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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Identifying Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Fistulizing Crohn's Disease for the Development of a Core Outcome Set.

Fistulizing complications develop in approximately one third of patients with Crohn's disease (CD), resulting in morbidity and impaired quality of life.1 Sites of fistulae most commonly include perianal fistulae, but also enterocutaneous, enteroenteric, enterovesical, and rectovaginal. Its management requires combined medical and surgical strategies to prevent abscess formation and induce healing. Biologic agents have improved the medical treatment of CD-related fistulae, but many patients still require surgical intervention. Hence, there is considerable interest in the development of novel pharmaceutical agents to treat fistulizing CD.

Identifying Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Pouchitis for the Development of a Core Outcome Set.

Treatment targets in both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and daily practice have evolved for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), motivated by changing regulatory requirements and efforts to alter the disease's natural history. Substantial heterogeneity in outcome definitions has been identified in UC RCTs.1 To harmonize treatment outcomes that should be reported, we proposed the collaborative development of a core outcome set (COS).2 A COS is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials to facilitate reporting consistency, reduce selective reporting bias, and improve quality of evidence synthesis.3.

Histologic Healing Rates of Medical Therapies for Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Histologic remission is a potentially valuable means of assessing disease activity and treatment response in ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the efficacy of existing therapies to achieve this outcome is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of histologic outcomes in UC randomized controlled trials and examined the relationship between histologic and endoscopic outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Register were searched for randomized controlled trials of aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, immunosuppressives, biologics, and small molecules. Histologic and endoscopic remission and response data were independently extracted and pooled using binomial-normal random-effect or fixed-effect models. Pooled efficacy estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RRs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Univariable and multivariable random-effect meta-regression models examined factors associated with histologic remission. RESULTS: Seventy-four studies (68 induction and 7 maintenance) were identified. Topical aminosalicylate enemas [37.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 29.0-46.3] and suppositories (44.9%, 95% CI, 28.9-62.3) had the highest induction of histologic remission rates. Aminosalicylate enemas (RR = 4.14, 95% CI, 2.35-7.31), aminosalicylate suppositories (RR = 3.94, 95% CI, 1.26-12.32), and budesonide multimatrix (RR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.08-1.99) had higher histologic remission rates than placebo. Data were lacking for biologics and immunosuppressives. The pooled histologic remission rate for placebo in induction studies was 10.4% (95% CI, 7.1-15.2). Histologic and endoscopic remission correlated strongly (r = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78). In multivariate analysis of placebo-arm data, less severe clinical disease activity and corticosteroid use were associated with higher histologic remission rates. Similarly, mild clinical disease activity was associated with higher histologic remission rates when active-arm data were analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Histologic remission rates for current UC treatments ranged from 15.0% to 44.9% according to drug class and patient population with the highest rates observed for topical aminosalicylates. Placebo remission rates were low with relatively narrow CIs. These data provide benchmarks to inform future trial design. Histologic remission is a potential treatment target in clinical practice.

