Dataset Information

The Efficacy and Safety of Mesalamine and Probiotics in Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mesalamine in conjunction with probiotics for ulcerative colitis. Methods:Random controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP (VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals) from inception to October 2019. Methodological quality was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The quality of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Data analysis was carried out in Review Manager 5.3. Results:A total of fifteen studies met the criteria for inclusion. Thirteen studies reported the clinical efficacy, three studies provided data on the clinical symptom scores, two trials reported disease activity index, four studies evaluated endoscopic score, and twelve studies reported adverse events. For ulcerative colitis (UC), mesalamine and probiotics had better clinical efficacy than mesalamine alone (?8 weeks: RR?=?1.12, 95% CI: 1.07-1.18, P < 0.0001; >8 weeks: RR?=?1.25, 95% CI: 1.11-1.41, P=0.0003). On the clinical symptom scores, disease activity index, and endoscopic score, UC patients receiving mesalamine and probiotics had significant difference than patients receiving mesalazine alone (MD?=?-2.02, 95% CI: -3.28 to -0.76, P=0.002; MD?=?-1.20, 95% CI: -1.76 to -0.65, P < 0.001; and MD?=?-0.42, 95% CI: -0.61 to -0.23, P < 0.0001, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events between the two groups (RR?=?0.88, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.43, P=0.60). Conclusion:Our meta-analysis results supported that mesalamine and probiotics were effective and safe in treating ulcerative colitis.

SUBMITTER: Tian C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7142348 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Efficacy and Safety of Mesalamine and Probiotics in Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Tian Chunying C Huang Yang Y Wu Xiaoxia X Xu Chuhan C Bu Huaien H Wang Hongwu H

Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM 20200328

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mesalamine in conjunction with probiotics for ulcerative colitis.<h4>Methods</h4>Random controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP (VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals) from inception to October 2019. Methodological quality was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The quality of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations, ...[more]

PMID: 32308714

Similar Datasets

Project description: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 I2 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.

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.

Dataset Information

The Efficacy and Safety of Mesalamine and Probiotics in Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

The Efficacy and Safety of Mesalamine and Probiotics in Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets