Dataset Information

Comparative safety of systemic and low-bioavailability steroids in inflammatory bowel disease: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Oral systemic corticosteroids have been used to induce remission in patients with active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) for over 50 years; however, the wide array of adverse events (AEs) associated with these drugs prompted the development of steroid compounds with targeted delivery and low systemic bioavailability. This study assessed corticosteroids' comparative harm using network meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries, regulatory authorities' websites and major conference proceedings, through March 2017. Randomized controlled trials that recruited adult IBD patients and compared oral systemic corticosteroids (prednisone/prednisolone) or compounds/formulations with low systemic bioavailability (budesonide, budesonide MMX, and beclomethasone dipropionate) with placebo, or against each other, were considered eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and outcomes, and rated each trial's risk-of-bias.

Results

We identified and synthesized evidence from 31 trials including 5689 IBD patients. Budesonide MMX was associated with significantly fewer corticosteroid-related AEs than oral systemic corticosteroids [odds ratio (OR): 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13-0.49] and beclomethasone (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.13-1.00), but not significantly fewer AEs than budesonide (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.37-1.11); it performed equally good with placebo. By contrast, the occurrence of serious AEs, and treatment discontinuations due to AEs, did not differ between the comparator treatments.

Conclusions

Budesonide MMX is associated with fewer corticosteroid-related AEs than its comparator steroid treatments for adult IBD patients. Further high-quality research is warranted to illuminate the steroid drugs' comparative safety profiles.

SUBMITTER: Bonovas S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5777428 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative safety of systemic and low-bioavailability steroids in inflammatory bowel disease: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Bonovas Stefanos S Nikolopoulos Georgios K GK Lytras Theodore T Fiorino Gionata G Peyrin-Biroulet Laurent L Danese Silvio S

British journal of clinical pharmacology 20171201 2

<h4>Aims</h4>Oral systemic corticosteroids have been used to induce remission in patients with active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) for over 50 years; however, the wide array of adverse events (AEs) associated with these drugs prompted the development of steroid compounds with targeted delivery and low systemic bioavailability. This study assessed corticosteroids' comparative harm using network meta-analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, clinical tr ...[more]

PMID: 29057539

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe US Food and Drug Administration has withdrawn the bowel cleansing kit HalfLytely (PEG 3500) with 10 mg bisacodyl tablets due to an increased risk of ischaemic colitis compared with the same kit with only 5 mg bisacodyl. This is of interest in Canada given that the bowel cleansing kit Bi-Peglyte (PEG 3500) with 15 mg bisacodyl is currently approved for use. The objective is to assess the comparative safety of various bowel cleansers with or without bisacodyl, with a primary interest inpolyethylene glycol (PEG)-based and sodium-picosulfate-based products.Methods and analysisGiven the existing volume of the literature, the review will be conducted in two stages. Stage 1 will consist of a scoping exercise by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library (up to 21 November 2017) to identify randomised controlled trials, quasirandomised studies and non-randomised studies in which any bowel cleanser regimens were compared among persons undergoing colonoscopy. The outcomes will be mapped to establish a listing of the studies and their comparisons and outcomes currently available in the literature. From this, a data synthesis plan will be determined. In stage 2, a systematic review with meta-analyses will be pursued, focused on the bowel cleanser comparisons and outcomes of interest identified in stage 1. Two reviewers will screen, extract and quality assess the articles. Outcomes of interest include ischaemic colitis, electrolyte imbalances and their consequences, seizures, bowel perforation and patient tolerability. If sufficient data exist and studies are of sufficient homogeneity, network meta-analyses (NMAs) will be performed.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was not necessary due to study design. Updating the safety profile of bowel cleansers among the generally healthy population undergoing colonoscopy is pertinent given recent approval changes. This will be the first NMA within this population. Policy considerations may be reconsidered to minimise risk during bowel cleanser use.Prospero registration numberCRD42018084720.

