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.

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.

Unfractionated or low-molecular weight heparin for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: There are a limited number of treatment options for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). An increased risk of thrombosis in UC coupled with an observation that UC patients being treated with anticoagulant therapy for thrombotic events had an improvement in their bowel symptoms led to trials examining the use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in patients with active UC. OBJECTIVES: To review randomized trials examining the efficacy of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for remission induction in patients with ulcerative colitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD/FBD group specialized trials register up to June 2014. We also searched review papers on ulcerative colitis and references from identified papers in an effort to identify additional randomized trials studying UFH or LMWH use in patients with ulcerative colitis. We searched abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings to identify research published in abstract form. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing UFH or LMWH to placebo or a control therapy for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis were included. Studies published in abstract form only were included if the authors could be contacted for further information. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A data extraction form was developed and used to extract data from included studies. Two authors independently extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess study quality. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was induction of remission, as defined by the studies. Secondary outcomes measures included: endoscopic remission as defined by the authors; clinical, histological or endoscopic improvement as defined by the authors; the occurrence of adverse events; the occurrence of bleeding; and improvements in quality of life as measured by a validated instrument. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval for dichotomous outcomes. Data were combined for analysis if they assessed the same treatments (UFH or LMWH versus placebo or other therapy). The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies were eligible for inclusion (329 patients). Three studies (270 patients) compared low molecular weight heparin to placebo, one study (34 patients) compared LMWH in addition to standard therapy, and one study (25 patients) compared UFH to corticosteroids. The study comparing UFH to corticosteroids was rated at high risk of bias due to a single-blind design. The study that compared the addition of LMWH to standard therapy to standard therapy alone was rated at high risk of bias due to open-label design. The other three studies were rated as low risk of bias. LMWH administered subcutaneously showed no benefit over placebo for any outcome, including clinical remission (very low quality of evidence), and clinical, endoscopic, or histological improvement. High dose LMWH administered via an extended colon-release tablet demonstrated benefit over placebo for clinical remission (RR 1.39; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.77 ; P = 0.008; very low quality of evidence), clinical improvement (RR 1.28; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.55; P = 0.01; very low quality of evidence), and endoscopic improvement (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.47 ; P = 0.05) but not endoscopic remission or histologic improvement. LMWH was not beneficial when added to standard therapy for clinical remission, clinical improvement, endoscopic remission or endoscopic improvement. LMWH was well-tolerated but provided no significant benefit for quality of life. One study examining UFH versus corticosteroids for the treatment of severe UC demonstrated the inferiority of UFH for clinical improvement. More patients assigned to UFH had rectal hemorrhage as an adverse event. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest that LMWH may be effective for the treatment of active UC. When administered by extended colon-release tablets, LMWH was more effective than placebo for treating outpatients with mild to moderate disease. This benefit needs to be confirmed by further randomized controlled studies. The same benefits were not seen when LMWH was administered subcutaneously at lower doses. There is no evidence to support the use of UFH for the treatment of active UC. A further trial of UFH in patients with mild disease may also be justified. Any benefit found would need to be weighed against a possible increased risk of rectal bleeding in patients with active UC.

ANTECEDENTES: Es limitado el número de opciones terapéuticas para los pacientes con colitis ulcerosa (CU). Un mayor riesgo de trombosis en la CU, junto con una observación de que los pacientes con CU tratados con tratamiento anticoagulante para los eventos trombóticos presentaron una mejoría en sus síntomas intestinales, generó ensayos que examinaron el uso de la heparina no fraccionada (HNF) y las heparinas de bajo peso molecular (HBPM) en los pacientes con CU activa. OBJETIVOS: Examinar los ensayos aleatorizados sobre la eficacia de la heparina no fraccionada (HNF) o las heparinas de bajo peso molecular (HBPM) para la inducción de la remisión en los pacientes con colitis ulcerosa. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se hicieron búsquedas en MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL y en el registro de ensayos especializados del Grupo Cochrane de EII/TFI hasta junio de 2014. También se realizaron búsquedas en los documentos de revisión sobre la colitis ulcerosa y en las referencias de los documentos identificados, con el fin de identificar ensayos aleatorizados adicionales que estudiaran el uso de HNF o HBPM en pacientes con colitis ulcerosa. Se realizaron búsquedas en los resúmenes de los principales encuentros de gastroenterología para identificar las investigaciones publicadas en forma de resumen. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron ensayos controlados aleatorizados que comparaban la HNF o la HBPM con el placebo o un tratamiento de control para la inducción de la remisión en la colitis ulcerosa. Los estudios publicados sólo como resúmenes se incluyeron cuando se pudo establecer contacto con los autores para obtener información adicional. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se desarrolló y utilizó un formulario de extracción de datos de los estudios incluidos. Dos autores de la revisión de forma independiente extrajeron los datos. Los desacuerdos se resolvieron por consenso. Se utilizó la herramienta Cochrane de Riesgo de Sesgo para evaluar la calidad de los estudios. Los datos se analizaron por intención de tratar. El resultado principal fue la inducción de la remisión, según la definición de los estudios. Las medidas de resultados secundarios incluían: remisión endoscópica según la definición de los autores; mejoría clínica, histológica o endoscópica según la definición de los autores; aparición de eventos adversos; aparición de hemorragias; y mejoras en la calidad de vida según la medición de un instrumento validado. Se calculó el riesgo relativo (RR) y el intervalo de confianza (IC) del 95% correspondiente para los resultados dicotómicos. Los datos se combinaron para el análisis si evaluaban los mismos tratamientos (HNF o HBPM versus placebo u otro tratamiento). La calidad general de la evidencia que apoya los resultados se evaluó mediante los criterios GRADE. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Cinco estudios fueron elegibles para su inclusión (329 pacientes). Tres estudios (270 pacientes) compararon la heparina de bajo peso molecular con el placebo, un estudio (34 pacientes) comparó la HBPM además del tratamiento estándar, y un estudio (25 pacientes) comparó la HNF con los corticosteroides. El estudio que comparaba la HNF con los corticosteroides fue calificado como de alto riesgo de sesgo debido a un diseño de cegamiento simple. El estudio que comparó la adición de HBPM a la terapia estándar con la terapia estándar sola se calificó con un alto riesgo de sesgo debido al diseño de etiqueta abierta. Los otros tres estudios fueron calificados como de bajo riesgo de sesgo. Las HBPM administradas por vía subcutánea no mostraron ningún beneficio sobre el placebo para ningún resultado, incluyendo la remisión clínica (muy baja calidad de la evidencia), y la mejoría clínica, endoscópica o histológica. Las HBPM en dosis altas administradas mediante un comprimido de liberación prolongada del colon demostraron beneficios sobre el placebo para la remisión clínica (RR 1,39; IC del 95%: 1,09 a 1,77; P = 0,008; muy baja calidad de la evidencia), la mejoría clínica (RR 1.28; IC del 95%: 1,06 a 1,55; p = 0,01; muy baja calidad de la evidencia), y la mejoría endoscópica (RR 1,21; IC del 95%: 1,00 a 1,47; p = 0,05), pero no la remisión endoscópica o la mejoría histológica. La HBPM no fue beneficiosa cuando se agregó al tratamiento estándar para la remisión clínica, la mejoría clínica, la remisión endoscópica ni la mejoría endoscópica. La HBPM se toleró bien pero no proporcionó un beneficio significativo para la calidad de vida. Un estudio que examinó HNF versus corticosteroides en el tratamiento de la CU grave demostró la inferioridad de la HNF para la mejoría clínica. Una mayor cantidad de pacientes asignados a la HNF presentó hemorragia rectal como un evento adverso. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: La evidencia indica que la HBPM puede ser efectiva para el tratamiento de la CU activa. Cuando se administró mediante comprimidos de liberación prolongada en el colon, la HBPM fue más efectiva que placebo para tratar a los pacientes ambulatorios con enfermedad leve a moderada. Este beneficio se debe confirmar en estudios controlados aleatorizados. Los mismos beneficios no se observaron cuando la HBPM se administró por vía subcutánea a dosis inferiores. No hay evidencia que apoye el uso de HNF para el tratamiento de la CU activa. Un ensayo adicional de HNF en pacientes con enfermedad leve también puede estar justificado. Todo beneficio hallado deberá compararse contra un posible riesgo mayor de hemorragia rectal en los pacientes con CU activa.

Sargramostim (GM-CSF) for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease is an inflammatory condition of the gut, thought to involve an overactive immune response to gut flora. A novel theory postulates possible immunodeficiency as a cause, and aims to use sargramostim (granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor, GM-CSF) to boost the immune system in an effort to test this hypothesis. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to determine the efficacy and safety of sargramostim for induction of remission in patients with clinically active Crohn's disease. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was conducted from inception to April 2011. Reference lists of relevant review articles were also searched. Trial registries and abstract databases including Digestive Diseases Week (1980-2010) and United European Gastroenterology Week (2005-2009) were searched to identify studies published in abstract form. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of sargramostim for the treatment of patients with active Crohn's disease were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from selected articles were extracted and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool applied independently by two authors. The primary outcome was induction of clinical remission as defined by a Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) of < 150 at the end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included clinical responses measures on the CDAI and safety outcomes. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, in most cases using a random effects model due to high heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies were identified, 2 published as full papers and one in abstract form (537 patients). The risk of bias was low for the 3 included studies. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients (GM-CSF 25.3% versus placebo 17.5%) who achieved clinical remission (RR 1.67; 95% CI 0.80 to 3.50; P = 0.17; 3 studies; 537 patients). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients (GM-CSF 38.3% versus placebo 24.8%) who achieved a 100-point clinical response (RR 1.71 95% CI 0.98 to 2.97; P = 0.06; 3 studies; 537 patients). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients (GM-CSF 54.3% versus placebo 44.2%) who achieved a 70 point clinical response (RR 1.23; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.82; P = 0.30; 1 study; 124 patients). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients (GM-CSF 95.8% versus placebo 89.3%) who experienced at least one adverse event (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.16; P = 0.08; 2 studies; 251 patients), or serious adverse events (GM-CSF 12.0% versus placebo 4.8%; RR 2.21; 95% CI 0.84 to 5.81; P = 0.11; 2 studies; 251 patients). The incidence of bone pain, musculoskeletal chest pain, and dyspnea were higher in patients treated with sargramostim compared to placebo. Other adverse events commonly associated with sargramostim such as pulmonary capillary leak syndrome, pulmonary edema, heart failure, fever, and neurotoxicity were not reported in these studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Sargramostim does not appear to be more effective than placebo for induction of clinical remission or clinical improvement in patients with active Crohn's disease. However, the GRADE analysis indicates that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary (clinical remission) and secondary outcomes (clinical response) was low indicating that further research is likely to have an impact on the effect estimates.

Unfractionated or low-molecular weight heparin for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: There are a limited number of treatment options for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). An increased risk of thrombosis in UC coupled with an observation that UC patients being treated with anticoagulant therapy for thrombotic events had an improvement in their bowel symptoms led to trials examining the use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in patients with active UC. OBJECTIVES: To review randomized trials examining the efficacy of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for remission induction in patients with ulcerative colitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: The MEDLINE (PUBMED), and EMBASE databases, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane IBD/FBD group specialized trials register, review papers on ulcerative colitis, and references from identified papers were searched up to June 2010 in an effort to identify all randomized trials studying UFH or LMWH use in patients with ulcerative colitis. Abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings were searched to identify research published in abstract form only. SELECTION CRITERIA: Each author independently reviewed potentially relevant trials to determine their eligibility for inclusion based on the criteria identified above. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess study quality. Studies published in abstract form only were included if the authors could be contacted for further information. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A data extraction form was developed and used to extract data from included studies. At least 2 authors independently extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was induction of remission, as defined by the studies. Data were combined for analysis if they assessed the same treatments (UFH or LMWH versus placebo or other therapy). MAIN RESULTS: LMWH administered subcutaneously showed no benefit over placebo for any outcome, including clinical remission, and clinical, endoscopic, or histological improvement. High dose LMWH administered via an extended colon-release tablet demonstrated benefit over placebo for clinical remission (OR 2.73; 95% CI 1.32 to 5.67; P = 0.007), clinical improvement (OR 2.99; 95% CI 1.30 to 6.87; P = 0.01), and endoscopic improvement (OR 2.25; 95%CI 1.01 to 5.01; P = 0.05) but not endoscopic remission or histologic improvement. LMWH was not beneficial when added to standard therapy for clinical remission, clinical improvement, endoscopic remission or endoscopic improvement. LMWH was well-tolerated but provided no significant benefit for quality of life. One study examining UFH versus corticosteroids for the treatment of severe UC demonstrated the inferiority of UFH for clinical improvement. More patients assigned to UFH had rectal hemorrhage as an adverse event. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest that LMWH may be effective for the treatment of active UC. When administered by extended colon-release tablets, LMWH was more effective than placebo for treating outpatients with mild to moderate disease. This benefit needs to be confirmed by further randomized controlled studies. The same benefits were not seen when LMWH was administered subcutaneously at lower doses. There is no evidence to support the use of UFH for the treatment of active UC. A further trial of UFH in patients with mild disease may also be justified. Any benefit found would need to be weighed against a possible increased risk of rectal bleeding in patients with active UC.

Methotrexate for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Safe and effective long-term treatments that reduce the need for corticosteroids are needed for Crohn's disease. Although purine antimetabolites are moderately effective for maintenance of remission patients often relapse despite treatment with these agents. Methotrexate may provide a safe and effective alternative to more expensive maintenance treatment with TNF-alpha antagonists. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of randomized trials examining the efficacy and safety of methotrexate for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 2, 2009, PUBMED (1966 to April 2009), EMBASE (1984 to April 2009), DDW abstracts (1980 to 2008) and the Cochrane IBD/FBD Specialized Trials Register were searched. Study references and review papers were also searched for additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared methotrexate to placebo or any other active intervention for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality of included studies were independently performed by each author. The main outcome measure was the proportion of patients maintaining clinical remission as defined by the studies and expressed as a percentage of the total number of patients randomized (intention to treat analysis). Pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies were included in the review. A pooled analysis (n = 98) including one high quality trail (n = 76) showed that intramuscular methotrexate (15 mg/week) was significantly more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.31 to 7.41; P = 0.01). The number needed to treat to prevent one relapse was 4. A pooled analysis of two small studies (n = 50) showed no difference between methotrexate and 6-MP for maintenance of remission (OR 2.63; 95% CI 0.74 to 9.37; P = 0.14). Adverse events were generally mild in nature and resolved upon discontinuation or with folic acid supplementation. Common adverse events included nausea and vomiting, symptoms of a cold, abdominal pain, headache, joint pain or arthralgia, and fatigue. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intramuscular methotrexate at a dose of 15 mg/week is safe and effective for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Oral methotrexate (12.5 to 15 mg/week) does not appear to be effective for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.