元分析:评估嗜酸性粒细胞性食管炎随机对照试验结果中的安慰剂比例。

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1111/apt.18382
Angelica Rivas, Newaz Shubidito Ahmed, Yuhong Yuan, Anila Qasim, David B O'Gorman, Brian G Feagan, Vipul Jairath, Albert J Bredenoord, Evan S Dellon, Christopher Ma
{"title":"元分析:评估嗜酸性粒细胞性食管炎随机对照试验结果中的安慰剂比例。","authors":"Angelica Rivas, Newaz Shubidito Ahmed, Yuhong Yuan, Anila Qasim, David B O'Gorman, Brian G Feagan, Vipul Jairath, Albert J Bredenoord, Evan S Dellon, Christopher Ma","doi":"10.1111/apt.18382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High placebo responses have limited drug development in eosinophilic oesophagitis. The optimal configuration of trial outcomes is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To inform more efficient future trial designs, to characterise clinical, endoscopic and histologic placebo responses in eosinophilic oesophagitis randomised controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We updated a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis, searching multiple databases to January 1, 2024, to identify placebo-controlled RCTs evaluating medical therapies for patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis. The primary outcome was the pooled proportion of study-defined clinical, endoscopic and histologic responders and remitters randomised to placebo, using an intention-to-treat approach and random-effects model. Sources of heterogeneity were explored using meta-regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 25 RCTs. The pooled proportion of clinical response was 41.0% [95% CI: 29.7%-52.8%] with substantial heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 74.9%). On meta-regression, older age and a higher probability of being randomised to placebo reduced the likelihood of clinical response to placebo. The pooled proportion of histologic remission defined as a peak eosinophil count [PEC] ≤ 6 eosinophils per high power field [HPF] or ≤ 1 eosinophil/HPF was 4.3% [95% CI: 2.6%-6.2%] (I<sup>2</sup> = 23.6%) and 1.3% [95% CI: 0.5%-2.5%] (I<sup>2</sup> = 0%), respectively. The standardised mean difference in the Eosinophilic Oesophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score to placebo was -0.25 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.10].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Over 40% of patients in eosinophilic oesophagitis trials respond clinically to placebo, and this is associated with trial design factors such as randomisation ratio and trial population. Objective endoscopic and histologic measures are associated with very low placebo responses.</p>","PeriodicalId":121,"journal":{"name":"Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-Analysis: Evaluating Placebo Rates Across Outcomes in Eosinophilic Oesophagitis Randomised Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Angelica Rivas, Newaz Shubidito Ahmed, Yuhong Yuan, Anila Qasim, David B O'Gorman, Brian G Feagan, Vipul Jairath, Albert J Bredenoord, Evan S Dellon, Christopher Ma\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/apt.18382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High placebo responses have limited drug development in eosinophilic oesophagitis. The optimal configuration of trial outcomes is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To inform more efficient future trial designs, to characterise clinical, endoscopic and histologic placebo responses in eosinophilic oesophagitis randomised controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We updated a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis, searching multiple databases to January 1, 2024, to identify placebo-controlled RCTs evaluating medical therapies for patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis. The primary outcome was the pooled proportion of study-defined clinical, endoscopic and histologic responders and remitters randomised to placebo, using an intention-to-treat approach and random-effects model. Sources of heterogeneity were explored using meta-regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 25 RCTs. The pooled proportion of clinical response was 41.0% [95% CI: 29.7%-52.8%] with substantial heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 74.9%). On meta-regression, older age and a higher probability of being randomised to placebo reduced the likelihood of clinical response to placebo. The pooled proportion of histologic remission defined as a peak eosinophil count [PEC] ≤ 6 eosinophils per high power field [HPF] or ≤ 1 eosinophil/HPF was 4.3% [95% CI: 2.6%-6.2%] (I<sup>2</sup> = 23.6%) and 1.3% [95% CI: 0.5%-2.5%] (I<sup>2</sup> = 0%), respectively. The standardised mean difference in the Eosinophilic Oesophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score to placebo was -0.25 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.10].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Over 40% of patients in eosinophilic oesophagitis trials respond clinically to placebo, and this is associated with trial design factors such as randomisation ratio and trial population. Objective endoscopic and histologic measures are associated with very low placebo responses.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":121,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.18382\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.18382","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:高安慰剂反应限制了嗜酸性粒细胞性食管炎的药物开发。目的:为了给未来更有效的试验设计提供信息,描述嗜酸性粒细胞性食管炎随机对照试验(RCT)中临床、内镜和组织学安慰剂反应的特征:我们更新了 Cochrane 系统综述和荟萃分析,搜索了多个数据库(截至 2024 年 1 月 1 日),以确定对嗜酸性粒细胞性食管炎患者的药物疗法进行评估的安慰剂对照 RCT。采用意向治疗法和随机效应模型,主要结果是研究定义的临床、内镜和组织学应答者和缓解者与安慰剂随机对照的汇总比例。采用元回归法探讨了异质性的来源:结果:我们纳入了 25 项研究。临床反应的汇总比例为 41.0% [95% CI:29.7%-52.8%],异质性很大(I2 = 74.9%)。在元回归中,年龄越大、被随机分配到安慰剂的概率越高,对安慰剂产生临床反应的可能性就越小。嗜酸性粒细胞峰值计数[PEC]≤6个/高倍视野[HPF]或≤1个/HPF的组织学缓解率分别为4.3%[95% CI:2.6%-6.2%](I2 = 23.6%)和1.3%[95% CI:0.5%-2.5%](I2 = 0%)。嗜酸性粒细胞食管炎内镜参考评分与安慰剂的标准化平均差异为-0.25 [95% CI:-0.41, -0.10]:在嗜酸性粒细胞性食管炎试验中,超过40%的患者对安慰剂有临床反应,这与试验设计因素(如随机化比率和试验人群)有关。客观的内镜和组织学指标与极低的安慰剂反应有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Meta-Analysis: Evaluating Placebo Rates Across Outcomes in Eosinophilic Oesophagitis Randomised Controlled Trials.

Background: High placebo responses have limited drug development in eosinophilic oesophagitis. The optimal configuration of trial outcomes is uncertain.

Aims: To inform more efficient future trial designs, to characterise clinical, endoscopic and histologic placebo responses in eosinophilic oesophagitis randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods: We updated a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis, searching multiple databases to January 1, 2024, to identify placebo-controlled RCTs evaluating medical therapies for patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis. The primary outcome was the pooled proportion of study-defined clinical, endoscopic and histologic responders and remitters randomised to placebo, using an intention-to-treat approach and random-effects model. Sources of heterogeneity were explored using meta-regression.

Results: We included 25 RCTs. The pooled proportion of clinical response was 41.0% [95% CI: 29.7%-52.8%] with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 74.9%). On meta-regression, older age and a higher probability of being randomised to placebo reduced the likelihood of clinical response to placebo. The pooled proportion of histologic remission defined as a peak eosinophil count [PEC] ≤ 6 eosinophils per high power field [HPF] or ≤ 1 eosinophil/HPF was 4.3% [95% CI: 2.6%-6.2%] (I2 = 23.6%) and 1.3% [95% CI: 0.5%-2.5%] (I2 = 0%), respectively. The standardised mean difference in the Eosinophilic Oesophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score to placebo was -0.25 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.10].

Conclusions: Over 40% of patients in eosinophilic oesophagitis trials respond clinically to placebo, and this is associated with trial design factors such as randomisation ratio and trial population. Objective endoscopic and histologic measures are associated with very low placebo responses.

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
CiteScore
15.60
自引率
7.90%
发文量
527
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics is a global pharmacology journal focused on the impact of drugs on the human gastrointestinal and hepato-biliary systems. It covers a diverse range of topics, often with immediate clinical relevance to its readership.
期刊最新文献
Editorial: Is There a Role for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Subcutaneous Infliximab in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease? Editorial: Updated COVID-19 Boosters-Tailoring Protection for Patients With IBD. Authors' Reply. Review Article: Green Management of IBD-New Paradigms for an Eco-Friendly Approach. Subcutaneous Infliximab Concentration Thresholds for Mucosal and Transmural Healing in Patients With Crohn's Disease. Management of Muscle Cramps in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials.
×
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