Project description:Given the lack of head-to-head studies of systemic therapies in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), network meta-analyses (NMAs) can provide comparative efficacy and safety data to inform clinical decision-making. In this NMA, eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before 24 October 2019 were identified by a systematic literature review. Short-term (12-16 weeks) efficacy (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] and Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] responses), patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and safety data from each trial were abstracted and analysed separately for monotherapy and combination therapy (systemic plus topical anti-inflammatory therapy). RCTs were analysed in fixed-effects and random-effects Bayesian NMA models. Overall, 19 phase 2 and phase 3 RCTs of abrocitinib, baricitinib, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, nemolizumab, tralokinumab and upadacitinib were included. In monotherapy RCTs, upadacitinib 30 mg once daily (QD) had the numerically highest efficacy (83.6% achieved ≥50% improvement in EASI [EASI-50 response]), followed by abrocitinib 200 mg QD (74.6%), upadacitinib 15 mg QD (70.5%), dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) (63.4%) and abrocitinib 100 mg QD (56.7%). Similar trends in EASI-75 and EASI-90 response were observed. In combination therapy RCTs, abrocitinib 200 mg QD had the highest EASI-50 (86.6%), followed by dupilumab 300 mg Q2W (82.4%) and abrocitinib 100 mg QD (79.7%). Similar findings were observed for IGA response and PROs. In monotherapy and combination therapy RCTs, the probability of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was higher among all active treatments than with placebo (except for dupilumab 300 mg Q2W [odds ratio (OR), 0.96; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.45-2.18] and abrocitinib 100 mg QD [OR, 0.95; 95% CrI, 0.35-2.66] in combination therapy RCTs), although active treatments did not significantly differ from one another. Abrocitinib, dupilumab and upadacitinib were consistently the most effective systemic therapies in adult and adolescent patients with AD, with no significant TEAE differences in short-term RCTs.

Project description:IntroductionPatients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) often report psychological problems, unemployment, disability, sick leave and compromised quality of life. The effect of psychological interventions on health-related outcomes in IBD is controversial as previous reviews faced the obstacle of high heterogeneity among provided multimodular interventions. The heterogeneity can be addressed with network meta-analysis (NMA) and (multi)component NMA (CNMA). We aim to investigate whether psychological interventions can improve quality of life, clinical and social outcomes in IBD using NMA and CNMA. This is the study protocol.Methods and analysisWe will consider randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, including cluster randomised and cross-over trials with 2 months of minimum follow-up. The conditions to be studied comprise Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in children, adolescents and adults. We will include any psychological intervention aiming to change the health status of the study participant.We will search Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, LILACS, Psyndex, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and trial registries from inception (the search will be updated before the review completion). Two authors will independently screen all references based on titles and abstracts. For data extraction, standard forms are developed and tested before extraction. All information will be assessed independently by at least two reviewers, and disagreements solved by consensus discussion or a third rater if necessary.The data synthesis will include a pairwise meta-analysis supported by meta-regression. We will conduct NMA (all treatments will constitute single nodes of the network) and CNMA (we will define all treatments as sums of core components, eg, cognitive +behaviour, or cognitive +behaviour + relaxation, and additionally consider interactions) using the R Package netmeta.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required. Reports will include the final report to the funder, conference presentation, peer-reviewed publication and a patient report.Prospero registration numberCRD42021250446.

