Differential efficacy of medical therapies for ulcerative colitis according to disease extent: patient-level analysis from multiple randomized controlled trials.

Background: Disease extent in Ulcerative Colitis (UC) has prognostic implications for disease course. It is unclear whether the efficacy of medical therapies for moderate to severely active UC vary according to disease extent at enrollment. Methods: We analyzed patient level data from 11 Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials of advanced therapies in patients with moderate-to-severe UC to assess modifications of advanced therapy effects by disease extent. Primary outcome was clinical response and secondary outcomes were clinical remission, endoscopic response/remission and endoscopic improvement, and Mayo clinic subscore for both induction and maintenance studies. Binary and continuous outcomes were analyzed using the modified Poisson regression model and the mixed-effects model, respectively, adjusting for age, sex, disease duration, concomitant steroid use and prior anti-TNF use. Effect modifications with binary outcomes were quantified by ratios of risk ratio for left-sided to that for extensive colitis while effect modifications with the Mayo subscores were quantified by differences of the differences between mean scores of the left-sided and extensive colitis. Results were presented with point estimates and 95% confidence intervals as well as p-values. Findings: Eleven clinical trials enrolling 5450 UC patients (infliximab = 2, adalimumab = 2, golimumab = 2, vedolizumab = 2, tofacitinib = 3) were included. In induction trials, there was evidence to suggest effect modification by disease extent for clinical response with tofacitinib (the ratio of RRs 0.67, 95% CI [0.45, 0.99], p = 0.049) and clinical remission with infliximab (ratio of RRs 0.33, 95% CI [0.13, 0.85], p = 0.020) favoring patients with extensive colitis. There was no evidence to suggest effect modification for endoscopic improvement and clinical outcomes. There was evidence to suggest effect modification by disease extent for clinical remission with tofacitinib (ratio of RRs 0.44, 95% CI [0.22, 0.89], p = 0.020) favoring patients with extensive colitis. For symptom subscores from the Mayo Clinic score, tofacitinib was associated with a greater reduction in both stool frequency (difference of differences 0.37, 95% CI [0.08, 0.65], p = 0.012) and rectal bleeding scores (difference of differences 0.25, 95% CI [0.03, 0.47], p = 0.026) in patients with extensive colitis compared to left sided. Interpretation: These findings underscore the possibility of differential efficacy of medical therapies according to disease distribution. These results warrant further exploration in forthcoming trials to better inform treatment strategies and consideration of disease distribution as a baseline stratification factor in clinical trials. Funding: This study did not receive any financial support.

Comparative Efficacy of Advanced Therapies for Achieving Endoscopic Outcomes in Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of advanced therapies for achieving endoscopic outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severely active Crohn's disease. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to August 2, 2023 to identify phase II and III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults (≥18 years) with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, etrolizumab, vedolizumab, anti-interleukin (IL)12/23p40, anti-IL23p19, or Janus kinase-1 (JAK1) inhibitors, compared with placebo/active comparator, for induction and/or maintenance of remission and reported endoscopic outcomes. Primary outcome was endoscopic response after induction therapy, and endoscopic remission after maintenance therapy. We performed a random-effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach, and estimated relative risk (RRs), 95% confidence interval (CI) values, and P score for ranking agents. We used GRADE to ascertain certainty of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 20 RCTs (19 placebo-controlled and 1 head-to-head trial; 5592 patients) were included out of which 12 RCTs reported endoscopic outcomes for the induction phase, 5 reported for the maintenance phase, and 3 reported for both induction and maintenance phases. JAK1 inhibitors (RR, 3·49 [95% CI, 1·48-8·26]) and anti-IL23p19 (RR, 2·30 [95% CI, 1·02-5·18]) agents were more efficacious than etrolizumab (moderate certainty of evidence), and JAK1 inhibitors (RR, 2·34 [95% CI, 1·14-4·80]) were more efficacious than anti-IL12/23p40 agents for inducing endoscopic response (moderate certainty of evidence). JAK1 inhibitors and anti-IL23p19 ranked highest for induction of endoscopic response. There was paucity of RCTs of TNF antagonists reporting endoscopic outcomes with induction therapy. On network meta-analysis of 6 RCTs, all agents except vedolizumab (RR, 1.89 [95% CI, 0.61-5.92]) were effective in maintaining endoscopic remission compared with placebo. TNF antagonists, IL12/23p40, and JAK1 inhibitors were ranked highest. CONCLUSIONS: On network meta-analysis, JAK1 inhibitors and anti-IL23p19 agents may be the most effective among non-TNF-targeting advanced therapies for inducing endoscopic response. Future head-to-head trials will further inform positioning of different therapies for the management of Crohn's disease.

Endoscopic and Histological Placebo Rates in Crohn's Disease Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Precise estimates of placebo response rates help efficient clinical trial design. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed contemporary placebo endoscopic and histological response rates in Crohn's disease (CD) clinical trials. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to April 2022 to identify placebo-controlled studies of pharmacological interventions for CD. Endoscopic response, remission, and mucosal healing rates for participants assigned to placebo in induction and maintenance studies were pooled using a random-effects model. Point estimates and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 16 studies (11 induction, 3 maintenance, 2 induction and maintenance) that randomized 1646 participants to placebo were eligible. For induction trials, the pooled placebo endoscopic response, endoscopic remission, and mucosal healing rates in participants assigned to placebo were 13% (95% CI, 10-16; I2 = 14.1%; P = .14), 6% (95% CI, 3-11; I2 = 74.7%; P < .001), and 6% (95% CI, 4-9; I2 = 26.9%; P = .29), respectively. The pooled endoscopic remission rate in patients who were bio-naïve was 10% (95% CI, 4-23) compared with only 4% (95% CI, 3-7) in bio-experienced patients. For maintenance trials, the pooled endoscopic response, remission, and mucosal healing rates were 7% (95% CI, 1-31; I2 = 78.2%; P = .004), 11% (95% CI, 4-27; I2 = 70.8%; P = .06), and 7% (95% CI, 3-15; I2 = 29.7; P = .23), respectively. Only 3 trials assessed histological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic placebo rates vary according to trial phase and prior biologic exposure. These contemporary data will serve to inform CD trial design, sample size calculation, and end point selection for future trials.

Characteristics of Interventional Trials for Patients Living With Intestinal Stoma Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov With a Focus on Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review was performed to characterize the landscape of research conducted in patients with intestinal stoma (IS) and highlight unmet needs for clinical research in Crohn's disease (CD) and IS. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 25, 2022, to identify clinical trials assessing interventions in patients with an IS, as well as those with an IS and CD. Studies were grouped according to type of intervention. We excluded observational studies with no treatment arm. RESULTS: A total of 253 studies were included in the final analysis. Most studies investigated devices (n = 122 [48.2%]), or surgical procedures (n = 63 [24.9%]), followed by behavioral interventions (n = 30 [11.8%]), drugs (n = 20 [7.9%]), dietary interventions (n = 2 [0.8%]), skin care products (n = 2 0.8%]), and others (n = 14 [5.5%]). A total of 50.9% (n = 129) of studies had completed recruitment, enrolling 11 116 participants. Only 6 studies (surgery: n = 3; physiological studies: n = 2; drugs: n = 1) exclusively included patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and 16 studies commented that patients with IBD were excluded in their eligibility criteria. No study assessed efficacy of drugs in patients with CD and IS. Approximately one-quarter of studies (n = 65 of 253) included quality of life as an outcome measure. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of research in IBD patients with IS, with the majority focusing on devices and surgical procedures. There have been no drug trials evaluating efficacy in patients with CD and IS. There is an urgent need to identify barriers to enrollment and develop eligibility and outcome measures that enable the inclusion of patients with CD with stoma into clinical trials.

We analyzed registered trials for patients with intestinal stoma with special focus on Crohn's disease patients to explore research and unmet needs. Our results indicate a scarcity of studies in this area with most studies limited to surgical procedures and devices.

