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.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: high prevalence and cost of continued aminosalicylate use in patients with ulcerative colitis escalated to immunosuppressive and biological therapies.

BACKGROUND: Aminosalicylates are the most frequently prescribed treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC). In the absence of empirical evidence, clinicians are uncertain whether to continue aminosalicylates in patients with UC after escalating therapy. AIMS: To quantify concomitant aminosalicylate use in UC randomised clinical trials (RCTs), identify factors associated with their use, and estimate treatment costs of concomitant aminosalicylate therapy. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 1 March 2017 for placebo-controlled RCTs of immunosuppressants, biologics, or oral small molecules in adults with UC. The proportion of patients prescribed concomitant aminosalicylates at trial entry was pooled using a random-effects model. Meta-regression was performed to assess trial-level factors associated with aminosalicylate use. Treatment costs were estimated using 2018 formulary data from five Canadian provinces. RESULTS: Thirty-two trials were included (23 induction only, nine induction, and maintenance trials). The pooled proportion of patients co-prescribed aminosalicylates was 80.7% (95% CI 75.5%-85.1%), with considerable observed heterogeneity (I2  = 95%). In univariable meta-regression, aminosalicylate use was not associated with trial design, setting, year of publication, disease severity, disease duration, or drug class. The estimated direct annual treatment cost of concomitant aminosalicylates is ~$20 million for the Canadian UC population, assuming conservative estimates of UC prevalence, aminosalicylate use and dose, and the lowest cost formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 80% of UC patients entering clinical trials of immunosuppressants, biologics, or oral small molecules continue to use aminosalicylates. An RCT is needed to inform the benefits and harms of continuing vs stopping aminosalicylates in patients escalating therapy.

Osmotic and stimulant laxatives for the management of childhood constipation.

BACKGROUND: Constipation within childhood is an extremely common problem. Despite the widespread use of osmotic and stimulant laxatives by health professionals to manage constipation in children, there has been a long standing paucity of high quality evidence to support this practice. OBJECTIVES: We set out to evaluate the efficacy and safety of osmotic and stimulant laxatives used to treat functional childhood constipation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register from inception to 10 March 2016. There were no language restrictions. We also searched the references of all included studies, personal contacts and drug companies to identify studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared osmotic or stimulant laxatives to placebo or another intervention, with participants aged 0 to 18 years old were considered for inclusion. The primary outcome was frequency of defecation. Secondary endpoints included faecal incontinence, disimpaction, need for additional therapies and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Relevant papers were identified and two authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials, extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was frequency of defecation. Secondary endpoints included faecal incontinence, disimpaction, need for additional therapies and adverse events. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI using a fixed-effect model. The Chi(2) and I(2) statistics were used to assess statistical heterogeneity. A random-effects model was used in situations of unexplained heterogeneity. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five RCTs (2310 participants) were included in the review. Fourteen studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Meta-analysis of two studies (101 patients) comparing polyethylene glycol (PEG) with placebo showed a significantly increased number of stools per week with PEG (MD 2.61 stools per week, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.08). Common adverse events in the placebo-controlled studies included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhoea and headache. Participants receiving high dose PEG (0.7 g/kg) had significantly more stools per week than low dose PEG (0.3 g/kg) participants (1 study, 90 participants, MD 1.30, 95% 0.76 to 1.84). Meta-analysis of 6 studies with 465 participants comparing PEG with lactulose showed a significantly greater number of stools per week with PEG (MD 0.70 , 95% CI 0.10 to 1.31), although follow-up was short. Patients who received PEG were significantly less likely to require additional laxative therapies. Eighteen per cent (27/154) of PEG patients required additional therapies compared to 31% (47/150) of lactulose patients (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83). No serious adverse events were reported with either agent. Common adverse events in these studies included diarrhoea, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and pruritis ani. Meta-analysis of 3 studies with 211 participants comparing PEG with milk of magnesia showed that the stools per week were significantly greater with PEG (MD 0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89). However, the magnitude of this difference was quite small and may not be clinically significant. One child was noted to be allergic to PEG, but there were no other serious adverse events reported. One study found a significant difference in stools per week favouring milk of magnesia over lactulose (MD -1.51, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.39, 50 patients), Meta-analysis of 2 studies with 287 patients comparing liquid paraffin (mineral oil) with lactulose revealed a relatively large statistically significant difference in the number of stools per week favouring liquid paraffin (MD 4.94 , 95% CI 4.28 to 5.61). No serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events included abdominal pain, distention and watery stools. No statistically significant differences in the number of stools per week were found between PEG and enemas (1 study, 90 patients, MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.58 to 3.58), dietary fibre mix and lactulose (1 study, 125 patients, P = 0.481), senna and lactulose (1 study, 21 patients, P > 0.05), lactitol and lactulose (1 study, 51 patients, MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.03), hydrolyzed guar gum and lactulose (1 study, 61 patients, MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.80 to 3.80), PEG and flixweed (1 study, 109 patients, MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.33), PEG and dietary fibre (1 study, 83 patients, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.04), and PEG and liquid paraffin (2 studies, 261 patients, MD 0.35, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.95). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The pooled analyses suggest that PEG preparations may be superior to placebo, lactulose and milk of magnesia for childhood constipation. GRADE analyses indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome (number of stools per week) was low or very low due to sparse data, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and high risk of bias in the studies in the pooled analyses. Thus, the results of the pooled analyses should be interpreted with caution because of quality and methodological concerns, as well as clinical heterogeneity, and short follow-up. There is also evidence suggesting the efficacy of liquid paraffin (mineral oil). There is no evidence to demonstrate the superiority of lactulose when compared to the other agents studied, although there is a lack of placebo controlled studies. Further research is needed to investigate the long term use of PEG for childhood constipation, as well as the role of liquid paraffin. The optimal dose of PEG also warrants further investigation.