Proactive Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Versus Conventional Management for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has been proposed to improve outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α antagonists. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing proactive TDM with conventional management in patients with IBD. METHODS: We identified RCTs in patients with IBD treated with TNFα antagonists comparing proactive TDM (routine assessments of trough concentration with dose adjustments to maintain predetermined trough concentration, regardless of disease activity) with conventional management (clinically driven dose adjustments). The primary outcome was failure to maintain clinical remission. Certainty of evidence was appraised using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. RESULTS: On meta-analysis of 9 RCTs (8 RCTs in adults, and focusing on maintenance phase), there was no significant difference in the risk of failing to maintain clinical remission in patients who underwent proactive TDM (267/709; 38%) vs conventional management (292/696; 42%) (relative risk [RR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.13) with moderate heterogeneity (inconsistency index = 36%) (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; low certainty evidence), with no differences in patients with Crohn's disease (RR, 0.87 ; 95% CI, 0.66-1.15) and ulcerative colitis (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07). Disease duration, concomitant immunomodulators, disease activity at baseline, and optimization of therapy before randomization did not modify this association. No differences were observed in risk of developing antidrug antibodies or serious adverse events. Patients in the proactive TDM arm were more likely to undergo dose escalation (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.25-1.94). CONCLUSIONS: Routine proactive TDM to target biologic concentration to specific thresholds, regardless of disease activity, did not offer clinical benefit in patients with IBD treated with TNFα antagonists in RCTs conducted to date. We cannot exclude the possibility of benefit in disease subtypes and phases of therapy (induction) not represented in these RCT populations.

Efficacy and Safety of IL-12/23 and IL-23 Inhibitors for Crohn's Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Targeting interleukin-23 (IL-23) is an important therapeutic strategy for Crohn's disease (CD). AIMS: This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of selective IL-23p19 and IL-12/23p40 inhibitors in patients with moderate-to-severe CD. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library (CENTRAL) were searched from inception to May 24, 2023, for randomized, placebo- or active comparator-controlled induction and/or maintenance trials of selective IL-23p19 and IL-12/23p40 inhibitors in pediatric and adult patients with CD. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in clinical remission. Secondary outcomes were clinical response, endoscopic remission, endoscopic response, and safety. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE criteria, respectively. RESULTS: Eighteen trials (n = 5561) were included. Most studies were rated as low risk of bias. Targeting IL-23 was significantly superior to placebo for inducing clinical (risk ratio [RR] = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-2.21) and endoscopic (RR = 3.20, 95%CI 2.17-4.70) remission and maintaining clinical remission (RR = 1.39, 95%CI 1.10-1.77) (GRADE high certainty evidence for all outcomes). Subgroup analysis showed that targeting IL-23 was superior to placebo for inducing clinical remission in biologic-naïve (RR = 2.20, 95%CI 1.46-3.32, I2 = 0%, p = 0.39) and biologic-experienced patients (RR = 1.82, 95%CI 1.27-2.60, I2 = 56.5%, p = 0.01). Targeting IL-23 was associated with a decreased risk of serious adverse events in induction (RR = 0.55, 95%CI 0.44-0.73) and maintenance (RR = 0.72, 95%CI 0.53-0.98) trials compared to placebo (high certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: Targeting IL-23 is effective and safe for inducing and maintaining clinical and endoscopic remission in patients with moderate-to-severe CD.

Pharmacological Interventions for the Prevention and Treatment of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Associated Enterocolitis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may develop ICI-associated enterocolitis, for which there is no approved treatment. AIMS: We aimed to systematically review the efficacy and safety of medical interventions for the prevention and treatment of ICI-associated enterocolitis. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and case-control studies, and case series/reports, evaluating interventions (including corticosteroids, biologics, aminosalicylates, immunosuppressants, and fecal transplantation) for ICI-associated enterocolitis. Clinical, endoscopic, and histologic efficacy endpoints were evaluated. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria were used to assess overall quality of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 160 studies (n = 1514) were included (one RCT, 3 retrospective cohort studies, 156 case reports/case series). Very low quality evidence from one RCT suggests budesonide is not effective for prevention of ICI-associated enterocolitis in ipilimumab-treated patients (relative risk 0.93 [95% confidence interval 0.56, 1.56]). Very low quality evidence suggests that corticosteroids, infliximab, and vedolizumab may be effective for treatment of ICI-associated enterocolitis by inducing clinical response and remission. No validated indices for measuring disease activity were used. Biologic treatment was used in 42% (641/1528) of patients, as reported in 97 studies. ICIs were discontinued in 65% (457/702) of patients, as reported in 63 studies. CONCLUSIONS: Current treatment recommendations for ICI-associated enterocolitis are based on very low quality evidence, primarily from case reports and case series. Large-scale prospective cohort studies and RCTs are needed to develop prophylactic and therapeutic treatments to minimize interruption or discontinuation of oncological therapies.

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; also known as mesalazine or mesalamine) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. In an earlier version of this review, we found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis (UC), but had a significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. In this version, we have rerun the search to bring the review up to date. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness, and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC and to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a literature search for studies on 11 June 2019 using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. In addition, we searched review articles and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. We considered studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of participants with quiescent UC compared with placebo, SASP, or other 5-ASA formulations. We also included studies that compared once-daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose-ranging studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes were adherence, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), withdrawals due to AEs, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus SASP, once-daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA (balsalazide, Pentasa, and olsalazine) versus comparator 5-ASA formulation (Asacol and Salofalk), and 5-ASA dose-ranging. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome. We analyzed data on an intention-to-treat basis, and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 44 studies (9967 participants). Most studies were at low risk of bias. Ten studies were at high risk of bias. Seven of these studies were single-blind and three were open-label. 5-ASA is more effective than placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. About 37% (335/907) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 12 months compared to 55% (355/648) of placebo participants (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.76; 8 studies, 1555 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication was not reported for this comparison. SAEs were reported in 1% (6/550) of participants in the 5-ASA group compared to 2% (5/276) of participants in the placebo group at six to 12 months (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.84; 3 studies, 826 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18; 5 studies, 1132 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). SASP is more effective than 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. About 48% (416/871) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 43% (336/784) of SASP participants (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27; 12 studies, 1655 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication and SAEs were not reported for this comparison. There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.40; 7 studies, 1138 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in clinical or endoscopic remission rates between once-daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. About 37% (717/1939) of once-daily participants relapsed over 12 months compared to 39% (770/1971) of conventional-dosing participants (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; 10 studies, 3910 participants; high-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in medication adherence rates. About 10% (106/1152) of participants in the once-daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 8% (84/1154) of participants in the conventional-dosing group (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.93; 9 studies, 2306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). About 3% (41/1587) of participants in the once-daily group experienced a SAE compared to 2% (35/1609) of participants in the conventional-dose group at six to 12 months (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.87; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in the incidence of AEs at six to 13 months' follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 8 studies, 3497 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the efficacy of different 5-ASA formulations. About 44% (158/358) of participants in the 5-ASA group relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 41% (142/349) of participants in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28; 6 studies, 707 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in UC. There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is inferior compared to SASP. There is probably little or no difference between 5-ASA and placebo, and 5-ASA and SASP in commonly reported AEs such as flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, and dyspepsia. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily has a similar benefit and harm profile as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC.

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. It was previously found that 5-ASA drugs in doses of at least 2 g/day were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP for inducing remission in ulcerative colitis (UC). This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators (i.e. other formulations of 5-ASA) for induction of remission in active UC. A secondary objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of oral 5-ASA versus conventional dosing regimens (two or three times daily). SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library on 11 June 2019. We also searched references, conference proceedings and study registers to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (aged 18 years or more) with active UC for inclusion. We included studies that compared oral 5-ASA therapy with placebo, SASP, or other 5-ASA formulations. We also included studies that compared once-daily to conventional dosing as well as dose-ranging studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Outcomes include failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, adherence, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), withdrawals due to AEs, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. We analyzed five comparisons: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once-daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA (e.g. MMX mesalamine, Ipocol, Balsalazide, Pentasa, Olsalazine and 5-ASA micropellets) versus comparator 5-ASA (e.g. Asacol, Claversal, Salofalk), and 5-ASA dose-ranging. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for each outcome. We analyzed data on an intention-to-treat basis, and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We include 54 studies (9612 participants). We rated most studies at low risk of bias. Seventy-one per cent (1107/1550) of 5-ASA participants failed to enter clinical remission compared to 83% (695/837) of placebo participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89; 2387 participants, 11 studies; high-certainty evidence). We also observed a dose-response trend for 5-ASA. There was no difference in clinical remission rates between 5-ASA and SASP. Fifty-four per cent (150/279) of 5-ASA participants failed to enter remission compared to 58% (144/247) of SASP participants (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04; 526 participants, 8 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no difference in remission rates between once-daily dosing and conventional dosing. Sixty per cent (533/881) of once-daily participants failed to enter clinical remission compared to 61% (538/880) of conventionally-dosed participants (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 1761 participants, 5 studies; high-certainty evidence). Eight per cent (15/179) of participants dosed once daily failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 6% (11/179) of conventionally-dosed participants (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.86; 358 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Fifty per cent (507/1022) of participants in the 5-ASA group failed to enter remission compared to 52% (491/946) of participants in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.02; 1968 participants, 11 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, once-daily and conventionally-dosed 5-ASA, and 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulation studies. Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache and worsening UC. SASP was not as well tolerated as 5-ASA. Twenty-nine per cent (118/411) of SASP participants experienced an AE compared to 15% (72/498) of 5-ASA participants (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.63; 909 participants, 12 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is superior to placebo, and moderate-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is not more effective than SASP. Considering relative costs, a clinical advantage to using oral 5-ASA in place of SASP appears unlikely. High-certainty evidence suggests 5-ASA dosed once daily appears to be as efficacious as conventionally-dosed 5-ASA. There may be little or no difference in efficacy or safety among the various 5-ASA formulations.

