Saqr Alsakarneh, Michael Camilleri, Francis A Farraye, Jana G Hashash
{"title":"胆汁酸隔离剂和抗生素治疗急性袋炎的比较效果:来自美国的一项匹配队列研究。","authors":"Saqr Alsakarneh, Michael Camilleri, Francis A Farraye, Jana G Hashash","doi":"10.1007/s10620-025-09039-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Bile acid sequestrants (BAS) are an emerging option for treatment of pouchitis. We aimed to compare BAS monotherapy, antibiotics, and combination therapy with both in the treatment of pouchitis after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis (UC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the US-Collaborative TriNetX database to identify patients with acute pouchitis and UC. Treatment groups were divided into BAS (cholestyramine, colesevelam, colestipol), antibiotics (ciprofloxacin and/or metronidazole), and combination therapy of both BAS and antibiotics. Primary outcomes were failure of initial therapy (early relapse or nonresponse) and the development of recurrent pouchitis in the first 12 months after an initial episode of pouchitis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis included 1,136 patients (mean age: 37.8 ± 15.4 years, and 45.9% female) of whom 727 (64%) were diagnosed with recurrent pouchitis. After adjusting for confounders by propensity-score matching, there was no significant difference in the odds of early relapse or nonresponse with BAS compared with antibiotic monotherapy (aOR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.40-1.38; p = 0.34) or combination therapy (aOR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.47-1.88; p = 0.86). Patients treated with BAS had a statistically significant lower recurrent pouchitis rate (aHR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.42-0.79; p < 0.001) compared with patients treated with antibiotics. Patients treated with BAS had a statistically significant longer time (median: 225 days) to recurrent pouchitis (p < 0.001) compared to antibiotics (median: 99 days).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using real-world evidence regarding treatment of pouchitis compared to standard antibiotic therapy, BAS monotherapy was not inferior for initial treatment response and significantly prolonged time to recurrent pouchitis.</p>","PeriodicalId":11378,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Effectiveness of Bile Acid Sequestrants and Antibiotics in the Management of Acute Pouchitis: A Matched Cohort Study from the United States.\",\"authors\":\"Saqr Alsakarneh, Michael Camilleri, Francis A Farraye, Jana G Hashash\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10620-025-09039-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Bile acid sequestrants (BAS) are an emerging option for treatment of pouchitis. We aimed to compare BAS monotherapy, antibiotics, and combination therapy with both in the treatment of pouchitis after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis (UC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the US-Collaborative TriNetX database to identify patients with acute pouchitis and UC. Treatment groups were divided into BAS (cholestyramine, colesevelam, colestipol), antibiotics (ciprofloxacin and/or metronidazole), and combination therapy of both BAS and antibiotics. Primary outcomes were failure of initial therapy (early relapse or nonresponse) and the development of recurrent pouchitis in the first 12 months after an initial episode of pouchitis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis included 1,136 patients (mean age: 37.8 ± 15.4 years, and 45.9% female) of whom 727 (64%) were diagnosed with recurrent pouchitis. After adjusting for confounders by propensity-score matching, there was no significant difference in the odds of early relapse or nonresponse with BAS compared with antibiotic monotherapy (aOR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.40-1.38; p = 0.34) or combination therapy (aOR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.47-1.88; p = 0.86). Patients treated with BAS had a statistically significant lower recurrent pouchitis rate (aHR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.42-0.79; p < 0.001) compared with patients treated with antibiotics. Patients treated with BAS had a statistically significant longer time (median: 225 days) to recurrent pouchitis (p < 0.001) compared to antibiotics (median: 99 days).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using real-world evidence regarding treatment of pouchitis compared to standard antibiotic therapy, BAS monotherapy was not inferior for initial treatment response and significantly prolonged time to recurrent pouchitis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Digestive Diseases and Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Digestive Diseases and Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-025-09039-2\",\"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":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-025-09039-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative Effectiveness of Bile Acid Sequestrants and Antibiotics in the Management of Acute Pouchitis: A Matched Cohort Study from the United States.
Background and aims: Bile acid sequestrants (BAS) are an emerging option for treatment of pouchitis. We aimed to compare BAS monotherapy, antibiotics, and combination therapy with both in the treatment of pouchitis after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis (UC).
Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the US-Collaborative TriNetX database to identify patients with acute pouchitis and UC. Treatment groups were divided into BAS (cholestyramine, colesevelam, colestipol), antibiotics (ciprofloxacin and/or metronidazole), and combination therapy of both BAS and antibiotics. Primary outcomes were failure of initial therapy (early relapse or nonresponse) and the development of recurrent pouchitis in the first 12 months after an initial episode of pouchitis.
Results: Our analysis included 1,136 patients (mean age: 37.8 ± 15.4 years, and 45.9% female) of whom 727 (64%) were diagnosed with recurrent pouchitis. After adjusting for confounders by propensity-score matching, there was no significant difference in the odds of early relapse or nonresponse with BAS compared with antibiotic monotherapy (aOR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.40-1.38; p = 0.34) or combination therapy (aOR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.47-1.88; p = 0.86). Patients treated with BAS had a statistically significant lower recurrent pouchitis rate (aHR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.42-0.79; p < 0.001) compared with patients treated with antibiotics. Patients treated with BAS had a statistically significant longer time (median: 225 days) to recurrent pouchitis (p < 0.001) compared to antibiotics (median: 99 days).
Conclusion: Using real-world evidence regarding treatment of pouchitis compared to standard antibiotic therapy, BAS monotherapy was not inferior for initial treatment response and significantly prolonged time to recurrent pouchitis.
期刊介绍:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed, original papers addressing aspects of basic/translational and clinical research in gastroenterology, hepatology, and related fields. This well-illustrated journal features comprehensive coverage of basic pathophysiology, new technological advances, and clinical breakthroughs; insights from prominent academicians and practitioners concerning new scientific developments and practical medical issues; and discussions focusing on the latest changes in local and worldwide social, economic, and governmental policies that affect the delivery of care within the disciplines of gastroenterology and hepatology.