Infliximab for maintenance of medically-induced remission in Crohn's disease.
Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and neutralises tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) which is present in high levels in the blood serum, mucosa and stool of patients with Crohn's disease.
To determine the efficacy and safety of infliximab for maintaining remission in patients with Crohn's disease.
On 31 August, 2021 and 23 June, 2023, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which infliximab was compared to placebo or another active comparator for maintenance, remission, or response in patients with Crohn's disease.
Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcome was clinical relapse. Secondary outcomes were loss of clinical response, endoscopic relapse, and withdrawal due to serious and adverse events.
Nine RCTs with 1257 participants were included. They were conducted between 1999 and 2022; seven RCTs included biologically-naive patients, and the remaining two included a mix of naive/not naive patients. Three studies included patients in clinical remission, five included patients with a mix of activity scores, and one study included biologic responders with active disease at baseline. All studies allowed some form of concomitant medication during their duration. One study exclusively included patients with fistulating disease. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 69 years old. All but one single-centre RCT were multicentre RCTs. Four studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies, two had a mix of commercial and public funding, and two had public funding. Infliximab is probably superior to placebo in preventing clinical relapse in patients who have mixed levels of clinical disease activity at baseline, and are not naive to biologics (56% vs 75%, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.84, NNTB = 5, moderate-certainty evidence). We cannot draw any conclusions on loss of clinical response (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.96), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.19), or serious adverse events (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.00) because the evidence is very low certainty. Infliximab combined with purine analogues is probably superior to purine analogues for clinical relapse (12% vs 59%, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.42, NNTB = 2, moderate-certainty evidence), for patients in remission, and who are not naive to biologics. We cannot draw any conclusions on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.49), and serious adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.64) because the evidence is very low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions about the effects of infliximab on serious adverse events compared to purine analogues (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.68) for a population in remission at baseline because the evidence is very low certainty. There was no evidence available for the outcomes of clinical relapse, loss of clinical response, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Infliximab may be equivalent to biosimilar for clinical relapse (47% vs 40% RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.69), and it may be slightly less effective in averting loss of clinical response (49% vs 32%, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.23, low-certainty evidence), for a population with mixed/low disease activity at baseline. Infliximab may be less effective than biosimilar in averting withdrawals due to adverse events (27% vs 0%, RR 20.73, 95% CI 2.86 to 150.33, low-certainty evidence). Infliximab may be equivalent to biosimilar for serious adverse events (10% vs 10%, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.50, low-certainty evidence). We cannot draw any conclusions on the effects of subcutaneous biosimilar compared with intravenous biosimilar on clinical relapse (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.57), loss of clinical response (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25), and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.97) for an active disease population with clinical response at baseline because the evidence is of very low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab compared to adalimumab on loss of clinical response (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.59), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.72), serious adverse events (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.54) for an active disease population with clinical response at baseline because the evidence is of very low certainty. There was no evidence available for the outcome of clinical relapse.
Infliximab is probably more effective in preventing clinical relapse than placebo (moderate-certainty evidence). Infliximab in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective in preventing clinical and endoscopic relapse than purine analogues alone (moderate-certainty evidence). No conclusions can be drawn regarding prevention of loss of clinical response, occurrence of withdrawals due to adverse events, or total adverse events due to very low-certainty evidence for both of these comparisons. There may be little or no difference in prevention of clinical relapse, withdrawal due to adverse events or total adverse events between infliximab and a biosimilar (low-certainty evidence). Infliximab may lead to more loss of clinical response than a biosimilar (low-certainty evidence). We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions about other comparisons and outcomes related to missing data or very low-certainty evidence due to serious concerns about imprecision and risk of bias. Further research should focus on comparisons with other active therapies for maintaining remission, as well as ensuring adequate power calculations and reporting of methods.
Gordon M
，Sinopoulou V
，Akobeng AK
，Sarian A
，Moran GW
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
Probiotics for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.
Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with ulcerative colitis can be put into remission, leaving a group who do not respond to first- or second-line therapies. There is a significant proportion of people who experience adverse effects with current therapies. Consequently, new alternatives for the treatment of ulcerative colitis are constantly being sought. Probiotics are live microbial feed supplements that may beneficially affect the host by improving intestinal microbial balance, enhancing gut barrier function and improving local immune response.
The primary objective was to determine the efficacy of probiotics compared to placebo, no treatment, or any other intervention for the maintenance of remission in people with ulcerative colitis. The secondary objective was to assess the occurrence of adverse events associated with the use of probiotics.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 31 October 2019. We contacted authors of relevant studies and manufacturers of probiotics regarding ongoing or unpublished trials that may be relevant to the review, and we searched ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched references of trials for any additional trials.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared probiotics against placebo or any other intervention, in both adults and children, for the maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis were eligible for inclusion. Maintenance therapy had to be for a minimum of three months when remission has been established by any clinical, endoscopic,histological or radiological relapse as defined by study authors.
Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology.
In this review, we included 12 studies (1473 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adults. The studies compared probiotics to placebo, probiotics to 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) and a combination of probiotics and 5-ASA to 5-ASA. The studies ranged in length from 12 to 52 weeks. The average age of participants was between 32 and 51, with a range between 18 and 88 years. Seven studies investigated a single bacterial strain, and five studies considered mixed preparations of multiple strains. The risk of bias was high in all except three studies due to selective reporting, incomplete outcome data and lack of blinding. This resulted in low- to very low-certainty of evidence. It is uncertain if there is any difference in occurrence of clinical relapse when probiotics are compared with placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18; 4 studies, 361 participants; very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imbalance in baseline characteristics and imprecision)). It is also uncertain whether probiotics lead to a difference in the number of people who maintain clinical remission compared with placebo (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.37; 2 studies, 141 participants; very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imbalance in baseline characteristics and imprecision)). When probiotics are compared with 5-ASA, there may be little or no difference in clinical relapse (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.22; 2 studies, 452 participants; low-certainty evidence) and maintenance of clinical remission (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25; 1 study, 125 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is any difference in clinical relapse when probiotics, combined with 5-ASA are compared with 5-ASA alone (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.87; 2 studies, 242 participants; very low-certainty evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision)). There may be little or no difference in maintenance of remission when probiotics, combined with 5-ASA, are compared with 5-ASA alone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.24; 1 study, 122 participants; low-certainty evidence). Where reported, most of the studies which compared probiotics with placebo recorded no serious adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events. For the comparison of probiotics and 5-ASA, one trial reported 11/110 withdrawals due to adverse events with probiotics and 11/112 with 5-ASA (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.25; 222 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Discontinuation of therapy was due to gastrointestinal symptoms. One study (24 participants) comparing probiotics combined with 5-ASA with 5-ASA alone, reported no withdrawals due to adverse events; and two studies reported two withdrawals in the probiotic arm, due to avascular necrosis of bilateral femoral head and pulmonary thromboembolism (RR 5.29, 95% CI 0.26 to 107.63; 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life and need for additional therapy were reported infrequently.
The effectiveness of probiotics for the maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis remains unclear. This is due to low- to very low-certainty evidence from poorly conducted studies, which contribute limited amounts of data from a small number of participants. Future trials comparing probiotics with 5-ASA rather than placebo will better reflect conventional care given to people with ulcerative colitis. Appropriately powered studies with a minimum length of 12 months are needed.
Iheozor-Ejiofor Z
，Kaur L
，Gordon M
，Baines PA
，Sinopoulou V
，Akobeng AK
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Murray A
，Nguyen TM
，Parker CE
，Feagan BG
，MacDonald JK
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