Adalimumab for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Conventional medications for Crohn's disease (CD) include anti-inflammatory drugs, immunosuppressants and corticosteroids. If an individual does not respond, or loses response to first-line treatments, then biologic therapies such as tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) antagonists such as adalimumab are considered for treating CD. Maintenance of remission of CD is a clinically important goal, as disease relapse can negatively affect quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of adalimumab for maintenance of remission in people with quiescent CD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to April 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adalimumab to placebo or to an active comparator. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We analyzed data on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes. The primary outcome was failure to maintain clinical remission. We define clinical remission as a Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of < 150. Secondary outcomes were failure to maintain clinical response, endoscopic remission, endoscopic response, histological remission and adverse events (AEs). We assessed biases using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of evidence supporting the primary outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (1158 participants). We rated four trials at low risk of bias and two trials at unclear risk of bias. All participants had moderate-to-severe CD that was in clinical remission. Four studies were placebo-controlled (1012 participants). Two studies (70 participants) compared adalimumab to active medication (azathioprine, mesalamine or 6-mercaptopurine) in participants who had an ileocolic resection prior to study enrolment. Adalimumab versus placebo Fifty-nine per cent (252/430) of participants treated with adalimumab failed to maintain clinical remission at 52 to 56 weeks, compared with 86% (217/253) of participants receiving placebo (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.77; 3 studies, 683 participants; high-certainty evidence). Among those who received prior TNF-α antagonist therapy, 69% (129/186) of adalimumab participants failed to maintain clinical or endoscopic response at 52 to 56 weeks, compared with 93% (108/116) of participants who received placebo (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.85; 2 studies, 302 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Fifty-one per cent (192/374) of participants who received adalimumab failed to maintain clinical remission at 24 to 26 weeks, compared with 79% (149/188) of those who received placebo (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.83; 2 studies, 554 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Eighty-seven per cent (561/643) of participants who received adalimumab reported an AE compared with 85% (315/369) of participants who received placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 4 studies, 1012 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were seen in 8% (52/643) of participants who received adalimumab and 14% (53/369) of participants who received placebo (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80; 4 studies, 1012 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and withdrawal due to AEs was reported in 7% (45/643) of adalimumab participants compared to 13% (48/369) of placebo participants (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.91; 4 studies, 1012 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Commonly-reported AEs included CD aggravation, arthralgia, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, headache, nausea, fatigue and abdominal pain. Adalimumab versus active comparators No studies reported failure to maintain clinical remission. One study reported on failure to maintain clinical response and endoscopic remission at 104 weeks in ileocolic resection participants who received either adalimumab, azathioprine or mesalamine as post-surgical maintenance therapy. Thirteen per cent (2/16) of adalimumab participants failed to maintain clinical response compared with 54% (19/35) of azathioprine or mesalamine participants (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.87; 51 participants). Six per cent (1/16) of participants who received adalimumab failed to maintain endoscopic remission, compared with 57% (20/35) of participants who received azathioprine or mesalamine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.75; 51 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported on failure to maintain endoscopic response at 24 weeks in ileocolic resection participants who received either adalimumab or 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) as post-surgical maintenance therapy. Nine per cent (1/11) of adalimumab participants failed to maintain endoscopic remission compared with 50% (4/8) of 6-MP participants (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.33; 19 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab is an effective therapy for maintenance of clinical remission in people with quiescent CD. Adalimumab is also effective in those who have previously been treated with TNF-α antagonists. The effect of adalimumab in the post-surgical setting is uncertain. More research is needed in people with recent bowel surgery for CD to better determine treatment plans following surgery. Future research should continue to explore factors that influence initial and subsequent biologic selection for people with moderate-to-severe CD. Studies comparing adalimumab to other active medications are needed, to help determine the optimal maintenance therapy for CD.

Anti-IL-12/23p40 antibodies for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Ustekinumab and briakinumab are monoclonal antibodies that target the standard p40 subunit of cytokines interleukin-12 and interleukin-23 (IL-12/23p40), which are involved in the pathogenesis of Crohn's disease (CD). A significant proportion of people with Crohn's disease fail conventional therapy or therapy with biologics (e.g. infliximab) or develop significant adverse events. Anti-IL-12/23p40 antibodies such as ustekinumab may be an effective alternative for these individuals. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to assess the efficacy and safety of anti-IL-12/23p40 antibodies for maintenance of remission in CD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registers from inception to 17 September 2019. We searched references and conference abstracts for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion randomized controlled trials in which monoclonal antibodies against IL-12/23p40 were compared to placebo or another active comparator in participants with quiescent CD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. The primary outcome measure was failure to maintain clinical remission, defined as a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) of < 150 points. Secondary outcomes included failure to maintain clinical response, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), and withdrawals due to AEs. Clinical response was defined as a decrease in CDAI score of ≥ 100 points from baseline score. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. We analyzed all data on an intention-to-treat basis. We used GRADE to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence supporting the outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials (646 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Two trials assessed the efficacy of ustekinumab (542 participants), and one study assessed the efficacy of briakinumab (104 participants). We assessed all of the included studies as at low risk of bias. One study (N = 145) compared subcutaneous ustekinumab (90 mg) administered at 8 and 16 weeks compared to placebo. Fifty-eight per cent (42/72) of ustekinumab participants failed to maintain clinical remission at 22 weeks compared to 73% (53/73) of placebo participants (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.02; moderate-certainty evidence). Failure to maintain clinical response at 22 weeks was seen in 31% (22/72) of ustekinumab participants compared to 58% (42/73) of placebo participants (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence). One study (N = 388) compared subcutaneous ustekinumab (90 mg) administered every 8 weeks or every 12 weeks to placebo for 44 weeks. Forty-nine per cent (126/257) of ustekinumab participants failed to maintain clinical remission at 44 weeks compared to 64% (84/131) of placebo participants (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; moderate-certainty evidence). Forty-one per cent (106/257) of ustekinumab participants failed to maintain clinical response at 44 weeks compared to 56% (73/131) of placebo participants (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.91; moderate-certainty evidence). Eighty per cent (267/335) of ustekinumab participants had an AE compared to 84% (173/206) of placebo participants (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; high-certainty evidence). Commonly reported adverse events included infections, injection site reactions, CD event, abdominal pain, nausea, arthralgia, and headache. Eleven per cent of ustekinumab participants had an SAE compared to 16% (32/206) of placebo participants (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.15; moderate-certainty evidence). SAEs included serious infections, malignant neoplasm, and basal cell carcinoma. Seven per cent (5/73) of ustekinumab participants withdrew from the study due to an AE compared to 1% (1/72) of placebo participants (RR 4.93, 95% CI 0.59 to 41.18; low-certainty evidence). Worsening CD was the most common reason for withdrawal due to an AE. One study compared intravenous briakinumab (200 mg, 400 mg, or 700 mg) administered at weeks 12, 16, and 20 with placebo. Failure to maintain clinical remission at 24 weeks was seen in 51% (32/63) of briakinumab participants compared to 61% (22/36) of placebo participants (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.20; low-certainty evidence). Failure to maintain clinical response at 24 weeks was seen in 33% (21/63) of briakinumab participants compared to 53% (19/36) of placebo participants (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.02; low-certainty evidence). Sixty-six per cent (59/90) of briakinumab participants had an AE compared to 64% (9/14) of placebo participants (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.55; low-certainty evidence). Common AEs included upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, abdominal pain, headache, and injection site reaction. Two per cent (2/90) of briakinumab participants had an SAE compared to 7% (1/14) of placebo participants (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.21; low-certainty evidence). SAEs included small bowel obstruction, deep vein thrombosis, and respiratory distress. Withdrawal due to an AE was noted in 2% of briakinumab participants compared to 0% (0/14) of placebo participants (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.04 to 16.34; low-certainty evidence). The AEs leading to study withdrawal were not described. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that ustekinumab is probably effective for the maintenance of clinical remission and response in people with moderate to severe CD in remission without an increased risk of adverse events (high-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events (moderate-certainty evidence) relative to placebo. The effect of briakinumab on maintenance of clinical remission and response in people with moderate to severe Crohn's disease in remission was uncertain as the certainty of the evidence was low. The effect of briakinumab on adverse events and serious adverse events was also uncertain due to low-certainty evidence. Further studies are required to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of subcutaneous ustekinumab maintenance therapy in Crohn's disease and whether it should be used by itself or in combination with other agents. Future research comparing ustekinumab with other biologic medications will help to determine when treatment with ustekinumab in CD is most appropriate. Currently, there is an ongoing study that compares ustekinumab with adalimumab. This review will be updated when the results of this study become available. The manufacturers of briakinumab have stopped production of this medication, thus further studies of briakinumab are unlikely.