Long Washout Periods Between Biologics for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Trials Are Unnecessary: A Canadian Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the safety of early vs late biologic switch in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we included patients with inflammatory bowel disease who underwent biologic switch between January 2014 and July 2022 at a tertiary center. The primary outcome was any infection by 6 months. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between patients who had early biologic switch (≤30 days, n = 51) and late switch (>30 days, n = 77) in either infectious or noninfectious adverse events by 6 and 12 months. DISCUSSION: Early biologic switch is safe. A prolonged washout period between 2 biologics is unnecessary.

Patients With Crohn's Disease and Permanent Ileostomy Are Universally Excluded From Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: We performed a systematic review to investigate whether patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and permanent ileostomy (PI) have been included in clinical trials evaluating biologics and small molecules. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane library (CENTRAL) data bases were searched from inception to May 16, 2022 for placebo controlled induction and/or maintenance randomized controlled trials assessing biologics and oral small molecules in adult patients with active CD. RESULTS: Of the 81 induction and maintenance trials assessing biologics and oral small molecules in CD, none permitted the enrollment of patients with PI. Patients with CD and PI have been universally excluded from pharmaceutical trials of biologics and small molecules to date. DISCUSSION: There is an urgent need to identify barriers to enrollment and develop eligibility and outcome measures enabling the inclusion of patients with CD and PI into clinical trials.

Vedolizumab for the Treatment of Noninflammatory Bowel Disease Related Enteropathy.

Vedolizumab has become an integral part of the therapeutic armamentarium for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who have failed conventional medical therapy. Vedolizumab is an α4ß7 integrin antagonist that inhibits intestinal T-cell translocation by blocking integrin interactions with mucosal vascular addressin cellular adhesion molecule 1, reducing lymphocyte-mediated inflammation.1 Its gut selective mode of action and favorable safety profile have led to reports of off-label use for non-IBD-related inflammatory intestinal disorders, such as microscopic colitis,2 and small intestinal inflammatory conditions including autoimmune enteropathy3 and common variable immune deficiency-related enteritis.4 Treatment of non-IBD-related enteropathies is challenging with no approved therapies or established treatment algorithms. We conducted a literature review to assess clinical, endoscopic, and histologic improvement in patients treated with vedolizumab for non-IBD enteropathies refractory to conventional therapy.

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.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Clinical, Endoscopic, Histological and Safety Placebo Rates in Induction and Maintenance Trials of Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Quantifying placebo rates and the factors influencing them are essential to inform trial design. We provide a contemporary summary of clinical, endoscopic, histological and safety placebo rates in induction and maintenance clinical trials of ulcerative colitis, and identify factors influencing them. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library were searched from April 2014 to April 2020, updating a prior meta-analysis that searched from inception to April 2014. We included placebo-controlled trials of aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, immunosuppressives, small-molecules and biologics in adults with ulcerative colitis. Placebo rates were pooled using random-effects and mixed-effects meta-regression models to assess the associated study-level. RESULTS: In 119 trials [92 induction, 27 maintenance] clinical, endoscopic and histological remission placebo rates for induction trials were 11% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9-13%), 19% [95% CI 15-23%] and 15% [95% CI 11-19%], respectively; for maintenance trials, clinical and endoscopic placebo remission rates were 18% [95% CI 12-25%] and 20% [95% CI 15-25%], respectively. Higher endoscopic subscore and a higher rate of exposure to prior biologic therapy at enrolment were associated with lower clinical and endoscopic placebo remission rates. Absence of central reading was associated with an increase in placebo endoscopic response and remission rates. More follow-up visits and increasing trial duration were associated with higher clinical placebo rates. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo rates in ulcerative colitis trials vary according to the endpoint assessed, whether it is for assessment of response or remission, and whether the trial is designed for induction or maintenance. These contemporary rates across different endpoints and drug classes will help to inform trial design.