Anti-IL-12/23p40 antibodies for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Ustekinumab and briakinumab are monoclonal antibodies that target the standard p40 subunit of cytokines interleukin-12 and interleukin-23 (IL-12/23p40), which are involved in the pathogenesis of Crohn's disease (CD). A significant proportion of people with Crohn's disease fail conventional therapy or therapy with biologics (e.g. infliximab) or develop significant adverse events. Anti-IL-12/23p40 antibodies such as ustekinumab may be an effective alternative for these individuals. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to assess the efficacy and safety of anti-IL-12/23p40 antibodies for maintenance of remission in CD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registers from inception to 17 September 2019. We searched references and conference abstracts for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion randomized controlled trials in which monoclonal antibodies against IL-12/23p40 were compared to placebo or another active comparator in participants with quiescent CD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. The primary outcome measure was failure to maintain clinical remission, defined as a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) of < 150 points. Secondary outcomes included failure to maintain clinical response, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), and withdrawals due to AEs. Clinical response was defined as a decrease in CDAI score of ≥ 100 points from baseline score. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. We analyzed all data on an intention-to-treat basis. We used GRADE to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence supporting the outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials (646 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Two trials assessed the efficacy of ustekinumab (542 participants), and one study assessed the efficacy of briakinumab (104 participants). We assessed all of the included studies as at low risk of bias. One study (N = 145) compared subcutaneous ustekinumab (90 mg) administered at 8 and 16 weeks compared to placebo. Fifty-eight per cent (42/72) of ustekinumab participants failed to maintain clinical remission at 22 weeks compared to 73% (53/73) of placebo participants (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.02; moderate-certainty evidence). Failure to maintain clinical response at 22 weeks was seen in 31% (22/72) of ustekinumab participants compared to 58% (42/73) of placebo participants (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence). One study (N = 388) compared subcutaneous ustekinumab (90 mg) administered every 8 weeks or every 12 weeks to placebo for 44 weeks. Forty-nine per cent (126/257) of ustekinumab participants failed to maintain clinical remission at 44 weeks compared to 64% (84/131) of placebo participants (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; moderate-certainty evidence). Forty-one per cent (106/257) of ustekinumab participants failed to maintain clinical response at 44 weeks compared to 56% (73/131) of placebo participants (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.91; moderate-certainty evidence). Eighty per cent (267/335) of ustekinumab participants had an AE compared to 84% (173/206) of placebo participants (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; high-certainty evidence). Commonly reported adverse events included infections, injection site reactions, CD event, abdominal pain, nausea, arthralgia, and headache. Eleven per cent of ustekinumab participants had an SAE compared to 16% (32/206) of placebo participants (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.15; moderate-certainty evidence). SAEs included serious infections, malignant neoplasm, and basal cell carcinoma. Seven per cent (5/73) of ustekinumab participants withdrew from the study due to an AE compared to 1% (1/72) of placebo participants (RR 4.93, 95% CI 0.59 to 41.18; low-certainty evidence). Worsening CD was the most common reason for withdrawal due to an AE. One study compared intravenous briakinumab (200 mg, 400 mg, or 700 mg) administered at weeks 12, 16, and 20 with placebo. Failure to maintain clinical remission at 24 weeks was seen in 51% (32/63) of briakinumab participants compared to 61% (22/36) of placebo participants (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.20; low-certainty evidence). Failure to maintain clinical response at 24 weeks was seen in 33% (21/63) of briakinumab participants compared to 53% (19/36) of placebo participants (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.02; low-certainty evidence). Sixty-six per cent (59/90) of briakinumab participants had an AE compared to 64% (9/14) of placebo participants (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.55; low-certainty evidence). Common AEs included upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, abdominal pain, headache, and injection site reaction. Two per cent (2/90) of briakinumab participants had an SAE compared to 7% (1/14) of placebo participants (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.21; low-certainty evidence). SAEs included small bowel obstruction, deep vein thrombosis, and respiratory distress. Withdrawal due to an AE was noted in 2% of briakinumab participants compared to 0% (0/14) of placebo participants (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.04 to 16.34; low-certainty evidence). The AEs leading to study withdrawal were not described. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that ustekinumab is probably effective for the maintenance of clinical remission and response in people with moderate to severe CD in remission without an increased risk of adverse events (high-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events (moderate-certainty evidence) relative to placebo. The effect of briakinumab on maintenance of clinical remission and response in people with moderate to severe Crohn's disease in remission was uncertain as the certainty of the evidence was low. The effect of briakinumab on adverse events and serious adverse events was also uncertain due to low-certainty evidence. Further studies are required to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of subcutaneous ustekinumab maintenance therapy in Crohn's disease and whether it should be used by itself or in combination with other agents. Future research comparing ustekinumab with other biologic medications will help to determine when treatment with ustekinumab in CD is most appropriate. Currently, there is an ongoing study that compares ustekinumab with adalimumab. This review will be updated when the results of this study become available. The manufacturers of briakinumab have stopped production of this medication, thus further studies of briakinumab are unlikely.

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.

Antibiotics for induction and maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Several antibiotics have been evaluated in Crohn's disease (CD), however randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics for induction and maintenance of remission in CD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register and Clinicaltrials.gov database from inception to 28 February 2018. We also searched reference lists and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing antibiotics to placebo or an active comparator in adult (> 15 years) CD patients were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors screened search results and extracted data. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes were failure to achieve clinical remission and relapse. Secondary outcomes included clinical response, endoscopic response, endoscopic remission, endoscopic relapse, histologic response, histologic remission, adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, withdrawal due to AEs and quality of life. Remission is commonly defined as a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) of < 150. Clinical response is commonly defined as a decrease in CDAI from baseline of 70 or 100 points. Relapse is defined as a CDAI > 150. For studies that enrolled participants with fistulizing CD, response was defined as a 50% reduction in draining fistulas. Remission was defined as complete closure of fistulas. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI for continuous outcomes. GRADE was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs (N = 1303 participants) were eligible. Two trials were rated as high risk of bias (no blinding). Seven trials were rated as unclear risk of bias and four trials were rated as low risk of bias. Comparisons included ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) versus placebo, rifaximin (800 to 2400 mg daily) versus placebo, metronidazole (400 mg to 500 mg twice daily) versus placebo, clarithromycin (1 g/day) versus placebo, cotrimoxazole (960 mg twice daily) versus placebo, ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) and metronidazole (250 mg four time daily) versus methylprednisolone (0.7 to 1 mg/kg daily), ciprofloxacin (500 mg daily), metronidazole (500 mg daily) and budesonide (9 mg daily) versus placebo with budesonide (9 mg daily), ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) versus mesalazine (2 g twice daily), ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) with adalimumab versus placebo with adalimumab, ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) with infliximab versus placebo with infliximab, clarithromycin (750 mg daily) and antimycobacterial versus placebo, and metronidazole (400 mg twice daily) and cotrimoxazole (960 mg twice daily) versus placebo. We pooled all antibiotics as a class versus placebo and antibiotics with anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) versus placebo with anti-TNF.The effect of individual antibiotics on CD was generally uncertain due to imprecision. When we pooled antibiotics as a class, 55% (289/524) of antibiotic participants failed to achieve remission at 6 to 10 weeks compared with 64% (149/231) of placebo participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.98; 7 studies; high certainty evidence). At 10 to 14 weeks, 41% (174/428) of antibiotic participants failed to achieve a clinical response compared to 49% (93/189) of placebo participants (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.93; 5 studies; moderate certainty evidence). The effect of antibiotics on relapse in uncertain. Forty-five per cent (37/83) of antibiotic participants relapsed at 52 weeks compared to 57% (41/72) of placebo participants (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.47; 2 studies; low certainty evidence). Relapse of endoscopic remission was not reported in the included studies. Antibiotics do not appear to increase the risk of AEs. Thirty-eight per cent (214/568) of antibiotic participants had at least one adverse event compared to 45% (128/284) of placebo participants (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02; 9 studies; high certainty evidence). The effect of antibiotics on serious AEs and withdrawal due to AEs was uncertain. Two per cent (6/377) of antibiotic participants had at least one adverse event compared to 0.7% (1/143) of placebo participants (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.29 to 10.01; 3 studies; low certainty evidence). Nine per cent (53/569) of antibiotic participants withdrew due to AEs compared to 12% (36/289) of placebo participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.29; 9 studies; low certainty evidence) is uncertain. Common adverse events in the studies included gastrointestinal upset, upper respiratory tract infection, abscess formation and headache, change in taste and paraesthesiaWhen we pooled antibiotics used with anti-TNF, 21% (10/48) of patients on combination therapy failed to achieve a clinical response(50% closure of fistulas) or remission (closure of fistulas) at week 12 compared with 36% (19/52) of placebo and anti-TNF participants (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.10; 2 studies; low certainty evidence). These studies did not assess the effect of antibiotics and anti-TNF on clinical or endoscopic relapse. Seventy-seven per cent (37/48) of antibiotics and anti-TNF participants had an AE compared to 83% (43/52) of anti-TNF and placebo participants (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.12; 2 studies, moderate certainty evidence). The effect of antibiotics and anti-TNF on withdrawal due to AEs is uncertain. Six per cent (3/48) of antibiotics and anti-TNF participants withdrew due to an AE compared to 8% (4/52) of anti-TNF and placebo participants (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.45; 2 studies, low certainty evidence). Common adverse events included nausea, vomiting, upper respiratory tract infections, change in taste, fatigue and headache AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate to high quality evidence suggests that any benefit provided by antibiotics in active CD is likely to be modest and may not be clinically meaningful. High quality evidence suggests that there is no increased risk of adverse events with antibiotics compared to placebo. The effect of antibiotics on the risk of serious adverse events is uncertain. The effect of antibiotics on maintenance of remission in CD is uncertain. Thus, no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of antibiotics for maintenance of remission in CD can be drawn. More research is needed to determine the efficacy and safety of antibiotics as therapy in CD.

Heterogeneity in Definitions of Endpoints for Clinical Trials of Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review for Development of a Core Outcome Set.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Advances in development of therapeutic agents for ulcerative colitis (UC) have been paralleled by innovations in trial design. It would be useful to identify a core outcome set, to standardize outcome definitions for efficacy and safety in clinical trials. We performed a systematic review of efficacy and safety outcomes reported in placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials of patients with UC. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception through March 1, 2017, for placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials of adult patients with UC treated with aminosalicylates, immunosuppressants, corticosteroids, biologics, and oral small molecules. We collected information on efficacy and safety outcomes, definitions, and measurement tools, stratified by decade of publication. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 83 randomized controlled trials (68 induction and 15 maintenance) comprising 17,737 patients. Clinical or composite-clinical efficacy outcomes were reported in all trials; the UC Disease Activity Index and Mayo Clinic Score were frequently used to determine clinical response or remission. We found substantial variation in definitions of clinical or composite-clinical endpoints, with more than 50 definitions of response or remission. Endoscopic factors, histologic features, and fecal or serum biomarkers were used to determine outcomes in 83.1% (69 of 83), 24.1% (20 of 83), and 24.1% (20 of 83) of trials, respectively. A greater proportion of trials published after 2007 reported objective outcomes (96.5% endoscopic, 26.3% histologic, and 36.8% biomarker outcomes), but no standardized definitions of histologic or biomarker endpoints were found. Patient-reported efficacy and quality-of-life outcomes were described in 25 trials (30.1%) and safety outcomes were reported in 77 trials (92.8%). CONCLUSION: In a systematic review, we found that despite recent advances in clinical trials methods, there is a great deal of variation in definitions of endpoints, including response and remission, in randomized controlled trials of patients with UC. Researchers should identify a core set of outcomes to standardize efficacy and safety reporting in UC clinical trials.

Heterogeneity in Definitions of Efficacy and Safety Endpoints for Clinical Trials of Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endpoints in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Crohn's disease (CD) are changing. We performed a systematic review of efficacy and safety outcomes reported in placebo-controlled RCTs of patients with CD. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library through March 1, 2017 for placebo-controlled RCTs of adult patients with CD treated with aminosalicylates, immunomodulators, corticosteroids, biologics, and oral small molecules. Efficacy and safety outcomes, definitions, and measurement tools were collected and stratified by decade of publication. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 116 RCTs (81 induction, 44 maintenance, 7 postoperative prevention trials, comprising 27,263 patients). Clinical efficacy endpoints were reported in all trials; the most common endpoint was CD activity index score. We identified 38 unique definitions of clinical response or remission and 32 definitions of loss of response. Definitions of endoscopic response, remission, and endoscopic healing were also heterogeneous, evaluated using the CD endoscopic index of severity, the simple endoscopic score for CD, ulcer resolution, and Rutgeerts' Score for postoperative endoscopic appearance. Histologic outcomes were reported in 11.1% of induction trials, 2.3% of maintenance trials, and 14.3% of postoperative prevention trials. Biomarker outcomes were reported in 81.5% induction trials, 68.2% of maintenance trials, and 42.9% of postoperative prevention trials. Safety outcomes were reported in 93.8% of induction trials, 97.7% of maintenance trials, and 85.7% of postoperative prevention trials. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, we demonstrate heterogeneity in definitions of response and remission, and changes in outcomes reported in RCTs of CD. It is a priority to select a core set of outcomes to standardize efficacy and safety evaluation in trials of patients with CD.