Adalimumab for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Adalimumab is an IgG1 monoclonal antibody that targets and blocks tumor necrosis factor-alpha, a pro-inflammatory cytokine involved in the pathogenesis of Crohn's disease (CD). A significant proportion of people with CD fail conventional therapy or therapy with biologics or develop significant adverse events. Adalimumab may be an effective alternative for these individuals. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to assess the efficacy and safety of adalimumab for the induction of remission in CD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, ClinicalTrials.Gov and the World Health Organization trial registry (ICTRP) from inception to 16 April 2019. References and conference abstracts were searched to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose of adalimumab to placebo or an active comparator in participants with active CD were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. The primary outcome was the failure to achieve clinical remission, as defined by the original studies. Clinical remission was defined as a Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of less than 150 points. Secondary outcomes included failure to achieve clinical response (defined as a decrease in CDAI of > 100 points or > 70 points from baseline), failure to achieve endoscopic remission and response, failure to achieve histological remission and response, failure to achieve steroid withdrawal, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs), withdrawal from study due to AEs and quality of life measured by a validated instrument. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes. Data were pooled for analysis if the participants, interventions, outcomes and time frame were similar. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Three placebo-controlled RCTs (714 adult participants) were included. The participants had moderate to severely active CD (CDAI 220 to 450). Two studies were rated as at low risk of bias and one study was rated as at unclear risk of bias. Seventy-six per cent (342/451) of adalimumab participants failed to achieve clinical remission at four weeks compared to 91% (240/263) of placebo participants (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.90; high-certainty evidence). Forty-four per cent (197/451) of adalimumab participants compared to 66% (173/263) of placebo participants failed to achieve a 70-point clinical response at four weeks (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.79; high-certainty evidence). At four weeks, 57% (257/451) of adalimumab participants failed to achieve a 100-point clinical response compared to 76% (199/263) of placebo participants (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.86; high-certainty evidence). Sixty-two per cent (165/268) of adalimumab participants experienced an AE compared to 72% (188/263) of participants in the placebo group (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09; moderate-certainty evidence). Two percent (6/268) of adalimumab participants experienced a SAE compared to 5% (13/263) of participants in the placebo group (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.15; low-certainty evidence). Lastly, 1% (3/268) of adalimumab participants withdrew due to AEs compared to 3% (8/268) of participants in the placebo group (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.30; low-certainty evidence). Commonly reported adverse events included injection site reactions, abdominal pain, fatigue, worsening CD and nausea. Quality of life data did not allow for meta-analysis. Three studies reported better quality of life at four weeks with adalimumab (measured with either Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire or Short-Form 36; moderate-certainty evidence). Endoscopic remission and response, histologic remission and response, and steroid withdrawal were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-certainty evidence suggests that adalimumab is superior to placebo for induction of clinical remission and clinical response in people with moderate to severely active CD. Although the rates of AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to AEs were lower in adalimumab participants compared to placebo, we are uncertain about the effect of adalimumab on AEs due to the low number of events. Therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the safety of adalimumab in CD. Futher studies are required to look at the long-term effectiveness and safety of using adalimumab in participants with CD.

Interventions for maintenance of surgically induced remission in Crohn's disease: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic disease of the gut. About 75% of people with CD undergo surgery at least once in their lifetime to induce remission. However, as there is no known cure for the disease, patients usually experience a recurrence even after surgery. Different interventions are routinely used in maintaining postsurgical remission. There is currently no consensus on which treatment is the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and harms of interventions for the maintenance of surgically induced remission in Crohn's disease and rank the treatments in order of effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 15 January 2019. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles, abstracts from major gastroenterology meetings, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. There was no restriction on language, date, or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different interventions used for maintaining surgically induced remission in people with CD who were in postsurgical remission. Participants had to have received maintenance treatment for at least three months. We excluded studies assessing enteral diet, diet manipulation, herbal medicine, and nutritional supplementation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected relevant studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by arbitration of a third review author when necessary. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Bayesian approach through Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation. For the pairwise comparisons carried out in Review Manager 5, we calculated risk ratios (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). For the NMA, we presented hazard ratios (HR) with corresponding 95% credible intervals (95% CrI) and reported ranking probabilities for each intervention. For the NMA, we focused on three main outcomes: clinical relapse, endoscopic relapse, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Data were insufficient to assess time to relapse and histologic relapse. Adverse events and serious adverse events were not sufficiently or objectively reported to permit an NMA. We used CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) methods to evaluate our confidence in the findings within networks, and GRADE for entire networks. MAIN RESULTS: We included 35 RCTs (3249 participants) in the review. The average age of study participants ranged between 33.6 and 38.8 years. Risk of bias was high in 18 studies, low in four studies, and unclear in 13 studies. Of the 35 included RCTs, 26 studies (2581 participants; 9 interventions) were considered eligible for inclusion in the NMA. The interventions studied included 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), adalimumab, antibiotics, budesonide, infliximab, probiotics, purine analogues, sulfasalazine, and a combination of sulfasalazine and prednisolone. This resulted in 30 direct contrasts, which informed 102 mixed-treatment contrasts.The evidence for the clinical relapse network (21 studies; 2245 participants) and endoscopic relapse (12 studies; 1128 participants) were of low certainty while the evidence for withdrawal due to adverse events (15 studies; 1498 participants) was of very low certainty. This assessment was due to high risk of bias in most of the studies, inconsistency, and imprecision across networks. We mainly judged individual contrasts as of low or very low certainty, except 5-ASA versus placebo, the evidence for which was judged as of moderate certainty.We ranked the treatments based on effectiveness and the certainty of the evidence. For clinical relapse, the five most highly ranked treatments were adalimumab, infliximab, budesonide, 5-ASA, and purine analogues. We found some evidence that adalimumab (HR 0.11, 95% Crl 0.02 to 0.33; low-certainty evidence) and 5-ASA may reduce the probability of clinical relapse compared to placebo (HR 0.69, 95% Crl 0.53 to 0.87; moderate-certainty evidence). However, budesonide may not be effective in preventing clinical relapse (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.27 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence). We are less confident about the effectiveness of infliximab (HR 0.36, 95% CrI 0.02 to 1.74; very low-certainty evidence) and purine analogues (HR 0.75, 95% CrI 0.55 to 1.00; low-certainty evidence). It was unclear whether the other interventions reduced the probability of a clinical relapse, as the certainty of the evidence was very low.Due to high risk of bias and limited data across the network, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of interventions for preventing endoscopic relapse. Whilst there might be some evidence of prevention of endoscopic relapse with adalimumab (HR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01 to 0.32; low-certainty evidence), no other intervention studied appeared to be effective.Due to high risk of bias and limited data across the network, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of interventions for preventing withdrawal due to adverse events. Withdrawal due to adverse events appeared to be least likely with sulfasalazine (HR 1.96, 95% Crl 0.00 to 8.90; very low-certainty evidence) and most likely with antibiotics (HR 53.92, 95% Crl 0.43 to 259.80; very low-certainty evidence). When considering the network as a whole, two adverse events leading to study withdrawal (i.e. pancreatitis and leukopenia) occurred in more than 1% of participants treated with an intervention. Pancreatitis occurred in 2.8% (11/399) of purine analogue participants compared to 0.17% (2/1210) of all other groups studied. Leukopenia occurred in 2.5% (10/399) of purine analogue participants compared to 0.08% (1/1210) of all other groups studied. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to low-certainty evidence in the networks, we are unable to draw conclusions on which treatment is most effective for preventing clinical relapse and endoscopic relapse. Evidence on the safety of the interventions was inconclusive, however cases of pancreatitis and leukopenia from purine analogues were evident in the studies. Larger trials are needed to further understand the effect of the interventions on endoscopic relapse.

