Placebo For Induction Of Remission Research Articles

P1041 Coconut water modulates dietary potassium and gut microbiome to induce remission in ulcerative colitis: randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background High potassium intake is associated with decreased risk of inflammatory bowel disease(IBD), urinary potassium has been correlated with disease activity in ulcerative colitis(UC), and gut microbiome modulation improves outcomes in UC. We evaluated coconut water as potassium rich diet and gut microbiome modulator in patients with mild-moderate UC. Methods This single-center double-blind placebo-controlled trial randomized patients with mild-moderate (simple clinical colitis activity index-SCCAI:3–9) endoscopically active UC (ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity-UCEIS>1) in 1:1 ratio to coconut water + standard medical therapy-SMT(CW) vs placebo + SMT. 400ml of coconut water (200-250mg potassium/100ml) was administered for 8 weeks. Primary outcome measure was clinical remission (SCCAI ≤ 2) and secondary outcome measures were clinical response (SCCAI decline ≥ 3) and adverse events at 8 weeks. Microbiome was analyzed at baseline and 8 weeks. Results Of 121 patients screened, 95 were included for modified intention to treat analysis(49-CW, 46-placebo)[mean age-37.2 ± 11.2years; males-54.1%; disease duration-48 (IQR:24–90) months; pancolitis - 26.1%; SCCAI-5 (IQR:4 – 6); UCEIS-4 (IQR:3 – 5)]. There was significant increase in dietary potassium and decline in sodium/potassium ratio at 8 weeks in CW. Clinical response [57.1% vs 28.3%, p=0.01, OR-3.4 (95%CI:1.4 – 7.9)], remission [53.1% vs 28.3%, p=0.02, OR-2.9(95%CI:1.2 – 6.7)] and proportion of patients with fecal calprotectin (FCP)<150μg/g [53.6% vs 14.3%, p=0.01, OR-6.9(95%CI:1.6 – 28.9)] were significantly higher in CW. The relative abundance of bacterial taxa which had a significant or trend towards negative correlation with SCCAI, UCEIS, or FCP, increased at 8 weeks in CW. Adverse events were comparable and no patient developed hyperkalemia. Conclusion Coconut water increased dietary potassium, modulated the gut microbiome and was more effective than placebo for induction of remission in mild-moderate UC.

For people with eosinophilic esophagitis, how do corticosteroids or biologics compare with placebo for induction of remission?

For people with eosinophilic esophagitis, how do corticosteroids or biologics compare with placebo for induction of remission?

Systematic review with meta-analysis: Medical therapies for treatment of ulcerative proctitis.

Ulcerative proctitis (UP) is a common highly symptomatic form of ulcerative colitis that can be difficult to treat. To assess the efficacy of medical treatments for UP. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL on 23 November 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medical therapy for adults with UP. Primary outcomes included induction and maintenance of clinical remission. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each outcome. We included 53 RCTs (n = 4096) including 46 induction studies (n = 3731) and seven maintenance studies (n = 365). First-line therapies included topical 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), conventional corticosteroids, budesonide, and oral 5-ASA. Therapy for refractory UP included topical tacrolimus and small molecules. Topical 5-ASA was superior to placebo for induction (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.94-3.82) and maintenance of remission (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.26-3.46). Topical corticosteroids were superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.62-4.92). Topical budesonide was superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.44-3.81). Combination therapy with topical 5-ASA and topical corticosteroids was superior to topical monotherapy with either agent. Topical tacrolimus was superior to placebo. Etrasimod was superior to placebo for induction (RR 4.71, 95% CI 1.2-18.49) and maintenance of remission (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.31-3.32). Topical 5-ASA and corticosteroids are effective for active UP. Topical 5-ASA may be effective for maintenance of remission. Tacrolimus may be effective for induction of remission. Etrasimod may be effective for induction and for maintenance of remission. Trials should include UP to expand the evidence base for this under-represented population.

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis.

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis.

Mesalamine for the Treatment of Crohn Disease


 Evidence suggested high-dose mesalamine was more likely to induce remission in patients with mild to moderate active Crohn disease than placebo. There was no significant difference between low-dose mesalamine and placebo for induction of remission.
 Evidence comparing mesalamine to budesonide on remission was mixed. There was some evidence suggesting that high-dose budesonide was more likely to induce remission in patients with mild to moderate active Crohn disease than low-dose mesalamine. However, no significant differences were observed between budesonide and mesalamine at comparable doses (high or low), and when high-dose mesalamine was compared with low-dose budesonide.
 Evidence suggested unspecified corticosteroids were more likely to induce remission in patients with mild to moderate active Crohn disease than mesalamine.
 Evidence suggested there were no differences in withdrawals due to adverse events for mesalamine versus placebo, budesonide, or corticosteroids. Limited evidence suggested there were no significant differences in pancreatitis between patients with active Crohn disease treated with mesalamine versus azathioprine.
 No evidence was identified that evaluated the clinical effectiveness of mesalamine for the treatment of severe active Crohn disease.

Etrolizumab versus adalimumab or placebo as induction therapy for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (HIBISCUS): two phase 3 randomised, controlled trials

Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted anti-β7 integrin monoclonal antibody. In an earlier phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission relative to placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. The HIBISCUS studies aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab to adalimumab and placebo for induction of remission in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. HIBISCUS I and HIBISCUS II were identically designed, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled studies of etrolizumab, adalimumab, and placebo in adult (18-80 years) patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6-12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) who were naive to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. All patients had an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. In both studies, patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg once every 4 weeks; subcutaneous adalimumab 160 mg on day 1, 80 mg at week 2, and 40 mg at weeks 4, 6, and 8; or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants, and baseline disease activity. All patients and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was induction of remission at week 10 (defined as MCS of 2 or lower, with individual subscores of 1 or lower, and rectal bleeding subscore of 0) with etrolizumab compared with placebo. Pooled analyses of both studies comparing etrolizumab and adalimumab were examined for several clinical and endoscopic endpoints. Efficacy was analysed using a modified intent-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02163759 (HIBISCUS I), NCT02171429 (HIBISCUS II). Between Nov 4, 2014, and May 25, 2020, each study screened 652 patients (HIBISCUS I) and 613 patients (HIBISCUS II). Each study enrolled and randomly assigned 358 patients (HIBISCUS I etrolizumab n=144, adalimumab n=142, placebo n=72; HIBISCUS II etrolizumab n=143; adalimumab n=143; placebo n=72). In HIBISCUS I, 28 (19·4%) of 144 patients in the etrolizumab group and five (6·9%) of 72 patients in the placebo group were in remission at week 10, with an adjusted treatment difference of 12·3% (95% CI 1·6 to 20·6; p=0·017) in favour of etrolizumab. In HIBISCUS II, 26 (18·2%) of 143 patients in the etrolizumab group and eight (11·1%) of 72 patients in the placebo group were in remission at week 10, with an adjusted treatment difference of 7·2% (95% CI -3·8 to 16·1; p=0·17). In the pooled analysis, etrolizumab was not superior to adalimumab for induction of remission, endoscopic improvement, clinical response, histological remission, or endoscopic remission; however, similar numerical results were observed in both groups. In HIBISCUS I, 50 (35%) of 144 patients in the etrolizumab group reported any adverse event, compared with 61 (43%) of 142 in the adalimumab group and 26 (36%) of 72 in the placebo group. In HIBISCUS II, 63 (44%) of 143 patients in the etrolizumab group reported any adverse event, as did 62 (43%) of 143 in the adalimumab group and 33 (46%) in the placebo group. The most common adverse event in all groups was ulcerative colitis flare. The incidence of serious adverse events in the pooled patient population was similar for etrolizumab (15 [5%] of 287) and placebo (seven [5%] of 144) and lower for adalimumab (six [2%] of 285). Two patients in the etrolizumab group died; neither death was deemed to be treatment related. Etrolizumab was superior to placebo for induction of remission in HIBISCUS I, but not in HIBISCUS II. Etrolizumab was well tolerated in both studies. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