The Relationship Between Endoscopic and Clinical Recurrence in Postoperative Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to quantify the magnitude of the association between endoscopic recurrence and clinical recurrence [symptom relapse] in patients with postoperative Crohn's disease. METHODS: Databases were searched to October 2, 2020, for randomised controlled trials [RCTs] and cohort studies of adult patients with Crohn's disease with ileocolonic resection and anastomosis. Summary effect estimates for the association between clinical recurrence and endoscopic recurrence were quantified by risk ratios [RR] and 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]. Mixed-effects meta-regression evaluated the role of confounders. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the relationship between these outcomes as endpoints in RCTs. An exploratory mixed-effects meta-regression model with the logit of the rate of clinical recurrence as the outcome and the rate of endoscopic recurrence as a predictor was also evaluated. RESULTS: In all, 37 studies [N = 4053] were included. For eight RCTs with available data, the RR for clinical recurrence for patients who experienced endoscopic recurrence was 10.77 [95% CI 4.08 to 28.40; GRADE moderate certainty evidence]; the corresponding estimate from 11 cohort studies was 21.33 [95% CI 9.55 to 47.66; GRADE low certainty evidence]. A single cohort study showed a linear relationship between Rutgeerts score and clinical recurrence risk. There was a strong correlation between endoscopic recurrence and clinical recurrence treatment effect estimates as trial outcomes [weighted Spearman correlation coefficient 0.51]. CONCLUSIONS: The associations between endoscopic recurrence and subsequent clinical recurrence lend support to the choice of endoscopic recurrence to monitor postoperative disease activity and as a primary endpoint in clinical trials of postoperative Crohn's disease.

Disease Activity Indices for Pouchitis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Several indices exist to measure pouchitis disease activity; however, none are fully validated. As an initial step toward creating a validated instrument, we identified pouchitis disease activity indices, examined their operating properties, and assessed their value as outcome measures in clinical trials. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials including indices that evaluated clinical, endoscopic, or histologic pouchitis disease activity. A second search identified studies that assessed the operating properties of pouchitis indices. RESULTS: Eighteen randomized controlled trials utilizing 4 composite pouchitis disease activity indices were identified. The Pouchitis Disease Activity Index (PDAI) was most commonly used (12 of 18; 66.7%) to define both trial eligibility (8 of 12; 66.7%), and outcome measures (12 of 12; 100%). In a separate search, 21 studies evaluated the operating properties of 3 pouchitis indices; 90.5% (19 of 21) evaluated validity, of which 42.1% (8 of 19) evaluated the construct validity of the PDAI. Criterion validity (73.7%; 14 of 19) was evaluated through correlation of the PDAI with fecal calprotectin (FCP; r = 0.188 to 0.71), fecal lactoferrin (r = 0.570 to 0.582), and C-reactive protein (CRP; r = 0.584). Two studies assessed correlation of the modified PDAI (mPDAI) with FCP (r = 0.476 and r = 0.565, respectively). Fair to moderate inter-rater reliability of the PDAI (k = 0.440) and mPDAI (k = 0.389) was reported in a single study. Responsiveness of the PDAI pre-antibiotic and postantibiotic treatment was partially evaluated in a single study of 12 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Development and validation of a specific pouchitis disease activity index is needed given that existing instruments are not valid, reliable, or responsive.

Systematic review: disease activity indices for immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated enterocolitis.

BACKGROUND: Although there is interest in developing pharmacotherapies for the treatment of immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated enterocolitis (ICIC), there is currently no consensus on how to optimally measure disease activity in this condition. AIMS: To identify all scoring indices used for the measurement of disease activity in ICIC, assess their operating properties, and explore their potential utility as outcome measures. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 2020 to identify studies that evaluated disease activity and severity in patients with ICI-associated enterocolitis. These scoring tools could be designed specifically for ICIC or adapted from other diseases, and assessed clinical, endoscopic, or histologic disease activity. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies were included. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is commonly used to describe symptoms, although has only been partially validated and was not designed as a disease activity index. Endoscopic and histologic indices used in inflammatory bowel disease have been adopted for ICIC including the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore, Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity, Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease, Nancy Histological Index, Robarts Histopathological Index, and Geboes Score, among others. None of these indices has been validated for use in ICIC, and all lacked content validity and responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: There are no validated clinical, endoscopic, or histologic outcomes to assess disease activity in ICIC. Development and validation of reliable and responsive outcome measures that can be used to measure disease activity will be paramount for both clinical practice and for the development of treatments.

Systematic Review: Patient Perceptions of Monitoring Tools in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a lifelong disease requiring frequent assessment to guide treatment and prevent flares or progression. Multiple tools are available for clinicians to monitor disease activity; however, there are a paucity of data to inform which monitoring tools are most acceptable to patients. The review aims to describe the available evidence for patient preference, satisfaction, tolerance and/or acceptability of the available monitoring tools in adults with IBD. METHODS: Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central and Clinical Trials.gov were searched from January 1980 to April 2019 for all study types reporting on the perspectives of adults with confirmed IBD on monitoring tools, where two or more tools were compared. Outcome measures with summary and descriptive data were presented. RESULTS: In 10 studies evaluating 1846 participants, monitoring tools included venipuncture, stool collection, gastrointestinal ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, wireless capsule endoscopy, barium follow-through and endoscopy. Outcome domains were patient satisfaction, acceptability of monitoring tool and patient preference. Noninvasive investigations were preferable to endoscopy in nine studies. When assessed, gastrointestinal ultrasound was consistently associated with greater acceptability and satisfaction compared with endoscopy or other imaging modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with IBD preferred noninvasive investigations, in particular gastrointestinal ultrasound, as compared to endoscopy for monitoring disease activity. When assessing disease activity, patient perceptions should be considered in the selection of monitoring tools. Further research should address whether adpoting monitoring approaches considered more acceptable to patients results in greater satisfaction, adherence and ultimately more beneficial clinical outcomes.

Standardisation of intestinal ultrasound scoring in clinical trials for luminal Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) is a valuable tool for assessment of Crohn's disease (CD). However, there is no widely accepted luminal disease activity index. AIMS: To identify appropriate IUS protocols, indices, items, and scoring methods for measurement of luminal CD activity and integration of IUS in CD clinical trials. METHODS: An expert international panel of adult and paediatric gastroenterologists (n = 15) and radiologists (n = 3) rated the appropriateness of 120 statements derived from literature review and expert opinion (scale of 1-9) using modified RAND/UCLA methodology. Median panel scores of 1 to ≤3.5, >3.5 to <6.5 and ≥6.5 to 9 were considered inappropriate, uncertain and appropriate ratings respectively. The statement list and survey results were discussed prior to voting. RESULTS: A total of 91 statements were rated appropriate with agreement after two rounds of voting. Items considered appropriate measures of disease activity were bowel wall thickness (BWT), vascularity, stratification and mesenteric inflammatory fat. There was uncertainty if any of the existing IUS disease activity indices were appropriate for use in CD clinical trials. Appropriate trial applications for IUS included patient recruitment qualification when diseased segments cannot be adequately assessed by ileocolonoscopy and screening for exclusionary complications. At outcome assessment, remission endpoints including BWT and vascularity, with or without mesenteric inflammatory fat, were considered appropriate. Components of an ideal IUS disease activity index were identified based upon panel discussions. CONCLUSIONS: The panel identified appropriate component items and applications of IUS for CD clinical trials. Empiric evidence, and development and validation of an IUS disease activity index are needed.

Systematic Review: Gastrointestinal Ultrasound Scoring Indices for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Serial measurements of luminal disease activity may facilitate inflammatory bowel disease management. Gastrointestinal ultrasound is an easily performed, non-invasive alternative to other assessment modes. However, its widespread use is limited by concerns regarding validity, reliability, and responsiveness. We systematically identified ultrasound scoring indices used to evaluate inflammatory bowel disease activity and examine their operating characteristics. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from inception to June 14, 2019 using pre-defined terms. Studies that reported on gastrointestinal ultrasound index operating properties in an inflammatory bowel disease population were eligible for inclusion. Study characteristics, index components, and operating property data [ie, validity, reliability, responsiveness, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value] were extracted. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to examine study-level risk of bias. RESULTS: Of the 2610 studies identified, 26 studies reporting on 21 ultrasound indices were included. The most common index components included bowel wall thickness, colour Doppler imaging, and bowel wall stratification. The correlation between ultrasound indices and references standards ranged r = 0.62-0.95 and k = 0.40-0.96. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values ranged 39-100%, 63-100%, 73-100%, 57-100%, and 40-100%, respectively. Reliability and responsiveness data were limited. Most [92%, 24/26] studies received at least one unclear or high risk of bias rating. CONCLUSIONS: Several gastrointestinal ultrasound indices for use in inflammatory bowel disease have been developed. Future research should focus on fully validating existing or novel gastrointestinal ultrasound scoring instruments for assessment of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

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.