Antibiotics for induction and maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Several antibiotics have been evaluated in Crohn's disease (CD), however randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics for induction and maintenance of remission in CD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register and Clinicaltrials.gov database from inception to 28 February 2018. We also searched reference lists and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing antibiotics to placebo or an active comparator in adult (> 15 years) CD patients were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors screened search results and extracted data. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes were failure to achieve clinical remission and relapse. Secondary outcomes included clinical response, endoscopic response, endoscopic remission, endoscopic relapse, histologic response, histologic remission, adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, withdrawal due to AEs and quality of life. Remission is commonly defined as a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) of < 150. Clinical response is commonly defined as a decrease in CDAI from baseline of 70 or 100 points. Relapse is defined as a CDAI > 150. For studies that enrolled participants with fistulizing CD, response was defined as a 50% reduction in draining fistulas. Remission was defined as complete closure of fistulas. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI for continuous outcomes. GRADE was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs (N = 1303 participants) were eligible. Two trials were rated as high risk of bias (no blinding). Seven trials were rated as unclear risk of bias and four trials were rated as low risk of bias. Comparisons included ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) versus placebo, rifaximin (800 to 2400 mg daily) versus placebo, metronidazole (400 mg to 500 mg twice daily) versus placebo, clarithromycin (1 g/day) versus placebo, cotrimoxazole (960 mg twice daily) versus placebo, ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) and metronidazole (250 mg four time daily) versus methylprednisolone (0.7 to 1 mg/kg daily), ciprofloxacin (500 mg daily), metronidazole (500 mg daily) and budesonide (9 mg daily) versus placebo with budesonide (9 mg daily), ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) versus mesalazine (2 g twice daily), ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) with adalimumab versus placebo with adalimumab, ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) with infliximab versus placebo with infliximab, clarithromycin (750 mg daily) and antimycobacterial versus placebo, and metronidazole (400 mg twice daily) and cotrimoxazole (960 mg twice daily) versus placebo. We pooled all antibiotics as a class versus placebo and antibiotics with anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) versus placebo with anti-TNF.The effect of individual antibiotics on CD was generally uncertain due to imprecision. When we pooled antibiotics as a class, 55% (289/524) of antibiotic participants failed to achieve remission at 6 to 10 weeks compared with 64% (149/231) of placebo participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.98; 7 studies; high certainty evidence). At 10 to 14 weeks, 41% (174/428) of antibiotic participants failed to achieve a clinical response compared to 49% (93/189) of placebo participants (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.93; 5 studies; moderate certainty evidence). The effect of antibiotics on relapse in uncertain. Forty-five per cent (37/83) of antibiotic participants relapsed at 52 weeks compared to 57% (41/72) of placebo participants (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.47; 2 studies; low certainty evidence). Relapse of endoscopic remission was not reported in the included studies. Antibiotics do not appear to increase the risk of AEs. Thirty-eight per cent (214/568) of antibiotic participants had at least one adverse event compared to 45% (128/284) of placebo participants (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02; 9 studies; high certainty evidence). The effect of antibiotics on serious AEs and withdrawal due to AEs was uncertain. Two per cent (6/377) of antibiotic participants had at least one adverse event compared to 0.7% (1/143) of placebo participants (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.29 to 10.01; 3 studies; low certainty evidence). Nine per cent (53/569) of antibiotic participants withdrew due to AEs compared to 12% (36/289) of placebo participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.29; 9 studies; low certainty evidence) is uncertain. Common adverse events in the studies included gastrointestinal upset, upper respiratory tract infection, abscess formation and headache, change in taste and paraesthesiaWhen we pooled antibiotics used with anti-TNF, 21% (10/48) of patients on combination therapy failed to achieve a clinical response(50% closure of fistulas) or remission (closure of fistulas) at week 12 compared with 36% (19/52) of placebo and anti-TNF participants (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.10; 2 studies; low certainty evidence). These studies did not assess the effect of antibiotics and anti-TNF on clinical or endoscopic relapse. Seventy-seven per cent (37/48) of antibiotics and anti-TNF participants had an AE compared to 83% (43/52) of anti-TNF and placebo participants (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.12; 2 studies, moderate certainty evidence). The effect of antibiotics and anti-TNF on withdrawal due to AEs is uncertain. Six per cent (3/48) of antibiotics and anti-TNF participants withdrew due to an AE compared to 8% (4/52) of anti-TNF and placebo participants (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.45; 2 studies, low certainty evidence). Common adverse events included nausea, vomiting, upper respiratory tract infections, change in taste, fatigue and headache AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate to high quality evidence suggests that any benefit provided by antibiotics in active CD is likely to be modest and may not be clinically meaningful. High quality evidence suggests that there is no increased risk of adverse events with antibiotics compared to placebo. The effect of antibiotics on the risk of serious adverse events is uncertain. The effect of antibiotics on maintenance of remission in CD is uncertain. Thus, no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of antibiotics for maintenance of remission in CD can be drawn. More research is needed to determine the efficacy and safety of antibiotics as therapy in CD.

Dietary interventions for induction and maintenance of remission in inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), comprised of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), is characterized by chronic mucosal inflammation, frequent hospitalizations, adverse health economics, and compromised quality of life. Diet has been hypothesised to influence IBD activity. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dietary interventions on IBD outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP from inception to 31 January 2019. We also scanned reference lists of included studies, relevant reviews and guidelines. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of dietary manipulations to other diets in participants with IBD. Studies that exclusively focused on enteral nutrition, oral nutrient supplementation, medical foods, probiotics, and parenteral nutrition were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data and assessed bias using the risk of bias tool. We conducted meta-analyses where possible using a random-effects model and calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: The review included 18 RCTs with 1878 participants. The studies assessed different dietary interventions for active CD (six studies), inactive CD (seven studies), active UC (one study) and inactive UC (four studies). Dietary interventions involved either the consumption of low amounts or complete exclusion of one or more food groups known to trigger IBD symptoms. There was limited scope for data pooling as the interventions and control diets were diverse. The studies were mostly inadequately powered. Fourteen studies were rated as high risk of bias. The other studies were rated as unclear risk of bias.The effect of high fiber, low refined carbohydrates, low microparticle diet, low calcium diet, symptoms-guided diet and highly restricted organic diet on clinical remission in active CD is uncertain. At 4 weeks, remission was induced in: 100% (4/4) of participants in the low refined carbohydrates diet group compared to 0% (0/3) of participants in the control group (RR 7.20, 95% CI 0.53 to 97.83; 7 participants; 1 study; very low certainty evidence). At 16 weeks, 44% (23/52) of participants in the low microparticle diet achieved clinical remission compared to 25% (13/51) of control-group participants (RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.22 to 43.84; 103 participants; 2 studies; I² = 73%; very low certainty evidence). Fifty per cent (16/32) of participants in the symptoms-guided diet group achieved clinical remission compared to 0% (0/19) of control group participants (RR 20.00, 95% CI 1.27 to 315.40; 51 participants ; 1 study; very low certainty evidence) (follow-up unclear). At 24 weeks, 50% (4/8) of participants in the highly restricted organic diet achieved clinical remission compared to 50% (5/10) of participants in the control group (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.53; 18 participants; 1 study; very low certainty evidence). At 16 weeks, 37% (16/43) participants following a low calcium diet achieved clinical remission compared to 30% (12/40) in the control group (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.29; 83 participants; 1 study; very low certainty evidence).The effect of low refined carbohydrate diets, symptoms-guided diets and low red processed meat diets on relapse in inactive CD is uncertain. At 12 to 24 months, 67% (176/264) of participants in low refined carbohydrate diet relapsed compared to 64% (193/303) in the control group (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.25; 567 participants; 3 studies; I² = 35%; low certainty evidence). At 6 to 24 months, 48% (24/50) of participants in the symptoms-guided diet group relapsed compared to 83% (40/48) participants in the control diet (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.01; 98 participants ; 2 studies; I² = 54%; low certainty evidence). At 48 weeks, 66% (63/96) of participants in the low red and processed meat diet group relapsed compared to 63% (75/118) of the control group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.26; 214 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). At 12 months, 0% (0/16) of participants on an exclusion diet comprised of low disaccharides / grains / saturated fats / red and processed meat experienced clinical relapse compared to 26% (10/38) of participants on a control group (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.76; 54 participants; 1 study; very low certainty evidence).The effect of a symptoms-guided diet on clinical remission in active UC is uncertain. At six weeks, 36% (4/11) of symptoms-guided diet participants achieved remission compared to 0% (0/10) of usual diet participants (RR 8.25, 95% CI 0.50 to 136.33; 21 participants; 1 study; very low certainty evidence).The effect of the Alberta-based anti-inflammatory diet, the Carrageenan-free diet or milk-free diet on relapse rates in inactive UC is uncertain. At 6 months, 36% (5/14) of participants in the Alberta-based anti-inflammatory diet group relapsed compared to 29% (4/14) of participants in the control group (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.70; 28 participants; 1 study; very low certainty evidence). Thirty per cent (3/10) of participants following the carrageenan-free diet for 12 months relapsed compared to 60% (3/5) of the participants in the control group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.64; 15 participants; 1 study; very low certainty evidence). At 12 months, 59% (23/39) of milk free diet participants relapsed compared to 68% (26/38) of control diet participants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.15; 77 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence).None of the included studies reported on diet-related adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of dietary interventions on CD and UC are uncertain. Thus no firm conclusions regarding the benefits and harms of dietary interventions in CD and UC can be drawn. There is need for consensus on the composition of dietary interventions in IBD and more RCTs are required to evaluate these interventions. Currently, there are at least five ongoing studies (estimated enrollment of 498 participants). This review will be updated when the results of these studies are available.

Cannabis for the treatment of ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis and cannabinoids are often promoted as treatment for many illnesses and are widely used among patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Few studies have evaluated the use of these agents in UC. Further, cannabis has potential for adverse events and the long-term consequences of cannabis and cannabinoid use in UC are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids for the treatment of patients with UC. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTRP, AMED, PsychINFO, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov and the European Clinical Trials Register from inception to 2 January 2018. Conference abstracts and references were searched to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any form or dose of cannabis or its cannabinoid derivatives (natural or synthetic) to placebo or an active therapy for adults (> 18 years) with UC were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes were clinical remission and relapse (as defined by the primary studies). Secondary outcomes included clinical response, endoscopic remission, endoscopic response, histological response, quality of life, C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin measurements, symptom improvement, adverse events, serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, psychotropic adverse events, and cannabis dependence and withdrawal effects. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI. Data were pooled for analysis when the interventions, patient groups and outcomes were sufficiently similar (determined by consensus). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. GRADE was used to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs (92 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One study (N = 60) compared 10 weeks of cannabidiol capsules with up to 4.7% D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) with placebo capsules in participants with mild to moderate UC. The starting dose of cannabidiol was 50 mg twice daily increasing to 250 mg twice daily if tolerated. Another study (N = 32) compared 8 weeks of therapy with two cannabis cigarettes per day containing 0.5 g of cannabis, corresponding to 23 mg THC/day to placebo cigarettes in participants with UC who did not respond to conventional medical treatment. No studies were identified that assessed cannabis therapy in quiescent UC. The first study was rated as low risk of bias and the second study (published as an abstract) was rated as high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. The studies were not pooled due to differences in the interventional drug.The effect of cannabidiol capsules (100 mg to 500 mg daily) compared to placebo on clinical remission and response is uncertain. Clinical remission at 10 weeks was achieved by 24% (7/29) of the cannabidiol group compared to 26% (8/31) in the placebo group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.25; low certainty evidence). Clinical response at 10 weeks was achieved in 31% (9/29) of cannabidiol participants compared to 22% (7/31) of placebo patients (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.21; low certainty evidence). Serum CRP levels were similar in both groups after 10 weeks of therapy. The mean CRP in the cannabidiol group was 9.428 mg/L compared to 7.638 mg/L in the placebo group (MD 1.79, 95% CI -5.67 to 9.25; moderate certainty evidence). There may be a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life at 10 weeks, measured with the IBDQ scale (MD 17.4, 95% CI -3.45 to 38.25; moderate certainty evidence). Adverse events were more frequent in cannabidiol participants compared to placebo. One hundred per cent (29/29) of cannabidiol participants had an adverse event, compared to 77% (24/31) of placebo participants (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.05 to1.56; moderate certainty evidence). However, these adverse events were considered to be mild or moderate in severity. Common adverse events included dizziness, disturbance in attention, headache, nausea and fatigue. None (0/29) of the cannabidiol participants had a serious adverse event compared to 13% (4/31) of placebo participants (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.11; low certainty evidence). Serious adverse events in the placebo group included worsening of UC and one complicated pregnancy. These serious adverse events were thought to be unrelated to the study drug. More participants in the cannabidiol group withdrew due to an adverse event than placebo participants. Thirty-four per cent (10/29) of cannabidiol participants withdrew due to an adverse event compared to 16% (5/31) of placebo participants (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.83 to 5.51; low certainty evidence). Withdrawls in the cannabidiol group were mostly due to dizziness. Withdrawals in the placebo group were due to worsening UC.The effect of cannabis cigarettes (23 mg THC/day) compared to placebo on mean disease activity, CRP levels and mean fecal calprotectin levels is uncertain. After 8 weeks, the mean disease activity index score in cannabis participants was 4 compared with 8 in placebo participants (MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.98 to -2.02). After 8 weeks, the mean change in CRP levels was similar in both groups (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.35 to 0.75; low certainty evidence). The mean fecal calprotectin level in cannabis participants was 115 mg/dl compared to 229 mg/dl in placebo participants (MD -114.00, 95% CI -246.01 to 18.01). No serious adverse events were observed. This study did not report on clinical remission, clinical response, quality of life, adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of cannabis and cannabidiol on UC are uncertain, thus no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of cannabis or cannabidiol in adults with active UC can be drawn.There is no evidence for cannabis or cannabinoid use for maintenance of remission in UC. Further studies with a larger number of patients are required to assess the effects of cannabis in UC patients with active and quiescent disease. Different doses of cannabis and routes of administration should be investigated. Lastly, follow-up is needed to assess the long term safety outcomes of frequent cannabis use.

Cannabis for the treatment of Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic immune-mediated condition of transmural inflammation in the gastrointestinal tract, associated with significant morbidity and decreased quality of life. The endocannabinoid system provides a potential therapeutic target for cannabis and cannabinoids and animal models have shown benefit in decreasing inflammation. However, there is also evidence to suggest transient adverse events such as weakness, dizziness and diarrhea, and an increased risk of surgery in people with CD who use cannabis. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids for induction and maintenance of remission in people with CD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsychINFO, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and the European Clinical Trials Register up to 17 October 2018. We searched conference abstracts, references and we also contacted researchers in this field for upcoming publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing any form of cannabis or its cannabinoid derivatives (natural or synthetic) to placebo or an active therapy for adults with Crohn's disease were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes were clinical remission and relapse. Remission is commonly defined as a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) of < 150. Relapse is defined as a CDAI > 150. Secondary outcomes included clinical response, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, histological improvement, quality of life, C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin measurements, adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, withdrawal due to AEs, and cannabis dependence and withdrawal effects. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. Data were combined for analysis when the interventions, patient groups and outcomes were sufficiently similar (determined by consensus). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis and the overall certainty of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies (93 participants) that assessed cannabis in people with active CD met the inclusion criteria. One ongoing study was also identified. Participants in two of the studies were adults with active Crohn's disease who had failed at least one medical treatment. The inclusion criteria for the third study were unclear. No studies that assessed cannabis therapy in quiescent CD were identified. The studies were not pooled due to differences in the interventional drug.One small study (N = 21) compared eight weeks of treatment with cannabis cigarettes containing 115 mg of D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to placebo cigarettes containing cannabis with the THC removed in participants with active CD. This study was rated as high risk of bias for blinding and other bias (cannabis participants were older than placebo). The effects of cannabis on clinical remission were unclear. Forty-five per cent (5/11) of the cannabis group achieved clinical remission compared with 10% (1/10) of the placebo group (RR 4.55, 95% CI 0.63 to 32.56; very low certainty evidence). A difference was observed in clinical response (decrease in CDAI score of >100 points) rates. Ninety-one per cent (10/11) of the cannabis group achieved a clinical response compared to 40% (4/10) of the placebo group (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.97; very low certainty evidence). More AEs were observed in the cannabis cigarette group compared to placebo (RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.15 to 14.57; very low certainty evidence). These AEs were considered to be mild in nature and included sleepiness, nausea, difficulty with concentration, memory loss, confusion and dizziness. This study did not report on serious AEs or withdrawal due to AEs.One small study (N = 22) compared cannabis oil (5% cannabidiol) to placebo oil in people with active CD. This study was rated as high risk of bias for other bias (cannabis participants were more likely than placebo participants to be smokers). There was no difference in clinical remission rates. Forty per cent (4/10) of cannabis oil participants achieved remission at 8 weeks compared to 33% (3/9) of the placebo participants (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.97; very low certainty evidence). There was no difference in the proportion of participants who had a serious adverse event. Ten per cent (1/10) of participants in the cannabis oil group had a serious adverse event compared to 11% (1/9) of placebo participants (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.38, very low certainty evidence). Both serious AEs were worsening Crohn's disease that required rescue intervention. This study did not report on clinical response, CRP, quality of life or withdrawal due to AEs.One small study (N= 50) compared cannabis oil (15% cannabidiol and 4% THC) to placebo in participants with active CD. This study was rated as low risk of bias. Differences in CDAI and quality of life scores measured by the SF-36 instrument were observed. The mean quality of life score after 8 weeks of treatment was 96.3 in the cannabis oil group compared to 79.9 in the placebo group (MD 16.40, 95% CI 5.72 to 27.08, low certainty evidence). After 8 weeks of treatment, the mean CDAI score was118.6 in the cannabis oil group compared to 212.6 in the placebo group (MD -94.00, 95%CI -148.86 to -39.14, low certainty evidence). This study did not report on clinical remission, clinical response, CRP or AEs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of cannabis and cannabis oil on Crohn's disease are uncertain. Thus no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabis oil in adults with active Crohn's disease can be drawn. The effects of cannabis or cannabis oil in quiescent Crohn's disease have not been investigated. Further studies with larger numbers of participants are required to assess the potential benefits and harms of cannabis in Crohn's disease. Future studies should assess the effects of cannabis in people with active and quiescent Crohn's disease. Different doses of cannabis and delivery modalities should be investigated.

Enteral nutrition for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of relapse is a major issue in the management of quiescent Crohn's disease (CD). Current therapies (e.g. methotrexate, biologics, 6-mercaptopurine and azathioprine) may be effective for maintaining remission in CD, but these drugs may cause significant adverse events. Interventions that are effective and safe for maintenance of remission in CD are desirable. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of enteral nutrition for the maintenance of remission in CD and to assess the impact of formula composition on effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 27 July 2018. We also searched references of retrieved studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants of any age with quiescent CD were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared enteral nutrition with no intervention, placebo or any other intervention were selected for review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was clinical or endoscopic relapse as defined by the primary studies. Secondary outcomes included anthropometric measures (i.e. height and weight), quality of life (QoL), adverse events, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. We calculated the risk ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference and 95% CI. A random-effects model was used for the statistical analysis. We used the GRADE criteria to assess the overall certainty of the evidence supporting the primary outcome and selected secondary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs (262 adult participants) met the inclusion criteria. One study (N = 33) compared an elemental diet to a non-elemental (polymeric) diet. One study (N = 51) compared a half elemental diet to a regular free diet. Another study (N = 95) compared an elemental diet to 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) or a no treatment control group. One study (N= 83) compared a polymeric diet to mesalamine. Two studies were rated as high risk of bias due to lack of blinding or incomplete outcome data. The other two studies were judged to have an unclear risk of bias. The studies were not pooled due to differences in control interventions and the way outcomes were assessed.The effect of an elemental diet compared to a polymeric diet on remission rates or withdrawal due to adverse events is uncertain. Fifty-eight per cent (11/19) of participants in the elemental diet group relapsed at 12 months compared to 57% (8/14) of participants in the polymeric diet group (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.84; very low certainty evidence). Thirty-two per cent (6/19) of participants in the elemental diet group were intolerant to the enteral nutritional formula because of taste or smell and were withdrawn from the study in the first 2 weeks compared to zero participants (0/14) in the polymeric diet group (RR 9.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 159.93; low certainty evidence). Anthropometric measures, QoL, adverse events and serious adverse events were not reported as outcomes.The effect of an elemental diet (half of total daily calorie requirements) compared to a normal free diet on relapse rates is uncertain. Thirty-five per cent (9/26) of participants in the elemental diet group relapsed at 12 months compared to 64% (16/25) of participants in the free diet group (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; very low certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported. This study reported no differences in weight change between the two diet groups. Height and QoL were not reported as outcomes.The effect of an elemental diet compared to 6-MP on relapse rates or adverse events is uncertain. Thirty-eight per cent (12/32) of participants in the elemental diet group relapsed at 12 months compared to 23% (7/30) of participants in the 6-MP group (RR 1.61; 95% CI 0.73 to 3.53; very low certainty evidence). Three per cent (1/32) of participants in the elemental diet group had an adverse event compared to 13% (4/30) of participants in the 6-MP group (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.98; low certainty evidence). Adverse events in the elemental diet group included surgery due to worsening CD. Adverse events in the 6-MP group included liver injury (n = 2), hair loss (n = 1) and surgery due to an abscess (n = 1). No serious adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events were reported. Weight, height and QoL were not reported as outcomesThe effect of a polymeric diet compared to mesalamine on relapse rates and weight is uncertain. Forty-two per cent (18/43) of participants in the polymeric diet group relapsed at 6 months compared to 55% (22/40) of participants in the mesalamine group (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.19; low certainty evidence). The mean difference in weight gain over the study period was 1.9 kg higher in the polymeric diet group compared to mesalamine (95% CI -4.62 to 8.42; low certainty evidence). Two participants in the polymeric diet group experienced nausea and four had diarrhoea. It is unclear if any participants in the mesalamine group had an adverse event. Height, QoL, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events were not reported as outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results for the outcomes assessed in this review are uncertain and no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of enteral nutrition in quiescent CD can be drawn. More research is needed to determine the efficacy and safety of using enteral nutrition as maintenance therapy in CD. Currently, there are four ongoing studies (estimated enrolment of 280 participants). This review will be updated when the results of these studies are available.

Natalizumab for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review update summarizes the current evidence on the use of natalizumab for induction of remission in Crohn's disease (CD). OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of natalizumab for induction of remission in CD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 10 May 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing natalizumab to a placebo or control therapy for induction of remission in CD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was failure to enter clinical remission. Secondary outcomes included clinical response, mean change in Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI), adverse events (AEs), withdrawal due to AEs and serious AEs. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. Data were pooled for meta-analysis when the interventions, patient groups and outcomes were sufficiently similar (determined by consensus). We used GRADE to assess the overall quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: A total of five RCTs (1771 participants) were included. Four studies (1692 participants) compared one, two or three infusions of natalizumab (300 mg or 3 mg/kg or 6mg/kg) to placebo. One study (79 participants) compared three infusions of natalizumab (300 mg) and infliximab (5 mg/kg) to infliximab and placebo. Four studies were rated as low risk of bias. One study was rated as unclear risk of bias for selective reporting.One, two and three infusions of natalizumab were superior to placebo for induction of remission and clinical response. Infusions were administered at weeks zero, four and eight. After one infusion, 76% (849/1117) of natalizumab participants failed to enter remission at 4 weeks compared to 83% (411/494) of placebo participants (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.96, 3 studies, GRADE high quality). At 4 weeks, the RR for clinical response was 0.78 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.92, 3 studies, 1611 participants, GRADE moderate quality). After two infusions, after 8 weeks, 66% (693/1049) of natalizumab participants failed to enter remission compared to 77% (382/494) of placebo participants (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95; 3 studies, GRADE moderate quality). At 8 weeks, the RR for clinical response was 0.73 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.91, 3 studies, 1543 participants, GRADE low quality). After three infusions, at 12 weeks, 61% (596/983) of natalizumab participants failed to enter remission compared to 73% (313/431) of placebo participants (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.92, 2 studies, GRADE high quality). At 12 weeks, the RR for clinical response was 0.76 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, 2 studies, 1414 participants, GRADE high quality). One study (507 participants) reported on change in CADI from baseline. Natalizumab participants had a larger drop in mean CDAI scores than placebo participants at 4, 8 and 12 weeks.The rates of AEs, withdrawals due to AEs and serious AEs were similar across groups at 4, 8 and 12 weeks. After one infusion, 74% (50/68) of natalizumab participants experienced an AE compared to 81% (51/63) of placebo participants (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09, GRADE moderate quality). Withdrawal due to an AE occurred in 1% (1/68) of natalizumab participants and 3% of placebo participants (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.98, GRADE low quality). SAEs occurred in 10% (7/68) of natalizumab participants compared to 11% (7/63) of placebo participants (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.49, GRADE low quality). After two infusions, 86% (57/66) of natalizumab participants experienced an AE compared to 81% (51/63) of placebo participants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.24, GRADE moderate quality). Withdrawal due to an AE occurred in 3% (2/66) natalizumab participants compared to 3% (2/63) placebo participants (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.57, GRADE low quality). SAEs occurred in 9% (6/66) of natalizumab participants and 11% (7/63) of placebo participants (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.30, GRADE low quality). After three infusions, 86% (848/984) of natalizumab participants experienced an AE compared to 83% (359/431) placebo participants (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.08, GRADE high quality). Withdrawals due to AEs occurred in 8% (82/984) of natalizumab participants compared to 10% (45/431) of placebo participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.26, GRADE moderate quality). SAEs occurred in 7% (65/983) of natalizumab participants and 8% (36/431) of placebo participants (RR 0.76. 95% CI 0.37 to 1.56, GRADE low quality). Adverse events included headache, nausea, nasopharyngitis, abdominal pain, fatigue, vomiting, and exacerbation of CD.The study comparing combination therapy with natalizumab and infliximab to infliximab and placebo demonstrated similar remission rates at 10 weeks. Sixty-four per cent (33/52) of participants assigned to natalizumab and infliximab failed to achieve remission compared to 70% (19/27) assigned to placebo and infliximab (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.24, GRADE moderate quality). The rates of AEs (moderate quality evidence), withdrawals due to AEs (low quality evidence) and serious AEs (low quality evidence) were similar across groups at 10 weeks. Adverse events included headache, exacerbation of CD, nausea, and nasopharyngitis.Natalizumab is associated with the development of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) resulting in some patient deaths. There are currently no tests which can reliably predict those at risk of developing PML. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High quality data suggest that natalizumab is effective for induction of clinical remission and response in some patients with moderately to severely active CD. However, none of the included studies had the power to detect rare but serious adverse events such as PML. Due to the association with PML, and the availability of alternative agents that are not associated with PML, natalizumab is not likely to be used in patients who fail currently available medical therapy. The use of natalizumab in select patients (e.g. patients allergic to different biologics) needs to be carefully considered against the potential risk of developing PML. Futher studies of natalizumab are not likely to be done.