A177 METHOTREXATE FOR THE INDUCTION OF REMISSION IN ULCERATIVE COLITIS

Abstract Background Obtaining steroid-free remission in Ulcerative Colitis (UC) is a clinically important parameter that can mitigate the development of disease-related complications and lead to improved quality of life. Aims A systematic review to assess the effects and safety of methotrexate for induction in patients with UC. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL were searched from inception to August 20, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing methotrexate with placebo or an active comparator in patients with active ulcerative colitis were considered for inclusion. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients who achieved clinical remission and withdrawal from steroids as defined by the studies and expressed as a percentage of the total number of patients randomized (intention-to-treat analysis). The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome was assessed using the GRADE criteria. Results Three studies (n=212) were included in the review. Two studies were randomized controlled trials comparing methotrexate to placebo for induction of remission of active ulcerative colitis. The first study (n = 67) compared oral methotrexate (12.5 mg/week) to placebo. Forty-seven percent (14/30) of methotrexate patients achieved clinical remission and complete withdrawal from steroids during the study period compared to 49% (18/37) of placebo patients (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.59). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data. The second study (n=111) compared subcutaneous/intramuscular methotrexate 25 mg/week to placebo. The primary outcome, steroid-free remission at week 16, was present in 32% (19/60) of patients on methotrexate in comparison to 20%(10/51) of patients in the placebo arm (RR 1.62; 95% CI 0.83 to 3.15; P-value of 0.15). A GRADE analysis indicated downgrading of the evidence to low given very sparse data (29 events). An additional head-to-head randomised controlled study (n = 34) compared oral methotrexate (15 mg/week) to 6-mercaptopurine (1.5 mg/kg/day) and 5-aminosalicylic acid (3 g/day). This final study was judged to be at high risk of bias due to an open-label design. At 30 weeks, 58% (7/12) of methotrexate patients achieved clinical remission and withdrawal from steroids compared to 79% (11/14) of 6-mercaptopurine patients (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.29) and 25% (2/8) of 5-aminosalicylic acid patients (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.64 to 8.49). GRADE analyses indicated that the overall quality of the evidence was very low due to very sparse data and high risk of bias. Conclusions Methotrexate demonstrated no benefit over placebo or active comparators for the induction of steroid-free remission. Future research is ongoing to explore the utility of combination therapy with monoclonal antibody biologic therapy for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis. Funding Agencies None

Efficacy of Oral, Topical, or Combined Oral and Topical 5-Aminosalicylates, in Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

5-Aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] are the mainstay of treatment for ulcerative colitis [UC]. The optimum preparation, dose, and route of administration for UC remain unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis to examine this issue. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from inception to December 2020. We included randomised controlled trials [RCTs] comparing oral, topical, or combined oral and topical 5-ASAs, with each other or placebo for induction of remission or prevention of relapse of UC. Results were reported as pooled relative risks [RRs] with 95% confidence intervals [CIs] to summarise effect of each comparison tested, with treatments ranked according to P-score. We identified 40 RCTs for induction of remission and 23 for prevention of relapse. Topical mesalazine [P-score 0.99], or oral and topical mesalazine combined [P-score 0.87] ranked first and second for clinical and endoscopic remission combined. Combined therapy ranked first in trials where ≥50% of patients had left-sided/extensive disease, and topical mesalazine first in trials where ≥50% of patients had proctitis/proctosigmoiditis. High-dose [≥3.3 g/day] oral mesalazine ranked third in most analyses, with the most trials and most patients. For relapse of disease activity, combined therapy and high-dose oral mesalazine ranked first and second, with topical mesalazine third. 5-ASAs were safe and well tolerated, regardless of regimen. Our results support previous evidence; however, higher doses of oral mesalazine had more evidence for induction of remission than combined therapy and were significantly more efficacious than lower doses. Future RCTs should better establish the role of combined therapy for induction of remission, as well as optimal doses of oral 5-ASAs to prevent relapse.

