Effectiveness of mesalazine to treat irritable bowel syndrome: A meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT

AIM: Accumulating evidence has explored the effect of mesalazine on irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). However, these studies remain inconsistent. Thus, a meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the role of mesalazine on IBS. METHODS: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library Database were searched for all relevant randomized, controlled, blinded trials on mesalazine in patients with IBS between January 1980 and October 2018. All statistical analyses were performed using Revman 5.3 software. A fixed-effects model was adopted, 95% confidence intervals for SMD was calculated. Heterogeneity was evaluated by χ test and I statistic. RESULTS: Five studies involving 387 participants were finally included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that the SMD for clinical efficacy on abdominal pain in IBS patients treated with mesalazine in comparison to placebo was 0.19 (95% CI = -0.01 to 0.39, P = .06), which was statistically non-significant but clinically important. For beneficial effect of abdominal bloating, the SMD was 0.05 (95% CI = -0.20 to 0.30, P = .70), which was statistically non-significant. In regard to clinical efficacy on defecation frequency per day, the results revealed that the SMD was 0.29 (95% CI = -0.14 to 0.73, P = .18), which was statistically non-significant but clinically important. As for beneficial effect of general well-being, we found that the SMD was 0.41 (95% CI = -0.75 to 1.58, P = .49), which was statistically non-significant. With respect to stool consistency, the SMD was 0.01 (95% CI = -0.31 to 0.33, P = .96), which was statistically non-significant. For the effect of defecation urgency severity in IBS patients treated with mesalazine in comparison to placebo, we detected a surprising result with an SMD of 0.54 (95% CI = 0.05-1.04, P = .03), which was statistically significant. There was no significant difference between mesalazine group and placebo group on total mucosal immune cell counts of the patients with IBS with an SMD of -1.64 (95% CI = -6.17 to 2.89, P = .48) and there was also no significant difference in adverse reactions between two groups with an SMD of 1.05 (95% CI = 0.76-1.46 P = .77). CONCLUSION: Mesalazine is not superior to placebo in relieving clinical symptoms of abdominal pain, abdominal bloating, and general well-being of IBS and has no advantage of reducing defecation frequency per day and immune cell infiltration and improving stool consistency though without adverse reactions of mesalazine compared with placebo. For defecation urgency severity, placebo is even superior to mesalazine for IBS patients. Thus, mesalazine might be a cost burden to patients without providing good effectiveness. In view of the small sample size of the current study and the differences in every experimental designs, this study has high heterogeneity and requires subsequent verification.