Low dose naltrexone for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease is a transmural, relapsing inflammatory condition afflicting the digestive tract. Opioid signalling, long known to affect secretion and motility in the gut, has been implicated in the inflammatory cascade of Crohn's disease. Low dose naltrexone, an opioid antagonist, has garnered interest as a potential therapy. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low dose naltrexone for induction of remission in Crohn's disease. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register was performed from inception to 15 January 2018 to identify relevant studies. Abstracts from major gastroenterology conferences including Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week and reference lists from retrieved articles were also screened. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of low dose naltrexone (LDN) for treatment of active Crohn's disease were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using Review Manager (RevMan 5.3.5). The primary outcome was induction of clinical remission defined by a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) of < 150 or a pediatric Crohn's disease activity index (PCDAI) of < 10. Secondary outcomes included clinical response (70- or 100-point decrease in CDAI from baseline), endoscopic remission or response, quality of life, and adverse events as defined by the included studies. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome and selected secondary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies were identified (46 participants). One study assessed the efficacy and safety of 12 weeks of LDN (4.5 mg/day) treatment compared to placebo in adult patients (N = 34). The other study assessed eight weeks of LDN (0.1 mg/kg, maximum 4.5 mg/day) treatment compared to placebo in pediatric patients (N = 12). The primary purpose of the pediatric study was to assess safety and tolerability. Both studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. The study in adult patients reported that 30% (5/18) of LDN treated patients achieved clinical remission at 12 weeks compared to 18% (3/16) of placebo patients, a difference that was not statistically significant (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.24). The study in children reported that 25% of LDN treated patients achieved clinical remission (PCDAI < 10) compared to none of the patients in the placebo group, although it was unclear if this result was for the randomized placebo-controlled trial or for the open label extension study. In the adult study 70-point clinical response rates were significantly higher in those treated with LDN than placebo. Eighty-three per cent (15/18) of LDN patients had a 70-point clinical response at week 12 compared to 38% (6/16) of placebo patients (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.32). The effect of LDN on the proportion of adult patients who achieved a 100-point clinical response was uncertain. Sixty-one per cent (11/18) of LDN patients achieved a 100-point clinical response compared to 31% (5/16) of placebo patients (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 4.42). The proportion of patients who achieved endoscopic response (CDEIS decline > 5 from baseline) was significantly higher in the LDN group compared to placebo. Seventy-two per cent (13/18) of LDN patients achieved an endoscopic response compared to 25% (4/16) of placebo patients (RR 2.89; 95% CI 1.18 to 7.08). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who achieved endoscopic remission. Endoscopic remission (CDEIS < 3) was achieved in 22% (4/18) of the LDN group compared to 0% (0/16) of the placebo group (RR 8.05; 95% CI 0.47 to 138.87). Pooled data from both studies show no statistically significant differences in withdrawals due to adverse events or specific adverse events including sleep disturbance, unusual dreams, headache, decreased appetite, nausea and fatigue. No serious adverse events were reported in either study. GRADE analyses rated the overall quality of the evidence for the primary and secondary outcomes (i.e. clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic response, and adverse events) as low due to serious imprecision (sparse data). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is insufficient evidence to allow any firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of LDN used to treat patients with active Crohn's disease. Data from one small study suggests that LDN may provide a benefit in terms of clinical and endoscopic response in adult patients with active Crohn's disease. Data from two small studies suggest that LDN does not increase the rate of specific adverse events relative to placebo. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution as they are based on very small numbers of patients and the overall quality of the evidence was rated as low due to serious imprecision. Further randomized controlled trials are required to assess the efficacy and safety of LDN therapy in active Crohn's disease in both adults and children.

Endoscopic scoring indices for evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic assessment of mucosal disease activity is routinely used to determine eligibility and response to therapy in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis. The operating properties of the existing endoscopic scoring indices are unclear. OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the development and operating characteristics of endoscopic scoring indices for the evaluation of ulcerative colitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 5 July 2016. We also searched references and conference proceedings (Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week, European Crohn's and Colitis Organization). SELECTION CRITERIA: Any study design (e.g. randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series) that evaluated endoscopic indices for evaluation of ulcerative colitis disease activity were considered for inclusion. Eligible participants were adult patients (> 16 years), diagnosed with ulcerative colitis using conventional clinical, radiologic and endoscopic criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed the studies identified from the literature search. These authors also independently extracted and recorded data on the number of patients enrolled; number of patients per treatment arm; patient characteristics including age and gender distribution; endoscopic index; and outcomes such as reliability (intra-rater and inter-rater), validity (content, construct, criterion), responsiveness and feasibility. Any disagreements regarding study inclusion or data extraction were resolved by discussion and consensus with a third author. Risk of bias was assessed by determining whether assessors were blinded to clinical information and whether assessors scored the endoscopic index independently. We also assessed the methodological quality of the validation studies using the COSMIN checklist MAIN RESULTS: A total of 23 reports of 20 studies met the pre-defined inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Of the 20 included validation studies, 19 endoscopic scoring indices were assessed, including the Azzolini Classification, Baron Score, Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation, Chinese Grading System of Ulcerative Colitis, Endoscopic Activty Index, Jeroen Score, Magnifying Colonoscopy Grade, Matts Score, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Modified Baron Score, Modified Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Osada Score, Rachmilewtiz Endoscopic Score, St. Mark's Index, Ulcerative Colitis Colonoscopic Index of Serverity (UCCIS), endoscopic component of the Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI), Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS), Witts Sigmoidoscopic Score and Watson Grade. The individuals who performed the endoscopic scoring were blinded to clinical and/or histologic information in ten of the included studies, not blinded to clinical and/or histologic information in one of the included studies, and it was unclear whether blinding occurred in the remaining nine included studies. Independent observation was confirmed in four of the included studies, unclear in five of the included studies, and non-applicable (since inter-rater reliability was not assessed) in the remaining eleven included studies. The methodological quality (COSMIN checklist) of most of the included studies was rated as 'good' or 'excellent'. One study that assessed responsiveness was rated as 'fair'. The inter-rater reliability of nine endoscopic scoring indices including the Baron Score, Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation, Endoscopic Activity Index, Matts Score, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Osada Score, UCCIS, UCEIS, Watson Grade was assessed in seven studies, with estimates of correlation, ƙ, ranging from 0.44 to 0.97. The iIntra-rater reliability of seven endoscopic scoring indices including the Baron Score, Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation, Matts Score, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Osada Score, UCCIS and UCEIS was assessed in three studies, with estimates of correlation, ƙ, ranging from 0.41 to 0.86. No studies assessed content validity. Three studies evaluated the criterion validity of three endoscopic scoring indices including the Rachmilewitz Endoscopic Score, Magnifying Colonoscopy Grade and the UCCIS. These indices were correlated with objective markers of disease activity including albumin, blood leukocytes, C-reactive protein, fecal calprotectin, hemoglobin, mucosal interleukin-8 concentration and platelet count. Correlation estimates ranged from r = -0.19 to 0.83. Thirteen endoscopic scoring indices were tested for construct validity in 13 studies. Estimates of correlation between the endoscopic scoring indices and other measures of disease activity ranged from r = 0.27 to 0.93. Two studies explored the responsiveness of four endoscopic scoring indices including the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore, Modified Baron Score, Modified Mayo Endoscopic Subscore and UCEIS. One study concluded that the Modified Baron Score, Modified Mayo Endoscopic Subscore and UCEIS had similar responsiveness for detecting disease change in ulcerative colitis. The other included study concluded that the UCEIS may be the most accurate endoscopic scoring tool. None of the included studies formally assessed feasibility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While the UCEIS, UCCIS and Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore have undergone extensive validation, none of these instruments have been fully validated and only two studies assessed responsiveness. Further research on the operating properties of these indices is needed given the lack of a fully-validated endoscopic scoring instrument for the evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis.

Individualized Venous Thromboembolism Risk Stratification Using the 2005 Caprini Score to Identify the Benefits and Harms of Chemoprophylaxis in Surgical Patients: A Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a meta-analysis to investigate benefits and harms of chemoprophylaxis among surgical patients individually risk stratified for venous thromboembolism (VTE) using Caprini scores. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Individualized VTE risk stratification may identify high risk surgical patients who benefit from peri-operative chemoprophylaxis. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) databases were queried. Eligible studies contained data on postoperative VTE and/or bleeding events with and without chemoprophylaxis. Primary outcomes included rates of VTE and clinically relevant bleeding after surgical procedures, stratified by Caprini score. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Among 13 included studies, 11 (n = 14,776) contained data for VTE events and 8 (n = 7590) contained data for clinically relevant bleeding with and without chemoprophylaxis. The majority of patients received mechanical prophylaxis. A 14-fold variation in VTE risk (from 0.7% to 10.7%) was identified among surgical patients who did not receive chemoprophylaxis, and patients at increased levels of Caprini risk were significantly more likely to have VTE. Patients with Caprini scores of 7 to 8 [odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.37-0.97] and >8 (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26-0.65) had significant VTE risk reduction after surgery with chemoprophylaxis. Patients with Caprini scores ≤6 comprised 75% of the overall population, and these patients did not have a significant VTE risk reduction with chemoprophylaxis. No association between postoperative bleeding risk and Caprini score was identified. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of peri-operative VTE chemoprophylaxis was only found among surgical patients with Caprini scores ≥7. Precision medicine using individualized VTE risk stratification helps ensure that chemoprophylaxis is used only in appropriate surgical patients and may minimize bleeding complications.

