Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of Qingre-Chushi therapies in active ulcerative colitis: A network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease with an increasing incidence in the world. Qingre-Chushi therapies (QC) can alleviate clinical symptoms. Therefore, a network meta-analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of QC in the treatment of active UC patients.

Methods

7 databases were screened and relevant randomized controlled trials were selected. The tools of Cochrane Handbook and the GRADE system were conducted to assess the quality of outcomes. Pooled risk ratio or standard mean difference was calculated with 95% credible interval for outcomes measurement using the random-effects model. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was performed to rank the treatments. The larger SUCRA scores, the more effective interventions.

Results

A total of 3560 articles were identified and 21 studies including 1829 participants were included for further analysis. Totally, 9 therapies regimens were compared: oral mesalazine, mesalazine enema, mesalazine suppository, oral mesalazine + mesalazine enema, oral QC, oral QC + oral mesalazine, QC enema, oral QC + QC enema, and oral mesalazine + QC enema. Based on the SUCRA plot, oral QC + oral mesalazine was the best treatment in inducing clinical response; oral QC + QC enema had the best efficacy in the improvement of Mayo scores and alleviating abdominal pain; oral mesalazine + mesalazine enema was the optimal therapy in the endoscopic improvement and reducing diarrhea; QC enema + oral mesalazine was the best option in preventing bloody stool.

Conclusion

This study confirmed the efficacy and safety of QC in treating active UC and suggested that the combination of oral medications with topical can achieve more benefits.

SUBMITTER: Zhang L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8452044 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundBiological therapies are increasingly used to treat ulcerative colitis (UC).AimTo compare the efficacy of biologics in adults with moderately-to-severely active UC, stratified by prior exposure to anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy.MethodsA systematic literature review was undertaken to identify studies of biologics approved for UC. Network meta-analysis was conducted for endpoints at induction and maintenance.ResultsSeven studies were included in the meta-analysis of induction treatment for anti-TNF therapy-naïve patients. All biologics were more effective than placebo in inducing clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing. Infliximab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement over adalimumab in clinical response (odds ratio [OR] [95% credible interval (CrI)]: 2.19 [1.35-3.55]), clinical remission (OR [95% CrI]: 2.81 [1.49-5.49]), and mucosal healing (OR [95% CrI]: 2.23 [1.21-4.14]); there were no other significant differences between biologics for induction efficacy. Five studies were included in the meta-analysis of maintenance treatment, two studies rerandomised responder patients at end of induction, and three followed the same patients 'straight through'. To account for design differences, the number of responders at end of induction was assumed to be equivalent to the number rerandomised. Vedolizumab showed significantly different durable clinical response from comparators (OR [95% CrI] infliximab 3.18 [1.14-9.20], golimumab 2.33 [1.04-5.41], and adalimumab 3.96 [1.67-9.84]). In anti-TNF therapy-experienced patients, only vedolizumab and adalimumab could be compared. At induction, no significant differences in efficacy were seen. During maintenance, vedolizumab showed significantly improved rates of mucosal healing versus adalimumab (OR [95% CrI]: 6.72 [1.36-41.0]).ConclusionsThis study expands the understanding of comparative efficacies of biologic treatments for UC, encompassing outcomes and populations not previously studied. All biologic treatments were effective for UC during induction. Vedolizumab demonstrated possible clinical benefits in the maintenance setting versus all comparators, irrespective of prior anti-TNF exposure and after adjusting for differences in study design.

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:BACKGROUND:Fecal microbiota transplantation is an effective treatment for many gastrointestinal diseases, such as Clostridium difficile infection and inflammatory bowel disease, especially ulcerative colitis. Changes in colonic microflora may play an important role in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis, and improvements in the intestinal microflora may relieve the disease. Fecal bacterial transplants and oral probiotics are becoming important ways to relieve active ulcerative colitis. PURPOSE:This systematic review with meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of basic treatment combined with fecal microbiota transplantation or mixed probiotics therapy in relieving mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. METHODS:The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries (updated September 2019) were searched to identify randomized, placebo-controlled, or head-to-head trials assessing fecal microbiota transplantation or probiotic VSL#3 as induction therapy in active ulcerative colitis. We analyze data using the R program to obtain evidence of direct comparison and to generate intermediate variables for indirect treatment comparisons. RESULTS:Seven randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were used as the sources of the induction data. All treatments were superior to placebo. In terms of clinical remission and clinical response to active ulcerative colitis, direct comparisons showed fecal microbiota transplantation (OR = 3.47, 95% CI = 1.93-6.25) (OR = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.18-5.21) and mixed probiotics VSL#3 (OR = 2.40, 95% CI = 1.49-3.88) (OR = 3.09, 95% CI = 1.53-6.25) to have better effects than the placebo. Indirect comparison showed fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotic VSL#3 did not reach statistical significance either in clinical remission (RR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.70-2.06) or clinical response (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.62-1.45). In terms of safety, fecal microbiota transplantation (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.51-2.61) and VSL #3 (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.33-2.49) showed no statistically significant increase in adverse events compared with the control group. In terms of serious adverse events, there was no statistical difference between the fecal microbiota transplantation group and the control group (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.46-3.57). The probiotics VSL#3 seems more safer than fecal microbiota transplantation, because serious adverse events were not reported in the VSL#3 articles. CONCLUSIONS:Fecal microbiota transplantation or mixed probiotics VSL#3 achieved good results in clinical remission and clinical response in active ulcerative colitis, and there was no increased risk of adverse reactions. There was no statistical difference between the therapeutic effect of fecal microbiota transplantation and that of mixed probiotics VSL#3. However, the use of fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotics still has many unresolved problems in clinical applications, and more randomized controlled trials are required to confirm its efficacy.