Project description:ImportanceObservational comparative effectiveness studies can inform the positioning of biologic therapies for older patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who are underrepresented in clinical trials.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab vs tumor necrosis factor (TNF) for older patients with IBD.Design, setting, and participantsThis active comparator, new-user design, comparative effectiveness study was conducted between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2018, among 754 older patients (aged ≥50 years) with IBD from the Danish National Patient Register. The mean follow-up after treatment initiation took place at 32 to 40 weeks. Statistical analysis was performed from February 1 to April 27, 2022.InterventionsTreatment with vedolizumab or TNF antagonists.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary effectiveness outcome was treatment failure, defined as the composite risk of IBD-related hospitalization, IBD-related surgery, or a new corticosteroid prescription more than 6 weeks after initiation of treatment with biologic therapy. Secondary effectiveness outcomes were time to each individual component of the composite effectiveness outcome. The primary safety outcome was the risk of serious infections, defined as infections requiring hospitalization. A 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis was conducted, accounting for patient-, disease-, and treatment-associated factors.ResultsThe study compared 377 older patients with IBD with incident use of vedolizumab (202 women [53.6%]; mean [SD] age, 61.2 [8.3] years; 177 [46.9%] with Crohn disease) vs 377 patients with incident use of TNF antagonists (206 women [54.6%]; mean [SD] age, 61.3 [8.1] years; 182 [48.3%] with Crohn disease). Overall, vedolizumab was associated with an increased risk of treatment failure compared with TNF antagonists (1-year risk, 45.4% vs 34.7%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.69), including higher risk of IBD-related hospitalization (1-year risk, 27.8% vs 16.3%; adjusted HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.03-2.15) and IBD-related major abdominal surgery (1-year risk, 21.3% vs 8.0%; adjusted HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.45-3.94). In subgroup analysis by IBD phenotype, among patients with Crohn disease, vedolizumab was associated with a 77% higher risk of treatment failure (adjusted HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.21-2.58), while no difference in risk of treatment failure was seen among patients with ulcerative colitis (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.75-1.43; P = .03 for interaction). There was no significant difference in the risk of serious infections, overall (1-year risk, 8.2% vs 8.7%; adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.58-1.85) and by IBD phenotype.Conclusions and relevanceIn this comparative effectiveness study of older patients with IBD, vedolizumab was associated with a higher risk of treatment failure compared with TNF antagonists, particularly among patients with Crohn disease, without offering a significant safety advantage.

Project description:ObjectiveTo provide a complete toxicity profile, toxicity spectrum, and a safety ranking of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) drugs for treatment of cancer.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesElectronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were systematically searched to include relevant studies published in English between January 2007 and February 2018.Review methodsOnly head-to-head phase II and III randomised controlled trials comparing any two or three of the following treatments or different doses of the same ICI drug were included: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, tremelimumab, atezolizumab, conventional therapy (chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and their combinations), two ICI drugs, or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Eligible studies must have reported site, organ, or system level data on treatment related adverse events. High quality, single arm trials and placebo controlled trials on ICI drugs were selected to establish a validation group.Results36 head-to-head phase II and III randomised trials (n=15?370) were included. The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for all adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (probability 76%, pooled incidence 66.4%), nivolumab (56%, 71.8%), pembrolizumab (55%, 75.1%), ipilimumab (55%, 86.8%), and tremelimumab (54%, not applicable). The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for severe or life threatening adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (49%, 15.1%), nivolumab (46%, 14.1%), pembrolizumab (72%, 19.8%), ipilimumab (51%, 28.6%), and tremelimumab (28%, not applicable). Compared with conventional therapy, treatment-related adverse events for ICI drugs occurred mainly in the skin, endocrine, hepatic, and pulmonary systems. Taking one ICI drug was generally safer than taking two ICI drugs or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Among the five ICI drugs, atezolizumab had the highest risk of hypothyroidism, nausea, and vomiting. The predominant treatment-related adverse events for pembrolizumab were arthralgia, pneumonitis, and hepatic toxicities. The main treatment-related adverse events for ipilimumab were skin, gastrointestinal, and renal toxicities. Nivolumab had a narrow and mild toxicity spectrum, mainly causing endocrine toxicities. Integrated evidence from the pooled incidences, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses implied that nivolumab is the best option in terms of safety, especially for the treatment of lung cancer.ConclusionsCompared with other ICI drugs used to treat cancer, atezolizumab had the best safety profile in general, and nivolumab had the best safety profile in lung cancer when taking an integrated approach. The safety ranking of treatments based on ICI drugs is modulated by specific treatment-related adverse events.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017082553.

Dataset Information

Comparative safety of systemic and low-bioavailability steroids in inflammatory bowel disease: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparative safety of systemic and low-bioavailability steroids in inflammatory bowel disease: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets