is a dose-dependent relationship between high (>2.4 g/day) vs low dosing (≤2.4 g/day) and occurrence of adverse drug events.

METHODS

A literature search for relevant studies from inception to 1 December 2017 of the MEDLINE database was conducted. Two reviewers screened all titles identified. Data obtained from randomised controlled trials was used to estimate incidence rates of each adverse event. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological risk of bias and performed data extraction.

RESULTS

3581 articles were initially considered. Of these, 3573 were screened, 622 reviewed and 91 included. Adverse events attributed to mesalazine included inflammatory reactions, pancreatitis, cardiotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, musculoskeletal complaints, respiratory symptoms, nephropathies and sexual dysfunction. There does not appear to be a dose-dependent relationship of mesalazine and occurrence of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Patients on mesalazine should be monitored for worsening of ulcerative colitis and development of new onset organ dysfunction. High-dose mesalazine appears to have similar safety profile as low dose, and is not associated with greater risk of adverse events. Prior to placing a patient on mesalazine, baseline liver and renal function should be evaluated. Renal function should be periodically assessed, whereas other testing should be performed depending on development of symptoms.

Once daily vs multiple daily mesalamine therapy for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis

AIM

5-Aminosalicylic acid is the first-line drug for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). The most commonly used 5-aminosalicylic acid is mesalamine. Several systematic reviews have demonstrated that mesalamine is effective in inducing and maintaining remission. Efficacy, safety and adherence to once daily (OD) and multiple daily (MD) dosing of mesalamine for the induction and maintenance of remission in mild to moderate UC were systematically reviewed and compared.

METHOD

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to November 2014. Only randomized controlled trials were considered eligible. STATA software (version 12.0) was used to calculate the pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized studies containing 5439 patients were identified. No significant differences were noted in comparisons between OD and MD dosing for maintenance and induction of remission. No significant differences were noted in rates of medication adherence or adverse events between OD and MD dosing. With regard to mesalamine suppository, no significant differences were noted for comparisons between dosing regimens and adverse events for induction of remission.

CONCLUSION

OD dose of mesalamine is as effective and safe as MD doses for the induction and maintenance treatment of mild to moderate UC. OD mesalamine given as a suppository can attain the same effect and safety as MD mesalamine in inducing remission of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis.

Inflammatory bowel disease meta-evidence and its challenges: is it time to restructure surgical research?

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the methodological quality and input paper characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported in the medical and surgical literature by performing a systematic 'overview of reviews'. Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) were used as the framework for this comparison as they are relatively common serious conditions, with both medical and surgical options for therapy.

METHOD

Medline, Embase, CINHAL and the Cochrane Database were searched to November 2013. Eligible papers were systematic reviews or meta-analyses that considered a question of therapy in CD or UC. Two independent reviewers selected the papers, extracted the data and scored their methodology using the AMSTAR scoring system. The papers were categorized into medical therapy (M), surgical therapy (S) or medical and surgical therapy (MS) groups. Following retrieval of the sample of meta-evidence papers, the original input studies used in their creation were identified and a search of Medline, Embase, CINHAL and the Cochrane Database was performed. A team of researchers then examined the collection of papers for bibliographic and financial information.

RESULTS

Five hundred papers were identified in the meta-evidence search, of which 118 were deemed eligible. There was a difference in the AMSTAR-rated average quality of the papers between the S and M group (S 7.36 vs M 8.75, P = 0.01). On average S papers were published in journals with a lower impact factor (S 3.26, M 5.04, MS 5.30, P < 0.001). S papers also showed more heterogeneity (I(2) ; S 37%, M 24%, MS 10%, P < 0.001). Some 25% of S meta-analyses used data-sets with significant heterogeneity (I(2) > 75%), compared with 8% of M meta-analyses and 3% of the MS meta-analyses. Some 5% of S papers were done on data sets that had I(2) values > 90%. There was no difference in the average number of papers assessed in each group, the average number of patients per meta-paper, the average time covered by the reviews, the average number of papers considered within each meta-analysis, or the average number of patients considered within each meta-analysis. Considering the conclusions of each meta-analysis, S meta-evidence was 50% more likely than M meta-evidence to be unable to make recommendations for practice. A total of 1499 original input papers were identified, of which 283 were used in more than one review. Within the non-repeated papers (n = 1023) the average impact factor within the S group was lower than that of the M and the MS groups (3.720 vs 11.230 vs 7.563, respectively; ANOVAP < 0.001). M papers had higher rates of pharmaceutical sponsorship than S papers (M 56% vs S 1%) and twice the level of government support (M 16% vs S 8%). Of note, 21% of M papers had corporate sponsorship but did not list any conflict of interest.

CONCLUSION

Compared with M meta-analyses, S meta-analyses in the UC and CD domain are more likely to be of poorer methodological quality, are of a greater degree of heterogeneity and less often offer a positive conclusion. The papers used to generate meta-evidence in M papers have a greater degree of corporate and government sponsorship, and are more likely to come from journals with higher impact factors.

Review article: integrating budesonide-MMX into treatment algorithms for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

5-Aminosalicylates (5-ASA) are first-line treatment for mild-moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC). When 5-ASAs fail, systemic corticosteroids have been the standard next step. Due to the significant side effect profile of systemic corticosteroids, alternative options in the treatment algorithm after 5-ASA failures are needed. Budesonide-Multi-Matrix System (MMX) is a novel oral formulation of budesonide that uses colonic release MMX technology to extend release of the drug to the colon. Now that budesonide-MMX has been approved for use in some countries, and pending in others we need to understand its position in the treatment algorithm for UC.

AIM

To review the available literature for budesonide-MMX and incorporate it into the treatment algorithm for mild-moderate UC.

METHODS

The available efficacy and safety literature regarding budesonide-MMX was reviewed, and compared to 5-ASAs and systemic corticosteroids.

RESULTS

In two large studies referred to as CORE (Colonic Release Budesonide trial), budesonide-MMX 9 mg daily was significantly more effective in achieving a combined end point of clinical and endoscopic remission than placebo in patients with mild-moderately active UC. Safety data are reassuring, with no clinically relevant differences between budesonide-MMX and placebo, including steroid-related side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide-MMX 9 mg daily is an effective and safe treatment for induction in patients with mild-moderately active UC. At the current time, it should be considered in patients after 5-ASA failure and before systemic corticosteroids. Data are still needed to understand its role and dose beyond 8 weeks, and if it should be considered first line before 5-ASAs.