布地奈德与美沙拉明治疗显微镜下结肠炎:随机对照试验的对比 Meta 分析。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Adnan Malik, Hemant Goyal, Douglas G Adler, Sadia Javaid, Muhammad Imran Malik, Shailendra Singh, Abdul Nadir, Ayokunle T Abegunde
{"title":"布地奈德与美沙拉明治疗显微镜下结肠炎:随机对照试验的对比 Meta 分析。","authors":"Adnan Malik, Hemant Goyal, Douglas G Adler, Sadia Javaid, Muhammad Imran Malik, Shailendra Singh, Abdul Nadir, Ayokunle T Abegunde","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Microscopic colitis (MC) is an inflammatory bowel disease of autoimmune origin that causes chronic watery diarrhea. Medications, including budesonide, mesalamine, loperamide, cholestyramine, and bismuth subsalicylate, are first-line therapies. Meanwhile, azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate are indicated for refractory MC.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aim to assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide compared with mesalamine for induction of remission in MC patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed for relevant clinical trials comparing either mesalamine or budesonide with a control group. We included the following outcomes: clinical remission (3 or fewer stools/day), daily stool weight, daily stool frequency, number of patients with clinical response <50% in the disease activity, and daily stool consistency. Safety end points included: any adverse event, serious adverse events, any adverse event-related discontinuation, abdominal discomfort, constipation, flatulence, nausea, dizziness, headache, bronchitis, nasopharyngitis, and depression. We conducted a meta-analysis model using the generic inverse variance method and performed a subgroup analysis based on the intervention administered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen randomized clinical trials were included. We found that after 6 weeks of follow-up, budesonide is associated with increased clinical remission rates compared with mesalamine [RR=2.46 (2.27, 2.67), and RR=2.24 (1.95, 2.57), respectively]. However, the test of subgroup difference revealed that the difference is not significant (P=0.25). After 8 weeks of follow-up, budesonide showed significantly higher clinical remission rates than mesalamine RR=2.29 (2.14, 2.45), and RR=1.7 (1.41, 2.05), respectively (P=0.003). Regarding the daily stool weight, patients in the budesonide group showed nonsignificant less stool weight [MD=-351.62 (-534.25, -168.99)] compared with mesalamine [MD=-104.3 (-372.34, 163.74)], P=0.14. However, daily stool frequency was significantly less in the budesonide group compared with mesalamine (P<0.001). Budesonide is associated with a significantly lower incidence of adverse events compared with mesalamine (P=0.002). Analysis of other safety endpoints was not significant between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Budesonide was found to be better than mesalamine in MC patients in terms of clinical remission rate, especially after 8 weeks of follow-up. Budesonide also showed less incidence of adverse events. There is an urgent need for randomized, double-blinded clinical trials to provide direct and reliable evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Budesonide Versus Mesalamine in Microscopic Colitis: A Comparative Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Adnan Malik, Hemant Goyal, Douglas G Adler, Sadia Javaid, Muhammad Imran Malik, Shailendra Singh, Abdul Nadir, Ayokunle T Abegunde\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Microscopic colitis (MC) is an inflammatory bowel disease of autoimmune origin that causes chronic watery diarrhea. Medications, including budesonide, mesalamine, loperamide, cholestyramine, and bismuth subsalicylate, are first-line therapies. Meanwhile, azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate are indicated for refractory MC.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aim to assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide compared with mesalamine for induction of remission in MC patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed for relevant clinical trials comparing either mesalamine or budesonide with a control group. We included the following outcomes: clinical remission (3 or fewer stools/day), daily stool weight, daily stool frequency, number of patients with clinical response <50% in the disease activity, and daily stool consistency. Safety end points included: any adverse event, serious adverse events, any adverse event-related discontinuation, abdominal discomfort, constipation, flatulence, nausea, dizziness, headache, bronchitis, nasopharyngitis, and depression. We conducted a meta-analysis model using the generic inverse variance method and performed a subgroup analysis based on the intervention administered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen randomized clinical trials were included. We found that after 6 weeks of follow-up, budesonide is associated with increased clinical remission rates compared with mesalamine [RR=2.46 (2.27, 2.67), and RR=2.24 (1.95, 2.57), respectively]. However, the test of subgroup difference revealed that the difference is not significant (P=0.25). After 8 weeks of follow-up, budesonide showed significantly higher clinical remission rates than mesalamine RR=2.29 (2.14, 2.45), and RR=1.7 (1.41, 2.05), respectively (P=0.003). Regarding the daily stool weight, patients in the budesonide group showed nonsignificant less stool weight [MD=-351.62 (-534.25, -168.99)] compared with mesalamine [MD=-104.3 (-372.34, 163.74)], P=0.14. However, daily stool frequency was significantly less in the budesonide group compared with mesalamine (P<0.001). Budesonide is associated with a significantly lower incidence of adverse events compared with mesalamine (P=0.002). Analysis of other safety endpoints was not significant between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Budesonide was found to be better than mesalamine in MC patients in terms of clinical remission rate, especially after 8 weeks of follow-up. Budesonide also showed less incidence of adverse events. There is an urgent need for randomized, double-blinded clinical trials to provide direct and reliable evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002025\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002025","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:显微结肠炎(MC)是一种由自身免疫引起的炎症性肠病,会导致慢性水样腹泻。布地奈德、美沙拉明、洛哌丁胺、胆碱酯酶和亚水杨酸铋等药物是一线疗法。同时,硫唑嘌呤、6-巯基嘌呤和甲氨蝶呤适用于难治性 MC:目的:我们旨在评估布地奈德与美沙拉嗪相比在诱导 MC 患者病情缓解方面的有效性和安全性:我们在 Cochrane Library、Scopus、Web of Science 和 PubMed 中检索了将美沙拉明或布地奈德与对照组进行比较的相关临床试验。我们纳入了以下结果:临床缓解(大便次数3次或更少/天)、每日大便重量、每日大便次数、有临床反应的患者人数 结果:共纳入 19 项随机临床试验。我们发现,随访 6 周后,布地奈德与美沙拉秦相比,临床缓解率更高[RR=2.46 (2.27, 2.67) 和 RR=2.24 (1.95, 2.57)]。然而,亚组差异检验显示差异不显著(P=0.25)。随访 8 周后,布地奈德的临床缓解率分别为 RR=2.29 (2.14, 2.45) 和 RR=1.7 (1.41, 2.05),明显高于美沙拉秦(P=0.003)。在每日粪便重量方面,布地奈德组患者的粪便重量[MD=-351.62 (-534.25, -168.99)]比美沙拉明组[MD=-104.3 (-372.34, 163.74)]显著减少,P=0.14。不过,布地奈德组的每日大便次数明显少于美沙拉明组(PConclusions:研究发现,布地奈德在 MC 患者的临床缓解率方面优于美沙拉明,尤其是在 8 周的随访后。布地奈德的不良反应发生率也较低。目前迫切需要随机、双盲临床试验来提供直接可靠的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Budesonide Versus Mesalamine in Microscopic Colitis: A Comparative Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: Microscopic colitis (MC) is an inflammatory bowel disease of autoimmune origin that causes chronic watery diarrhea. Medications, including budesonide, mesalamine, loperamide, cholestyramine, and bismuth subsalicylate, are first-line therapies. Meanwhile, azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate are indicated for refractory MC.

