Budesonide Versus Mesalamine in Microscopic Colitis: A Comparative Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Journal of clinical gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1097/MCG.0000000000002025
Adnan Malik, Hemant Goyal, Douglas G Adler, Sadia Javaid, Muhammad Imran Malik, Shailendra Singh, Abdul Nadir, Ayokunle T Abegunde
{"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}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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。
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 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.
期刊最新文献
Predictors of Colonoscopy Use Among Asian Indians in New York City, 2003 to 2016. Application of a Machine Learning Predictive Model for Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis. FIB-4 as a Time-varying Covariate and Its Association With Severe Liver Disease in Primary Care: A Time-dependent Cox Regression Analysis. Cold Versus Hot Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Sessile Serrated Colorectal Polyps ≥10 mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Safety of Percutaneous Endoscopic Jejunostomy Placement Compared With Surgical and Radiologic Jejunostomy Placement: A Nationwide Inpatient Assessment.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1