Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Beclomethasone Dipropionate versus 5-Aminosalicylic Acid in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic and remitting inflammatory disease that is characterized by chronic idiopathic inflammation of the colon and bloody diarrhea. Currently drug treatment is the main intervention for patients with mild to moderate UC. Mesalazine (5-ASA) and beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) have been widely used for the treatment of UC and have yielded satisfactory results. This study compared the effectiveness of 5-ASA and BDP in the treatment of UC.

Methods

The PubMed, Medline, SinoMed, Embase, and Cochrane Librinary databases were searched for eligible studies. Data were extracted by two of the coauthors independently and were analyzed using RevMan statistical software, version 5.3. Weighted mean differences (WMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the risk of bias.

Results

Seven randomized controlled trials that compared BDP with 5-ASA in treating UC were identified as eligible. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from low to moderate. A pooled analysis of effectiveness based on the Disease Activity Index (DAI) or other assessment method after treatment revealed that in the treatment of UC, there are no obvious differences between BDP and 5-ASA in inducing remission and clinical improvement (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.56-1.03, P = 0.08). The total numbers of adverse events associated with BDP and 5-ASA treatments for UC were similar (OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.71-2.09, P = 0.48). The safety profiles for these two drugs are good. According to subgroup-analysis, we found no obvious differences of clinical efficacy between BDP and 5-ASA no matter oral or enema administration was used in the treatment of UC. A sensitivity analysis demonstrated the stability of the pooled results.

Conclusion

During induction treatment of mild to moderate UC, there is no obvious difference between the two groups with respect to remission and clinical improvement. Given that the upper confidence limit for the OR barely exceeds 1.0 and that the p-value is close to 0.05 for this primary efficacy outcome as well as that the horizontal block lies to the left of the vertical line, it indicates that the clinical efficacy of BDP may be better than 5-ASA. However, taking into account that BDP has the risk of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA) suppression, 5-ASA has a potential advantage of safety in the treatment of mild to moderate UC.

SUBMITTER: Zhao X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4976912 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the available evidence comparing efficacy and safety of oral prolonged released beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) to active oral controls in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). A subgroup-analysis compared the effectiveness of BDP and 5-ASA.MethodsLiterature research was performed in different databases, as well as manual search to identify abstracts from international meetings with data not included in extensive publications. Experts in the field and companies involved in BDP development and manufacture were contacted to identify unpublished studies used for registration purposes. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain odds ratio meta-analysis.ResultsFive randomized controlled trials that compared oral BDP 5mg/day vs. all oral active controls in treating UC were identified as eligible. Efficacy and safety have been addressed after 4-week treatment period. One study evaluated efficacy and safety of BDP vs. prednisone and 4 of BDP vs. 5-ASA. Treatment with oral BDP 5 mg/day induces a significant better clinical response compared to oral 5-ASA (OR 1.86, 95% CI = 1.23-2.82, P = 0.003). The effect is detectable even when the comparison to prednisone is added (OR 1.41, 95% CI = 1.03-1.93, P = 0.03). Data on remission indicate that the potential clinical efficacy of BDP may be better than 5-ASA (OR 1.55, 95% CI = 1.00-2.40, P = 0.05). This difference is lost when the comparison with prednisone is added (OR 1.30, 95% CI = 0.76-2.23, P = 0.34). The safety analysis showed no differences between BDP and 5-ASA (OR 0.55, 95% CI = 0.24-1.27, P = 0.16). The lack of difference is maintained even when the study with prednisone is added (OR 0.67, 95% CI = 0.44-1.01, P = 0.06). However, the trend of difference is clear and indicates a more favourable safety profile of BDP compared to 5-ASA and PD.ConclusionsOral prolonged release BDP showed a superior efficacy vs. oral 5-ASA in inducing clinical improvement of mild-to-moderate UC with a similar safety profile.

Project description:BackgroundLow bioavailability steroids, including beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and budesonide MMX, have been developed to ensure colonic targeting and low systemic activity than systematic corticosteroids in treating patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).ObjectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of BDP and budesonide MMX® compared with 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASAs) or placebo, in patients with mild-to-moderate UC.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from inception to December 2021. We included all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral BDP or budesonide MMX with 5-ASAs or with placebo in induction of remission of mild-to-moderate UC. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.ResultsWe identified two RCTs comparing BDP 5 mg with 5-ASA, one RCTs comparing BDP 10 mg with 5-ASA, two RCTs BDP 5 mg versus placebo, one RCT BDP 10 mg versus placebo, two RCTs budesonide MMX 9 mg versus 5-ASA, and six RCTs budesonide MMX 9 mg versus placebo. In terms of achieving clinical remission or improvement, BDP 5 mg, BDP 10 mg, and budesonide MMX 9 mg were more effective than placebo (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.37-4.08; OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.02-4.87; and OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.45-2.85, respectively). The drugs were also more effective than placebo in achieving endoscopic remission. Regarding the comparisons with 5-ASA, we found no differences between 5-ASA and BDP 5 mg or BDP 10 mg or budesonide MMX 9 mg in achieving clinical remission or improvement (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.51-1.57; OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42-5.64; and OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.82-1.66). However, 5-ASA was more effective than budesonide MMX 9 mg in achieving histological remission (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16-0.70). Overall, all the drugs were safe and well tolerated.ConclusionLow bioavailability steroids were more effective than placebo in achieving clinical remission, clinical and endoscopic remission, and histological remission. No differences were found between 5-ASA and BDP or budesonide MMX. Surely, more RCTs, also comparing BDP and budesonide MMX, are mandatory to confirm or not these results.

Project description:BackgroundTherapeutic options for ulcerative colitis (UC) have increased since the introduction of biologics a few decades ago. Due to the wide range of biologics available, physicians have difficulty in selecting biologics and do not know how to balance the best drug between clinical efficacy and safety. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of biologics in treating ulcerative colitis.MethodsIn this study, eight electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, Sinomed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP Information, and WanFang Data) were searched to collect eligible studies without language restrictions. Retrieved 1 June 2023, from inception. All articles included in the mesh analysis are randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The inclusion of drugs for each outcome was ranked using a curved surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA). Higher SUCRA scores were associated with better outcomes, whereas lower SUCRA scores were associated with better safety. This study has registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023389483.ResultsInduction Therapy: Among the biologic therapies evaluated for induction therapy, vedolizumab demonstrated the highest efficacy in achieving clinical remission (OR vs daclizumab, 9.09; 95% CI, 1.01-81.61; SUCRA 94.1) and clinical response. Guselkumab showed the lowest risk of recurrence of UC (SUCRA 94.9%), adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation (SUCRA 94.8%), and serious infections (SUCRA 78.0%). Maintenance Therapy: For maintenance therapy, vedolizumab ranked highest in maintaining clinical remission (OR vs mesalazine 4.36; 95% CI, 1.65-11.49; SUCRA 89.7) and endoscopic improvement (SUCRA 92.6). Infliximab demonstrated the highest efficacy in endoscopic improvement (SUCRA 92.6%). Ustekinumab had the lowest risk of infections (SUCRA 92.9%), serious adverse events (SUCRA 91.3%), and serious infections (SUCRA 67.6%).ConclusionOur network meta-analysis suggests that vedolizumab is the most effective biologic therapy for inducing and maintaining clinical remission in UC patients. Guselkumab shows promise in reducing the risk of recurrence and adverse events during induction therapy. Infliximab is effective in improving endoscopic outcomes during maintenance therapy. Ustekinumab appears to have a favorable safety profile. These findings provide valuable insights for clinicians in selecting the most appropriate biologic therapy for UC patients.