Oral Janus kinase inhibitors for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor which blocks cytokine signaling involved in the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases including ulcerative colitis (UC). The etiology of UC is poorly understood, however research suggests the development and progression of the disease is due to a dysregulated immune response leading to inflammation of the colonic mucosa in genetically predisposed individuals. Additional medications are currently required since some patients do not respond to the available medications and some medications are associated with serious adverse events (SAEs). JAK inhibitors have been widely studied in diseases including rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease and may represent a promising and novel therapeutic option for the treatment of UC. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of oral JAK inhibitors for the maintenance of remission in participants with quiescent UC. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to 20 September 2019: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, WHO trials registry and clinicaltrials.gov. References and conference abstracts were searched to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized control trial (RCTs) in which an oral JAK inhibitor was compared with placebo or active comparator in the treatment of quiescent UC were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extraction. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who failed to maintain remission as defined by any included studies. Secondary outcomes included failure to maintain clinical response, failure to maintain endoscopic remission, failure to maintain endoscopic response, disease-specific quality of life, adverse events (AEs), withdrawal due to AEs and SAEs. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each dichotomous outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall certainty of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: One RCT (593 participants) including patients with moderately to severely active UC met the inclusion criteria. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive maintenance therapy with tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily, 10 mg twice daily or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was remission at 52 weeks and the secondary endpoints included mucosal healing at 52 weeks, sustained remission at 24 and 52 weeks and glucocorticosteroid-free remission. This study was rated as low risk of bias. The study reported on most of the pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes for this review including clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic remission, AEs, SAEs and withdrawal due to AEs. However, the included study did not report on endoscopic response or disease-specific quality of life. Sixty-three per cent (247/395) of tofacitinib participants failed to maintain clinical remission at 52 weeks compared to 89% (176/198) of placebo participants (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.77; high-certainty evidence). Forty-three per cent (171/395) of tofacitinib participants failed to maintain clinical response at 52 weeks compared to 80% (158/198) of placebo participants (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.62; high-certainty evidence). Eighty-four per cent (333/395) of tofacitinib participants failed to maintain endoscopic remission at 52 weeks compared to 96% (190/198) of placebo participants (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.92; high-certainty evidence). AEs were reported in 76% (299/394) of tofacitinib participants compared with 75% (149/198) of placebo participants (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). Commonly reported AEs included worsening UC, nasopharyngitis, arthralgia (joint pain)and headache. SAEs were reported in 5% (21/394) of tofacitinib participants compared with 7% (13/198) of placebo participants (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.59; low-certainty evidence). SAEs included non-melanoma skin cancers, cardiovascular events, cancer other than non-melanoma skin cancer, Bowen's disease, skin papilloma and uterine leiomyoma (a tumour in the uterus). There was a higher proportion of participants who withdrew due to an AE in the placebo group compared to the tofacitinib group. Nine per cent (37/394) of participants taking tofacitinib withdrew due to an AE compared to 19% (37/198) of participants taking placebo (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.77; moderate-certainty evidence). The most common reason for withdrawal due to an AE was worsening UC. The included study did not report on endoscopic response or on mean disease-specific quality of life scores. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-certainty evidence suggests that tofacitinib is superior to placebo for maintenance of clinical and endoscopic remission at 52 weeks in participants with moderate-to-severe UC in remission. The optimal dose of tofacitinib for maintenance therapy is unknown. High-certainty evidence suggests that there is no increased risk of AEs with tofacitinib compared to placebo. However, we are uncertain about the effect of tofacitinib on SAEs due to the low number of events. Further studies are required to look at the long-term effectiveness and safety of using tofacitinib and other oral JAK inhibitors as maintenance therapy in participants with moderate-to-severe UC in remission.