Interventions for treating collagenous colitis.

BACKGROUND: Collagenous colitis is a cause of chronic diarrhea. This updated review was performed to identify therapies for collagenous colitis that have been assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the benefits and harms of treatments for collagenous colitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to 7 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing a therapy with placebo or active comparator for the treatment of active or quiescent collagenous colitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted by two authors. The primary outcome was clinical response or maintenance of response as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcome measures included histological response, quality of life and the occurrence of adverse events. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess bias. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve RCTs (476 participants) were included. These studies assessed bismuth subsalicylate, Boswellia serrata extract, mesalamine, cholestyramine, probiotics, prednisolone and budesonide therapy. Four studies were low risk of bias. One study assessing mesalamine and cholestyramine was judged to be high risk of bias due to no blinding. The other studies had an unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (five studies) allocation concealment (six studies), blinding (one study), incomplete outcome data (one study) and selective outcome reporting (one study). Clinical response occurred in 100% (4/4) of patients who received bismuth subsalicylate (nine 262 mg tablets daily for 8 weeks) compared to 0% (0/5) of patients who received placebo (1 study; 9 participants; RR 10.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 155.93; GRADE = very low). Clinical response occurred in 44% (7/16) of patients who received Boswellia serrata extract (three 400 mg/day capsules for 8 weeks) compared to 27% (4/15) of patients who received placebo (1 study; 31 participants; RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.49; GRADE = low). Clinical response occurred in 80% (24/30) of budesonide patients compared to 44% (11/25) of mesalamine patients (1 study; 55 participants; RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.93; GRADE = low). Histological response was observed in 87% (26/30) of budesonide patients compared to 44% (11/25) of mesalamine patients (1 study, 55 participants; RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.13; GRADE = low). There was no difference between the two treatments with respect to adverse events (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.10; GRADE = low), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.65; GRADE = low) and serious adverse events (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.21; GRADE = low). Clinical response occurred in 44% (11/25) of mesalamine patients (3 g/day) compared to 59% (22/37) of placebo patients (1 study; 62 participants; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.24; GRADE = low). Histological response was observed in 44% (11/25) and 51% (19/37) of patients receiving mesalamine and placebo, respectively (1 study; 62 participants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.47; GRADE = low). There was no difference between the two treatments with respect to adverse events (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.88; GRADE = low), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 5.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 49.90; GRADE = low) and serious adverse events (RR 4.44, 95% CI 0.49 to 40.29; GRADE = low). Clinical response occurred in 63% (5/8) of prednisolone (50 mg/day for 2 weeks) patients compared to 0% (0/3) of placebo patients (1 study, 11 participants; RR 4.89, 95% CI 0.35 to 68.83; GRADE = very low). Clinical response occurred in 29% (6/21) of patients who received probiotics (2 capsules containing 0.5 x 1010 CFU each of L. acidophilus LA-5 and B. animalis subsp. lactis strain BB-12 twice daily for 12 weeks) compared to 13% (1/8) of placebo patients (1 study, 29 participants, RR 2.29, 95% CI 0.32 to 16.13; GRADE = very low). Clinical response occurred in 73% (8/11) of patients who received mesalamine (800 mg three times daily) compared to 100% (12/12) of patients who received mesalamine + cholestyramine (4 g daily) (1 study, 23 participants; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.08; GRADE = very low). Clinical response occurred in 81% (38/47) of patients who received budesonide (9 mg daily in a tapering schedule for 6 to 8 weeks) compared to 17% (8/47) of placebo patients (3 studies; 94 participants; RR 4.56, 95% CI 2.43 to 8.55; GRADE = low). Histological response was higher in budesonide participants (72%, 34/47) compared to placebo (17%, 8/47) (RR 4.15, 95% CI 2.25 to 7.66; GRADE = low). Clinical response was maintained in 68% (57/84) of budesonide patients compared to 20% (18/88) of placebo patients (3 studies, 172 participants, RR 3.30 95% CI 2.13 to 5.09; GRADE = low). Histological response was maintained in 48% (19/40) of budesonide patients compared to 15% (6/40) of placebo patients (2 studies; 80 participants; RR 3.17, 95% CI 1.44 to 6.95; GRADE = very low). No difference was found between budesonide and placebo for adverse events (5 studies; 290 participants; RR 1.18, o95% CI 0.92 to 1.51; GRADE = low), withdrawals due to adverse events (5 studies, 290 participants; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.17; GRADE = very low) or serious adverse events (4 studies, 175 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.15 to 8.01; GRADE = very low). Adverse effects reported in the budesonide studies include nausea, vomiting, neck pain, abdominal pain, excessive sweating and headache. Adverse effects reported in the mesalamine studies included nausea and skin rash. Adverse effects in the prednisolone study included abdominal pain, headache, sleep disturbance, mood change and weight gain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low quality evidence suggests that budesonide may be effective for inducing and maintaining clinical and histological response in patients with collagenous colitis. We are uncertain about the benefits and harms of therapy with bismuth subsalicylate, Boswellia serrata extract, mesalamine with or without cholestramine, prednisolone and probiotics. These agents and other therapies require further study.

Interventions for treating lymphocytic colitis.

BACKGROUND: Lymphocytic colitis is a cause of chronic diarrhea. It is a subtype of microscopic colitis characterized by chronic, watery, non-bloody diarrhea and normal endoscopic and radiologic findings. The etiology of this disorder is unknown.Therapy is based mainly on case series and uncontrolled trials, or by extrapolation of data for treating collagenous colitis, a related disorder. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatments for clinically active lymphocytic colitis. SEARCH METHODS: The MEDLINE, PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to 11 August 2016 to identify relevant papers. Manual searches from the references of included studies and relevant review articles were performed.Abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings were also searched to identify research submitted in abstract form only. The trial registry web site www.ClinicalTrials.gov was searched to identify registered but unpublished trials. Finally, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Functional Bowel Disorders Group Specialized Trials Register were searched for other studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials assessing medical therapy for patients with biopsy-proven lymphocytic colitis were considered for inclusion DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was independently extracted by at least two authors. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. The primary outcome was clinical response as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcome measures included histological response as defined by the included studies, quality of life as measured by a validated instrument and the occurrence of adverse events. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome and selected secondary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE criteria. Data were combined for analysis if they assessed the same treatments. Dichotomous data were combined using a pooled RR along with corresponding 95% CI. A fixed-effect model was used for the pooled analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs (149 participants) met the inclusion criteria. These studies assessed bismuth subsalicylate versus placebo, budesonide versus placebo, mesalazine versus mesalazine plus cholestyramine and beclometasone dipropionate versus mesalazine. The study which assessed mesalazine versus mesalazine plus cholestyramine and the study which assessed beclometasone dipropionate versus mesalazine were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. The study which compared bismuth subsalicylate versus us placebo was judged as low quality due to a very small sample size and limited data. The other 3 studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. Budesonide (9 mg/day for 6 to 8 weeks) was significantly more effective than placebo for induction of clinical and histological response. Clinical response was noted in 88% of budesonide patients compared to 38% of placebo patients (2 studies; 57 participants; RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.33; GRADE = low). Histological response was noted in 78% of budesonide patients compared to 33% of placebo patients (2 studies; 39 patients; RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.28; GRADE = low). Forty-one patients were enrolled in the study assessing mesalazine (2.4 g/day) versus mesalazine plus cholestyramine (4 g/day). Clinical response was noted in 85% of patients in the mesalazine group compared to 86% of patients in the mesalazine plus cholestyramine group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; GRADE = low). Five patients were enrolled in the trial studying bismuth subsalicylate (nine 262 mg tablets daily for 8 weeks versus placebo). There were no differences in clinical (P=0.10) or histological responses (P=0.71) in patients treated with bismuth subsalicylate compared with placebo (GRADE = very low). Forty-six patients were enrolled in the trial studying beclometasone dipropionate (5 mg/day or 10 mg/day) versus mesalazine (2.4 g/day). There were no differences in clinical remission at 8 weeks (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.24; GRADE = low) and 12 months of treatment (RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.40 to 4.18; GRADE = very low). Although patients receiving beclometasone dipropionate (84%) and mesalazine (86%) achieved clinical remission at 8 weeks, it was not maintained at 12 months (26% and 20%, respectively). Adverse events reported in the budesonide studies include nausea, vomiting, neck pain, abdominal pain, hyperhidrosis and headache. Nausea and skin rash were reported as adverse events in the mesalazine study. Adverse events in the beclometasone dipropionate trial include nausea, sleepiness and change of mood. No adverse events were reported in the bismuth subsalicylate study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low quality evidence suggests that budesonide may be effective for the treatment of active lymphocytic colitis. This benefit needs to be confirmed by a large placebo -controlled trial. Low quality evidence also suggests that mesalazine with or without cholestyramine and beclometasone dipropionate may be effective for the treatment of lymphocytic colitis, however this needs to be confirmed by large placebo-controlled studies. No conclusions can be made regarding bismuth subsalicylate due to the very small number of patients in the study, Further trials studying interventions for lymphocytic colitis are warranted.