Cargando…

Efficacy and safety of medical therapies in microscopic colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The mainstay of treatment for microscopic colitis (MC) is budesonide. However, the optimal formulation and dosage of budesonide to induce and maintain remission has not yet been clearly demonstrated. OBJECTIVES: To compare the data for efficacy and safety of treatments to induce and main...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kumar, Aditi, Hiner, George, Brookes, Matthew J., Segal, Jonathan P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9969448/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36860692
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17562848231154319
_version_ 1784897730511896576
author Kumar, Aditi
Hiner, George
Brookes, Matthew J.
Segal, Jonathan P.
author_facet Kumar, Aditi
Hiner, George
Brookes, Matthew J.
Segal, Jonathan P.
author_sort Kumar, Aditi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The mainstay of treatment for microscopic colitis (MC) is budesonide. However, the optimal formulation and dosage of budesonide to induce and maintain remission has not yet been clearly demonstrated. OBJECTIVES: To compare the data for efficacy and safety of treatments to induce and maintain remission for MC. DESIGN: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatment with each other or placebo for induction and maintenance of clinical and histological remission in MC. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1946 to May 2021), EMBASE and EMBASE Classis (1947 to May 2021), the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (Issue 2, May 2021) and conference proceedings between 2006 and 2020. Results were reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to summarise the effect of each comparison tested, with treatments ranked according to p score. RESULTS: We identified 15 RCTs in total for the treatment of MC. Entocort 9 mg ranked first for clinical (RR: 4.89, CI: 2.43–9.83; p score: 0.86) and histological (RR: 13.39, CI: 1.92–93.44; p score 0.94) induction of remission, whilst VSL#3 ranked second for clinical induction (RR: 5.30, CI: 0.68–41.39; p score 0.81). Budenofalk 6 mg/3 mg alternate day dosing ranked first for clinical maintenance of remission (RR: 3.68, CI: 0.08–159.92, p-score 0.65). Entocort and Budenofalk were associated with the greatest adverse events for induction and maintenance of clinical remission, respectively, although the overall withdrawal numbers for treatment versus placebo groups were 10.9% (22/201) and 10.5% (20/190), respectively. CONCLUSION: Entocort 9 mg/day ranked first among the treatment options in inducing remission and Budenofalk 6 mg/3 mg alternate day dosing for maintaining remission in the treatment of MC. Moving forward, mechanistic studies exploring the differences between Entocort and Budenofalk would be valuable whilst future RCT studies are needed in non-corticosteroidal maintenance, particularly looking into immunomodulators, biologics and probiotics.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9969448
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99694482023-02-28 Efficacy and safety of medical therapies in microscopic colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis Kumar, Aditi Hiner, George Brookes, Matthew J. Segal, Jonathan P. Therap Adv Gastroenterol Meta-Analysis BACKGROUND: The mainstay of treatment for microscopic colitis (MC) is budesonide. However, the optimal formulation and dosage of budesonide to induce and maintain remission has not yet been clearly demonstrated. OBJECTIVES: To compare the data for efficacy and safety of treatments to induce and maintain remission for MC. DESIGN: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatment with each other or placebo for induction and maintenance of clinical and histological remission in MC. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1946 to May 2021), EMBASE and EMBASE Classis (1947 to May 2021), the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (Issue 2, May 2021) and conference proceedings between 2006 and 2020. Results were reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to summarise the effect of each comparison tested, with treatments ranked according to p score. RESULTS: We identified 15 RCTs in total for the treatment of MC. Entocort 9 mg ranked first for clinical (RR: 4.89, CI: 2.43–9.83; p score: 0.86) and histological (RR: 13.39, CI: 1.92–93.44; p score 0.94) induction of remission, whilst VSL#3 ranked second for clinical induction (RR: 5.30, CI: 0.68–41.39; p score 0.81). Budenofalk 6 mg/3 mg alternate day dosing ranked first for clinical maintenance of remission (RR: 3.68, CI: 0.08–159.92, p-score 0.65). Entocort and Budenofalk were associated with the greatest adverse events for induction and maintenance of clinical remission, respectively, although the overall withdrawal numbers for treatment versus placebo groups were 10.9% (22/201) and 10.5% (20/190), respectively. CONCLUSION: Entocort 9 mg/day ranked first among the treatment options in inducing remission and Budenofalk 6 mg/3 mg alternate day dosing for maintaining remission in the treatment of MC. Moving forward, mechanistic studies exploring the differences between Entocort and Budenofalk would be valuable whilst future RCT studies are needed in non-corticosteroidal maintenance, particularly looking into immunomodulators, biologics and probiotics. SAGE Publications 2023-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9969448/ /pubmed/36860692 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17562848231154319 Text en © The Author(s), 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Meta-Analysis
Kumar, Aditi
Hiner, George
Brookes, Matthew J.
Segal, Jonathan P.
Efficacy and safety of medical therapies in microscopic colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title Efficacy and safety of medical therapies in microscopic colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full Efficacy and safety of medical therapies in microscopic colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Efficacy and safety of medical therapies in microscopic colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and safety of medical therapies in microscopic colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_short Efficacy and safety of medical therapies in microscopic colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_sort efficacy and safety of medical therapies in microscopic colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
topic Meta-Analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9969448/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36860692
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17562848231154319
work_keys_str_mv AT kumaraditi efficacyandsafetyofmedicaltherapiesinmicroscopiccolitisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT hinergeorge efficacyandsafetyofmedicaltherapiesinmicroscopiccolitisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT brookesmatthewj efficacyandsafetyofmedicaltherapiesinmicroscopiccolitisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT segaljonathanp efficacyandsafetyofmedicaltherapiesinmicroscopiccolitisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis