Dataset Information

Adverse Events and Nocebo Effects in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

Nocebo effects, adverse outcomes occurring in patients receiving inert therapy, contribute to adverse event [AE] reporting in randomized controlled trials [RCTs]. High placebo AE rates may result in inaccurate estimation of treatment-related AEs. We estimate the pooled rate of AEs in patients randomized to placebo compared to active therapy in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] RCTs.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched to March 1, 2017 for RCTs of conventional medical therapies for Crohn's disease [CD] or ulcerative colitis [UC]. Rates of AEs, serious AEs [SAEs], AE-related trial withdrawal, infections and worsening IBD were pooled using a random-effects model.

Results

We included 124 CD [n = 26 042] and 71 UC RCTs [n = 16 798]. The pooled placebo AE rate was 70.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 65.3%, 75.4%) and 54.5% [47.8%, 61.1%] in CD and UC RCTs, respectively. There was no significant risk difference [RD] in AE, SAE or AE-related withdrawal rates between CD patients receiving placebo or active drug. A 1.6% [95% CI: 0.1%, 3.1%] increase in AE rates was observed among UC patients randomized to active therapy. Patients receiving active therapy had a higher risk of infection (RD 1.0% [95% CI: 0.4%, 1.7%] for CD, 2.9% [95% CI: 1.4%, 4.4%] for UC) although a lower risk of worsening CD (RD -3.2% [95% CI: -4.8%, -1.5%]) or UC (RD -3.7% [95% CI: -5.7%, -1.8%]).

Conclusions

AEs are commonly reported by patients randomized to either placebo or active treatment in IBD RCTs. Clinically relevant differences in AE, SAE and AE-related withdrawal were not observed.

SUBMITTER: Ma C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6751339 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate immune-related adverse events occurring in clinical trials of anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) drugs, compared with control treatments, including chemotherapy, targeted drugs, or placebo. Further we compared the occurrence of immune -related events in patients treated with different anti-PD-1 drugs.Data sourcesRandomized controlled trial (RCT) data were sourced from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials combined with https://clinicaltrials.gov.MethodsRandomized controlled trial of anti-PD-1 drugs compared with control treatments published between January 1, 1970 and March 1,2019, were searched and data on trial patient characteristics, and adverse events extracted, reviewed, and subjected to meta-analysis.ResultsEighteen Randomized controlled trials were included in our study. The Randomized controlled trials compared nivolumab (n = 12), pembrolizumab (n = 6), with chemotherapy (n = 13), targeted drugs (n = 2), or placebo (n = 3). Compared with the control group, the risk of any immune-related adverse events in patients treated with anti-PD-1 drugs was increased (RR, 2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-3.83; P < 0.00001). Of the immune-related adverse events, the risk rates of pneumonitis (risk ratio, 2.10; 95% CI, 0.85-5.18), colitis (2.96;1.62-5.38), hypophysitis(4.79;1.54-14.89), hypothyroidism(7.87;5.36-11.57), hyperthyroidism (7.03;4.35-11.34), rash (1.58;0.98-2.54), pruritus (2.28; 1.38-3.76), and hepatitis (9.31;2.18-39.85) were increased by anti-PD-1 drugs. Further, the risk of immune-related adverse events was similar for patients treated with pembrolizumab and nivolumab (P = 0.14).ConclusionsIn addition to previously reported organ-specific immune-related adverse events, we found that the risk of hyperthyroidism was also increased, in anit-PD-1-treated patients, relative to control treatments. The risk of total immune-related adverse events, was similar for pembrolizumab and nivolumab.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Colchicine is a widely used drug to treat inflammatory diseases. Due to its long historical use in medicine, controlled clinical trials have been small and there remains some caution with the use of this drug in patients with co-morbidities. The aim of the study is to systematically examine the side effect profile of colchicine in controlled clinical trials across all published indications. METHODS:A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA methodology. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for double-blind controlled trials of oral colchicine in adult patients that reported adverse event data. Meta-analyses were used to determine the relative risk (RR) of adverse events in colchicine users compared to comparator groups. RESULTS:A total of 4915 studies were initially identified and after exclusions, 35 randomised controlled trials with placebo (n =?35) or active comparators (n =?5) were included. The most common diseases studied were gout, liver cirrhosis and pericarditis. There were a total of 8659 pooled participants, 4225 participants were randomised to receive colchicine, 3956 to placebo and 411 to an active comparator. Diarrhoea was reported in 17.9% of colchicine users versus 13.1% in comparator groups (RR 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6, 3.7). Any gastrointestinal event was reported in 17.6% of colchicine users and 13.1% of comparators (RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3, 2.3). Adverse liver events were reported in 1.9% of colchicine users versus 1.1% in the comparator groups (RR 1.6, 95% CI 0.9, 3.0). Muscle events were reported in 4.2% of colchicine users and 3.3% in the comparator groups (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.8, 1.9). Haematology events were reported in 0.6% of colchicine users and 0.4% of comparator groups (RR 1.34 (0.64, 2.82). No study reported neuropathy events. Other sensory events were reported in 1.1% of colchicine users and 1.5% of comparator groups (RR 1.4, 95% CI 0.3, 6.7). Infectious events were reported in 0.4% of colchicine users and 2.1% of comparator groups (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7, 1.5). No study reported death as an adverse event. CONCLUSION:Colchicine increases the rate of diarrhoea and gastrointestinal adverse events but does not increase the rate of liver, sensory, muscle, infectious or haematology adverse events or death.

Project description:ObjectivesInflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic recurrent inflammatory disease of the gastrointestinal tract, and its prevalence is increasing worldwide. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an emerging therapy that modifies the patient's gut microbiota by transplanting feces from a healthy donor to achieve disease remission. However, its efficacy and safety need to be further investigated.MethodsPubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar databases (up to 8th November 2021) were searched and literature was screened by title and abstract as well as full text. The primary outcome was clinical remission, with the clinical response as a secondary outcome. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported.ResultsA total of 14 trials were included in this study. In terms of clinical remission, FMT had a significant effect compared to placebo (RR = 1.44, 95 CI%: 1.03 to 2.02, I 2 = 38%, P=0.03), with no significant risk of study heterogeneity. Moreover, FMT led to significant results in clinical response compared to placebo with moderate between-study heterogeneity (RR = 1.34, 95 CI%: 0.92 to 1.94, I 2 = 51%, P=0.12). Subgroup analysis showed a higher clinical remission for fresh fecal FMT (40.9%) than that for frozen fecal FMT (32.2%); the efficacy of gastrointestinal (GI) pretreatment, the severity of disease, route of administration, and the donor selection remain unclear and require more extensive study. Safety analysis concluded that most adverse events were mild and self-resolving. The microbiological analysis found that the patient's gut microbiota varied in favor of the donor, with increased flora diversity and species richness.ConclusionFMT is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated therapy. Studies have found that fresh fecal microbiota transplant can increase clinical remission rates. However, more randomized controlled trials and long-term follow-ups are needed to assess its long-term effectiveness and safety.