Heterogeneity in Clinical, Endoscopic, and Histologic Outcome Measures and Placebo Response Rates in Clinical Trials of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Agents are being developed for treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, it is not clear what outcome measures would best determine the efficacy and safety of these agents in clinical trials. We performed a systematic review of outcomes used in randomized placebo-controlled trials of EoE and we estimate the placebo response and rates of remission. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register from inception through February 20, 2018 for randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic therapies for EoE. Efficacy outcome definitions, measurement tools, and the proportion of patients responding to placebo were collected and stratified by based on histologic, endoscopic, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 22 placebo-controlled trials, comprising 1112 patients with EoE. Ten additional active registered trials were identified. Most published trials evaluated topical corticosteroid therapy (13/22, 59.1%). Histologic outcomes measuring eosinophil density and patient-reported outcomes were reported in 21/22 published trials (95.5%). No consistently applied definitions of histologic or patient-reported response or remission were identified. Endoscopic outcomes were described in 60% (12/20) of published trials. The EoE Endoscopic Reference Score is the most commonly applied tool for describing changes in endoscopic appearance. The median histologic response to placebo was 3.7% (range, 0%-31.6%) and the median rate of remission in patients given placebo was 0.0% (range, 0%-11.0%). The median patient-reported response to placebo was 14.4% (range, 8.6%-77.8%) and rate of remission in patients given placebo was 26.2% (range, 13.2%-35.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review of the literature, we found that no standardized definitions of histologic, endoscopic, or patient-reported outcomes are used to determine whether pharmacologic agents produce a response or remission in patients with EoE. A core outcome set is needed to reduce heterogeneity in outcome reporting and facilitate trial interpretation and comparison of results from trials.

Strategies for Detecting Colorectal Cancer in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with longstanding ulcerative colitis (UC) and colonic Crohn's disease (CD) have an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). We assess the effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) for diagnosing CRC and reducing CRC-related mortality. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 19 September 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational cohorts, or case-control studies assessing any form of endoscopic surveillance for early CRC detection were eligible for inclusion; studies without a comparison non-surveillance group were excluded. The primary outcome was rate of CRC detection. Secondary outcomes were rate of early (Duke stage A and B) versus late (Duke stage C & D) CRC detection and rate of CRC-related death. Data were pooled using fixed or random effects models based on the degree of heterogeneity; pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. RESULTS: Five observational studies evaluating 7199 IBD patients were included; no RCTs met criteria for inclusion. There are limited new studies evaluating this clinical question (last included study published 2014). There was a significantly higher rate of cancer detection in the non-surveillance group (3.2%, 135/4256) compared to the surveillance group (1.8%, 53/2895) (OR 0.58 (95% CI: 0.42-0.80), p < 0.001). In four pooled studies, there was a significantly lower rate of CRC-associated death in the surveillance group (8.5%, 15/176) compared to the non-surveillance group (22.3%, 79/354) (OR 0.36 (95% CI: 0.19-0.69), p = 0.002). In two pooled studies, there was a significantly higher rate of early-stage CRC detection in the surveillance group (15.5%, 17/110) compared to the non-surveillance group (7.7%, 9/117) (OR 5.40 (95% CI: 1.51-19.30), p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopic surveillance in IBD is associated with a reduction in CRC development and CRC-associated death, as well as increased detection of early-stage CRC.

Cannabis for the treatment of ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis and cannabinoids are often promoted as treatment for many illnesses and are widely used among patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Few studies have evaluated the use of these agents in UC. Further, cannabis has potential for adverse events and the long-term consequences of cannabis and cannabinoid use in UC are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids for the treatment of patients with UC. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTRP, AMED, PsychINFO, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov and the European Clinical Trials Register from inception to 2 January 2018. Conference abstracts and references were searched to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any form or dose of cannabis or its cannabinoid derivatives (natural or synthetic) to placebo or an active therapy for adults (> 18 years) with UC were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes were clinical remission and relapse (as defined by the primary studies). Secondary outcomes included clinical response, endoscopic remission, endoscopic response, histological response, quality of life, C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin measurements, symptom improvement, adverse events, serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, psychotropic adverse events, and cannabis dependence and withdrawal effects. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI. Data were pooled for analysis when the interventions, patient groups and outcomes were sufficiently similar (determined by consensus). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. GRADE was used to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs (92 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One study (N = 60) compared 10 weeks of cannabidiol capsules with up to 4.7% D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) with placebo capsules in participants with mild to moderate UC. The starting dose of cannabidiol was 50 mg twice daily increasing to 250 mg twice daily if tolerated. Another study (N = 32) compared 8 weeks of therapy with two cannabis cigarettes per day containing 0.5 g of cannabis, corresponding to 23 mg THC/day to placebo cigarettes in participants with UC who did not respond to conventional medical treatment. No studies were identified that assessed cannabis therapy in quiescent UC. The first study was rated as low risk of bias and the second study (published as an abstract) was rated as high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. The studies were not pooled due to differences in the interventional drug.The effect of cannabidiol capsules (100 mg to 500 mg daily) compared to placebo on clinical remission and response is uncertain. Clinical remission at 10 weeks was achieved by 24% (7/29) of the cannabidiol group compared to 26% (8/31) in the placebo group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.25; low certainty evidence). Clinical response at 10 weeks was achieved in 31% (9/29) of cannabidiol participants compared to 22% (7/31) of placebo patients (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.21; low certainty evidence). Serum CRP levels were similar in both groups after 10 weeks of therapy. The mean CRP in the cannabidiol group was 9.428 mg/L compared to 7.638 mg/L in the placebo group (MD 1.79, 95% CI -5.67 to 9.25; moderate certainty evidence). There may be a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life at 10 weeks, measured with the IBDQ scale (MD 17.4, 95% CI -3.45 to 38.25; moderate certainty evidence). Adverse events were more frequent in cannabidiol participants compared to placebo. One hundred per cent (29/29) of cannabidiol participants had an adverse event, compared to 77% (24/31) of placebo participants (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.05 to1.56; moderate certainty evidence). However, these adverse events were considered to be mild or moderate in severity. Common adverse events included dizziness, disturbance in attention, headache, nausea and fatigue. None (0/29) of the cannabidiol participants had a serious adverse event compared to 13% (4/31) of placebo participants (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.11; low certainty evidence). Serious adverse events in the placebo group included worsening of UC and one complicated pregnancy. These serious adverse events were thought to be unrelated to the study drug. More participants in the cannabidiol group withdrew due to an adverse event than placebo participants. Thirty-four per cent (10/29) of cannabidiol participants withdrew due to an adverse event compared to 16% (5/31) of placebo participants (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.83 to 5.51; low certainty evidence). Withdrawls in the cannabidiol group were mostly due to dizziness. Withdrawals in the placebo group were due to worsening UC.The effect of cannabis cigarettes (23 mg THC/day) compared to placebo on mean disease activity, CRP levels and mean fecal calprotectin levels is uncertain. After 8 weeks, the mean disease activity index score in cannabis participants was 4 compared with 8 in placebo participants (MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.98 to -2.02). After 8 weeks, the mean change in CRP levels was similar in both groups (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.35 to 0.75; low certainty evidence). The mean fecal calprotectin level in cannabis participants was 115 mg/dl compared to 229 mg/dl in placebo participants (MD -114.00, 95% CI -246.01 to 18.01). No serious adverse events were observed. This study did not report on clinical remission, clinical response, quality of life, adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of cannabis and cannabidiol on UC are uncertain, thus no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of cannabis or cannabidiol in adults with active UC can be drawn.There is no evidence for cannabis or cannabinoid use for maintenance of remission in UC. Further studies with a larger number of patients are required to assess the effects of cannabis in UC patients with active and quiescent disease. Different doses of cannabis and routes of administration should be investigated. Lastly, follow-up is needed to assess the long term safety outcomes of frequent cannabis use.