Methotrexate in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis who respond incompletely to treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 35% of PBC patients have progressive disease despite treatment with UDCA. AIMS: We offered treatment with methotrexate and colchicine to PBC patients who had not responded fully to UDCA, after at least 1 year of treatment. METHODS: A total of 91 PBC patients failed to respond adequately to UDCA, defined as patients whose liver biopsies showed persistent interface hepatitis and whose serum alkaline phosphatase levels remained more than 50% above normal after at least 12 months on UDCA. We added colchicine (0.6 mg orally twice daily) for 6 months. If there was no decrease in alkaline phosphatase, methotrexate (0.25 mg/kg lean body weight orally per week) was added. Liver biopsies were performed at least three times: at diagnosis, after a patient had been on UDCA for at least 1 year (mean 3.4 years), and after a patient had been on methotrexate for at least 6 months (mean 2.2 years). A fourth liver biopsy was performed in 51 patients after they had been on methotrexate for at least another year (mean 3.5 years). RESULTS: From the time that methotrexate was begun until the final visit, there were significant decreases in the mean levels of alkaline phosphatase, 323 to 151, ALT, 73 to 39, fibrosis, 2.5 to 2.0, and inflammation scores, 2.0 to 1.0, (p < 0.0001 for all). Based on pre-specified definitions, 73 patients (80%) responded to methotrexate while 18 (20%) did not. CONCLUSIONS: In 91 PBC patients who responded incompletely to UDCA, colchicine and methotrexate significantly improved liver enzyme tests and liver histology.

Short-term treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of acid suppressant drugs in the empirical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and in the treatment of endoscopy-negative reflux disease (ENRD). DESIGN: medline, embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched. Bibliographies were reviewed. SETTING: Studies were eligible that compared the short-term use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) with each other or with placebo in adults with GERD who were enrolled irrespective of endoscopic findings (empirical cases) or in whom endoscopy showed no signs of esophagitis (endoscopy-negative cases). MEASUREMENTS: Of 1,408 studies, only 13 could be included for meta-analysis. Data on 3,433 patients empirically treated for GERD and 2,520 patients treated for ENRD were extracted. The primary endpoint was relief of heartburn. MAIN RESULTS: In the empirical treatment of GERD, the summary relative risk (sRR) for symptom relief from H2RAs versus placebo was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.60 to 0.99). RR in the only placebo-controlled PPI trial was 0.35 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.46). The sRR for standard dose PPIs versus H2RAs was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.44 to 0.68). In treatment of ENRD, both PPIs (sRR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.79) and H2RAs (sRR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.97) were superior to placebo, and PPIs were superior to H2RAs (sRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Acid suppressant therapy (with a PPI or an H2RA) is more effective than placebo for short-term relief of heartburn in patients with persistent symptoms who are treated empirically for GERD and in those in whom esophagitis was excluded after endoscopy. The benefit of PPIs compared with H2RAs is more pronounced in patients treated empirically.

Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

CONTEXT: Specific features of trial quality may be associated with exaggeration or shrinking of the observed treatment effect in randomized studies. Therefore, assessment of trial quality is often used in meta-analysis. However, the degree to which specific quality measures are associated with treatment effects has not been well established across a broad range of clinical areas. OBJECTIVE: To determine if quality measures are associated with treatment effect size in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: Quality measures from published quality assessment scales were evaluated in RCTs included in meta-analyses from 4 medical areas (cardiovascular disease, infectious disease, pediatrics, and surgery). Included meta-analyses incorporated at least 6 RCTs, examined dichotomous outcomes, and demonstrated significant between-study heterogeneity in the odds ratio (OR) scale. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative ORs comparing overall treatment effect (summary OR) of high vs low-quality studies, as determined by each quality measure, with relative ORs less than 1 indicating larger treatment effect in low-quality studies. RESULTS: Twenty-four quality measures were analyzed for 276 RCTs from 26 meta-analyses. Relative ORs of high vs low-quality studies for these quality measures ranged from 0.83 to 1.26; none was statistically significantly associated with treatment effect. The proportion of studies fulfilling specific quality measures varied widely in the 4 medical areas. In analyses limited to specific medical areas, placebo control, multicenter studies, study country, caregiver blinding, and statistical methods were significantly associated with treatment effect on 7 occasions. These relative ORs ranged from 0.40 to 1.74. However, the directions of these associations were not consistent. CONCLUSIONS: Individual quality measures are not reliably associated with the strength of treatment effect across studies and medical areas. Although use of specific quality measures may be appropriate in specific well-defined areas in which there is pertinent evidence, findings of associations with treatment effect cannot be generalized to all clinical areas or meta-analyses.