Objective: We aim to assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide compared with mesalamine for induction of remission in MC patients.

Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed for relevant clinical trials comparing either mesalamine or budesonide with a control group. We included the following outcomes: clinical remission (3 or fewer stools/day), daily stool weight, daily stool frequency, number of patients with clinical response <50% in the disease activity, and daily stool consistency. Safety end points included: any adverse event, serious adverse events, any adverse event-related discontinuation, abdominal discomfort, constipation, flatulence, nausea, dizziness, headache, bronchitis, nasopharyngitis, and depression. We conducted a meta-analysis model using the generic inverse variance method and performed a subgroup analysis based on the intervention administered.

Results: Nineteen randomized clinical trials were included. We found that after 6 weeks of follow-up, budesonide is associated with increased clinical remission rates compared with mesalamine [RR=2.46 (2.27, 2.67), and RR=2.24 (1.95, 2.57), respectively]. However, the test of subgroup difference revealed that the difference is not significant (P=0.25). After 8 weeks of follow-up, budesonide showed significantly higher clinical remission rates than mesalamine RR=2.29 (2.14, 2.45), and RR=1.7 (1.41, 2.05), respectively (P=0.003). Regarding the daily stool weight, patients in the budesonide group showed nonsignificant less stool weight [MD=-351.62 (-534.25, -168.99)] compared with mesalamine [MD=-104.3 (-372.34, 163.74)], P=0.14. However, daily stool frequency was significantly less in the budesonide group compared with mesalamine (P<0.001). Budesonide is associated with a significantly lower incidence of adverse events compared with mesalamine (P=0.002). Analysis of other safety endpoints was not significant between both groups.

Conclusions: Budesonide was found to be better than mesalamine in MC patients in terms of clinical remission rate, especially after 8 weeks of follow-up. Budesonide also showed less incidence of adverse events. There is an urgent need for randomized, double-blinded clinical trials to provide direct and reliable evidence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信