A Phase 1b Safety Study of SER-287, a Spore-Based Microbiome Therapeutic, for Active Mild to Moderate Ulcerative Colitis

Background & AimsFirmicutes bacteria produce metabolites that maintain the intestinal barrier and mucosal immunity. Firmicutes are reduced in the intestinal microbiota of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). In a phase 1b trial of patients with UC, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of SER-287, an oral formulation of Firmicutes spores, and the effects of vancomycin preconditioning on expansion (engraftment) of SER-287 species in the colon.MethodsWe conducted a double-blind trial of SER-287 in 58 adults with active mild-to-moderate UC (modified Mayo scores 4–10, endoscopic subscores ≥1). Participants received 6 days of preconditioning with oral vancomycin (125 mg, 4 times daily) or placebo followed by 8 weeks of oral SER-287 or placebo. Patients were randomly assigned (2:3:3:3) to groups that received placebo followed by either placebo or SER-287 once weekly, or vancomycin followed by SER-287 once weekly, or SER-287 once daily. Clinical end points included safety and clinical remission (modified Mayo score ≤2; endoscopic subscores 0 or 1). Microbiome end points included SER-287 engraftment (dose species detected in stool after but not before SER-287 administration). Engraftment of SER-287 and changes in microbiome composition and associated metabolites were measured by analyses of stool specimens collected at baseline, after preconditioning, and during and 4 weeks after administration of SER-287 or placebo.ResultsProportions of patients with adverse events did not differ significantly among groups. A higher proportion of patients in the vancomycin/SER-287 daily group (40%) achieved clinical remission at week 8 than patients in the placebo/placebo group (0%), placebo/SER-287 weekly group (13.3%), or vancomycin/SER-287 weekly group (17.7%) (P = .024 for vancomycin/SER-287 daily vs placebo/placebo). By day 7, higher numbers of SER-287 dose species were detected in stool samples from all SER-287 groups compared with the placebo group (P < .05), but this difference was not maintained beyond day 7 in the placebo/SER-287 weekly group. In the vancomycin groups, a greater number of dose species were detected in stool collected on day 10 and all subsequent time points through 4 weeks post dosing compared with the placebo group (P < .05). A higher number of SER-287 dose species were detected in stool samples on days 7 and 10 from subjects who received daily vs weekly SER-287 doses (P < .05). Changes in fecal microbiome composition and metabolites were associated with both vancomycin/SER-287 groups.ConclusionsIn this small phase 1b trial of limited duration, the safety and tolerability of SER-287 were similar to placebo. SER-287 after vancomycin was significantly more effective than placebo for induction of remission in patients with active mild to moderate UC. Engraftment of dose species was facilitated by vancomycin preconditioning and daily dosing of SER-287. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02618187.

Natalizumab for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

Natalizumab for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

PF-00547659 for the treatment of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis

ABSTRACTIntroduction: Gut-specific homing is mainly mediated by the expression of MAdCAM-1 on endothelial cells.An increase in MAdCAM-1 expression has been shown in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).Areas covered: PF-00547659 is a fully human monoclonal antibody (mAb) toward MAdCAM-1 on endothelial cells, blocking its binding with the α4β7 integrin on leukocytes. This review discusses the available data on effectiveness and safety of PF-00547659 in IBD.Expert opinion: A phase II study in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) patients, both naïve and previously exposed to anti-tumor necrosis factors, showed that PF-00547659 was superior to placebo for induction of remission, response, and mucosal healing at week 12. In contrast, preliminary results in a similar study in Crohn’s disease (CD) did not show a superiority of PF-00547659, suggesting that PF-00547659 may have limited impact over CD outcomes. However, the time frame needed to evaluate clinical effectiveness of PF-00547659 may be longer in CD patients, given its transmural characteristic. In addition, it should be taken into consideration the possibility of incorporating new tools and more objective parameters in disease assessment that are proven to better correlate with inflammation. Future randomized-controlled trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of PF-00547659 in CD.

Anti-MAdCAM antibody (PF-00547659) for ulcerative colitis (TURANDOT): a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

PF-00547659 is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to human mucosal addressin cell adhesion molecule-1 (MAdCAM-1) to selectively reduce lymphocyte homing to the intestinal tract. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of PF-00547659 in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. This phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial recruited patients aged 18-65 years from 105 centres in 21 countries, with a history (≥3 months) of active ulcerative colitis extending more than 15 cm beyond the anal verge (with a total Mayo score ≥6 and a Mayo endoscopic subscore ≥2) who had failed or were intolerant to at least one conventional therapy. Patients were stratified by previous anti-TNFα treatment, and randomly assigned by a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive a subcutaneous injection of 7·5 mg, 22·5 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg PF-00547659 or placebo at baseline, then every 4 weeks. Patients, investigators, and sponsors were blinded to the treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving remission (total Mayo score ≤2 with no individual subscore >1 and rectal bleeding subscore ≤1) at week 12. The efficacy analysis included all patients who received at least one dose of the randomised treatment; the safety analysis was done according to treatment received. All p values were one-sided and multiplicity-adjusted. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01620255. Between Nov 2, 2012, and Feb 4, 2016, we screened 587 patients; 357 were eligible and randomly assigned to receive placebo (n=73) or PF-00547659 at doses of 7·5 mg (n=71), 22·5 mg (n=72), 75 mg (n=71), or 225 mg (n=70). Remission rates at week 12 were significantly greater in three of four active-treatment groups than in the placebo group (2·7% [two of 73]): 7·5 mg (11·3% [eight of 71]), 22·5 mg (16·7% [12 of 72]), 75 mg (15·5% [11 of 71]), and 225 mg (5·7% [four of 70]). These rates corresponded to a stratum-adjusted (anti-TNFα-naive and anti-TNFα-experienced) risk difference versus placebo of 8·0% for 7·5 mg (90% CI 1·9 to 14, p=0·0425), 12·8% for 22·5 mg (5·6 to 19·9, p=0·0099), 11·8% for 75 mg (4·8 to 18·8, p=0·0119), and 2·6% for 225 mg (-1·2 to 6·4, p=0·1803). Four of 73 (5·5%) patients had a serious adverse event in the placebo group, ten of 71 (14·1%) in the 7·5 mg group, one of 70 (1·4%) in the 22·5 mg group, three of 73 (4·1%) in the 75 mg group, and three of 70 (4·3%) in the 225 mg group. No safety signal was observed for the study drug. PF-00547659 was safe and well tolerated in this patient population, and better than placebo for induction of remission in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. The greatest clinical effects were observed with the 22·5 mg and 75 mg doses. Pfizer.

Azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

The results from controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for the treatment of active Crohn's disease have been conflicting and controversial. An updated meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness of these drugs for the induction of remission in active Crohn's disease. The primary objective was to determine the efficacy and safety of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for induction of remission in active Crohn's disease. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 30 October 2015. Review articles and conference proceedings were also searched to identify additional studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of oral azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine compared to placebo or active therapy involving adult patients with active Crohn's disease were selected for inclusion. Data were extracted by two independent observers based on the intention-to-treat principle. Outcomes of interest included: clinical remission, clinical improvement, fistula improvement or healing, steroid sparing, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events. We calculated the pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting each outcome was assessed using the GRADE criteria. Thirteen RCTs (n = 1211 patients) of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine therapy in adult patients were identified: nine included placebo comparators and six included active comparators. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical remission rates between azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine and placebo. Forty-eight per cent (95/197) of patients receiving antimetabolites achieved remission compared to 37% (68/183) of placebo patients (5 studies, 380 patients; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.55). There was no statistically significant difference in clinical improvement rates between azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine and placebo. Forty-eight per cent (107/225) of patients receiving antimetabolites achieved clinical improvement or remission compared to 36% (75/209) of placebo patients (8 studies, 434 patients; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.62). There was a statistically significant difference in steroid sparing (defined as prednisone dose < 10 mg/day while maintaining remission) between azathioprine and placebo. Sixty-four per cent (47/163) of azathioprine patients were able to reduce their prednisone dose to < 10 mg/day compared to 46% (32/70) of placebo patients (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.77). GRADE analyses rated the overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes clinical remission, clinical improvement and steroid sparing as moderate due to sparse data. There was no statistically significant difference in withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events between antimetabolites and placebo. Ten percent of patients in the antimetabolite group withdrew due to adverse events compared to 5% of placebo patients (8 studies, 510 patients; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.08). Serious adverse events were reported in 14% of patients receiving azathioprine compared to 4% of placebo patients (2 studies, 216 patients; RR 2.57, 95% CI 0.92 to 7.13). Common adverse events reported in the placebo controlled studies included: allergic reactions. leukopenia, pancreatitis and nausea. Azathioprine was significantly inferior to infliximab for induction of steroid-free clinical remission. Thirty per cent (51/170) of azathioprine patients achieved steroid-free remission compared to 44% (75/169) of infliximab patients (1 study, 339 patients; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.90). The combination of azathioprine and infliximab was significantly superior to infliximab alone for induction of steroid-free clinical remission. Sixty per cent (116/194) of patients in the combined azathioprine and infliximab group achieved steroid-free remission compared to 48% (91/189) of infliximab patients (2 studies, 383 patients; RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.47). Azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine therapy was found to be no better at inducing steroid free clinical remission compared to methotrexate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.49) and 5-aminosalicylate or sulfasalazine (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.91). There were no statistically significant differences in withdrawals due to adverse events between azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine and methotrexate (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.71); between azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine and 5-aminosalicylate or sulfasalazine (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.54); between azathioprine and infliximab (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.23); or between the combination of azathioprine and infliximab and infliximab (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.80). Common adverse events in the active comparator trials included nausea, abdominal pain, pyrexia and headache. Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine offer no advantage over placebo for induction of remission or clinical improvement in active Crohn's disease. Antimetaboilte therapy may allow patients to reduce steroid consumption. Adverse events were more common in patients receiving antimetabolites although differences with placebo were not statistically significant. Azathioprine therapy is inferior to infliximab for induction of steroid-free remission. However, the combination of azathioprine and infliximab was superior to infliximab alone for induction of steroid-free remission.

Aminosalicylates for induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease.

Aminosalicylates for induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease.

Efficacy and Safety of Natalizumab and Vedolizumab for the Management of Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

We assessed the risk-benefit profile of anti-α4-integrins, natalizumab (NAT), and vedolizumab (VEDO), in Crohn's disease through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. We searched multiple electronic databases through July 2014 and identified 8 randomized controlled trials in adults with Crohn's disease comparing NAT (5 trials) or VEDO (3 trials) with placebo. Efficacy outcomes were induction of remission, response, and improvement in quality of life; safety outcomes were serious adverse events, infusion reactions, infections, and treatment discontinuation. We performed subgroup analysis based on anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α exposure and estimated summary relative risk (RR) or mean difference, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Anti-α4-integrins were superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91), with similar estimates for NAT (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93) and VEDO (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.95). Both NAT and VEDO were equally efficacious for anti-TNF-naive (NAT: RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.00; VEDO: RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.94) and anti-TNF-exposed patients (NAT: RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99; VEDO: RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78-1.01). Anti-α4-integrins were effective in inducing clinical response and improving quality of life, with no significant difference between NAT and VEDO. Rates of serious adverse events, infusion reactions, infections, and treatment discontinuation were similar for NAT and VEDO. No cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy have been observed with VEDO to date. NAT and VEDO are effective in inducing remission and response in patients with Crohn's disease, with similar efficacy in anti-TNF-naive and anti-TNF-exposed patients.

Budesonide for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

Corticosteroids are commonly used for the induction of remission in Crohn's disease. However, traditional corticosteroids can cause significant adverse events. Budesonide is an alternative glucocorticoid with limited systemic bioavailability. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for the induction of remission in Crohn's disease. The following electronic databases were searched up to June 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane IBD/FBD Group Specialised Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Reference lists of articles, as well as conference proceedings were manually searched. Randomised controlled trials comparing budesonide to a placebo or active comparator were considered for inclusion. Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed study quality. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.5 software. The primary outcome was induction of remission (defined by a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) < 150) by week 8 to 16 of treatment. Secondary outcomes included: time to remission, mean change in CDAI, clinical, histological or endoscopic improvement, improvement in quality of life, adverse events and early withdrawal. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each dichotomous outcome and the mean difference and corresponding 95% CI for each continuous outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. A random-effects model was used for the pooled analyses. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcomes and selected secondary outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. Fourteen studies (1805 patients) were included: Nine (779 patients) compared budesonide to conventional corticosteroids, three (535 patients) were placebo-controlled, and two (491 patients) compared budesonide to mesalamine. Ten studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. Three studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to open label design. One study was judged to be at high risk of bias due to selective reporting. After eight weeks of treatment, 9 mg budesonide was significantly more effective than placebo for induction of clinical remission. Forty-seven per cent (115/246) of budesonide patients achieved remission at 8 weeks compared to 22% (29/133) of placebo patients (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.73; 3 studies, 379 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (144 events). Budesonide was significantly less effective than conventional steroids for induction of remission at eight weeks. Fifty-two per cent of budesonide patients achieved remission at week 8 compared to 61% of patients who received conventional steroids (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; 8 studies, 750 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate due to risk of bias. Budesonide was significantly less effective than conventional steroids among patients with severe disease (CDAI > 300) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.95). Studies comparing budesonide to mesalamine were not pooled due to heterogeneity (I(2) = 81%). One study (n = 182) found budesonide to be superior to mesalamine for induction of remission at 8 weeks. Sixty-eight per cent (63/93) of budesonide patients were in remission at 8 weeks compared to 42% (37/89) of mesalamine patients (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16). The other study found no statistically significant difference in remission rates at eight weeks. Sixty-nine per cent (107/154) of budesonide patients were in remission at 8 weeks compared to 62% (132/242) of mesalamine patients (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.32). Fewer adverse events occurred in those treated with budesonide compared to conventional steroids (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76) and budesonide was better than conventional steroids in preserving adrenal function (RR for abnormal ACTH test 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.78). Budesonide is more effective than placebo for induction of remission in Crohn's disease. Although short-term efficacy with budesonide is less than with conventional steroids, particularly in those with severe disease or more extensive colonic involvement, the likelihood of adverse events and adrenal suppression with budesonide is lower. The current evidence does not allow for a firm conclusion on the relative efficacy of budesonide compared to 5-ASA products.

Vedolizumab for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

We performed a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. A literature search to June 2014 identified all applicable randomized trials. Outcome measures were clinical and endoscopic remission, clinical and endoscopic response, quality of life, and adverse events. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for each outcome. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The GRADE criteria were used to assess the quality of the evidence. Four studies (606 patients) were included. The risk of bias was low. Pooled analyses indicated that vedolizumab was significantly superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.80-0.91), clinical response (RR = 0.82, 95% CI, 0.75-0.91), endoscopic remission (RR = 0.82, 95% CI, 0.75-0.91), and for achieving remission at 52 weeks in week 6 responders (RR = 2.73, 95% CI, 1.78-4.18). GRADE analyses suggested that the overall quality of the evidence was high for induction of remission and moderate for maintenance therapy (due to sparse data consisting of 246 events). No statistically significant difference was observed in the incidence of adverse events between vedolizumab and placebo. Vedolizumab is superior to placebo as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. Future studies are needed to define long-term efficacy and safety of this agent.

Covering the Cover

Covering the Cover

Comparative Effectiveness of Immunosuppressants and Biologics for Inducing and Maintaining Remission in Crohn's Disease: A Network Meta-analysis

There is controversy regarding the best treatment for patients with Crohn's disease because of the lack of direct comparative trials. We compared therapies for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with Crohn's disease, based on direct and indirect evidence. We performed systematic reviews of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases, through June 2014. We identified randomized controlled trials (N = 39) comparing methotrexate, azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, vedolizumab, or combined therapies with placebo or an active agent for induction and maintenance of remission in adult patients with Crohn's disease. Pairwise treatment effects were estimated through a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis and reported as odds ratios (OR) with a 95% credible interval (CrI). Infliximab, the combination of infliximab and azathioprine (infliximab + azathioprine), adalimumab, and vedolizumab were superior to placebo for induction of remission. In pair-wise comparisons of anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, infliximab + azathioprine (OR, 3.1; 95% CrI, 1.4-7.7) and adalimumab (OR, 2.1; 95% CrI, 1.0-4.6) were superior to certolizumab for induction of remission. All treatments were superior to placebo for maintaining remission, except for the combination of infliximab and methotrexate. Adalimumab, infliximab, and infliximab + azathioprine were superior to azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine: adalimumab (OR, 2.9; 95% CrI, 1.6-5.1), infliximab (OR, 1.6; 95% CrI, 1.0-2.5), infliximab + azathioprine (OR, 3.0; 95% CrI, 1.7-5.5) for maintenance of remission. Adalimumab and infliximab + azathioprine were superior to certolizumab: adalimumab (OR, 2.5; 95% CrI, 1.4-4.6) and infliximab + azathioprine (OR, 2.6; 95% CrI, 1.3-6.0). Adalimumab was superior to vedolizumab (OR, 2.4; 95% CrI, 1.2-4.6). Based on a network meta-analysis, adalimumab and infliximab + azathioprine are the most effective therapies for induction and maintenance of remission of Crohn's disease.

Vedolizumab for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.

Cellular adhesion molecules play an important role in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis, making selective blockade of these molecules a promising therapeutic strategy. Vedolizumab, a recombinant humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody, inhibits adhesion and migration of leukocytes into the gastrointestinal tract by binding the alpha4beta7 integrin. Animal studies have suggested that vedolizumab may be a useful therapy for ulcerative colitis. This updated systematic review summarizes the current evidence on the use of vedolizumab for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. The primary objectives were to determine the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab used for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. A computer-assisted search for relevant studies (inception to 15 June 2014) was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL. References from published articles and conference proceedings were searched to identify additional citations. Randomized controlled trials comparing vedolizumab to placebo or a control therapy for induction or maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis were included. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each trial. The primary outcomes were failure to induce clinical remission and relapse. Secondary outcomes included failure to induce a clinical response, failure to induce endoscopic remission, failure to induce an endoscopic response, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. Four studies (606 patients) were included. All of the studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. Pooled analyses revealed that vedolizumab was significantly superior to placebo for induction of remission, clinical response, and endoscopic remission and prevention of relapse. After 4 to 6 weeks of therapy 77% (293/382) of vedolizumab patients failed to enter clinical remission compared to 92% (205/224) of placebo patients (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91; 4 studies 606 patients). After 6 weeks of therapy 48% of vedolizumab patients failed to have a clinical response compared to 72% of placebo patients (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.78; 3 studies 601 patients). After 4 to 6 weeks of therapy 68% of vedolizumab patients failed to enter endoscopic remission compared to 81% of placebo patients (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.91; 3 studies, b583 patients). After 52 weeks of therapy, 54% of vedolizumab patients had a clinical relapse compared to 84% of placebo patients (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.77; 1 study, 373 patients). One small study (28 patients) found no statistically significant difference in endoscopic response (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.61). GRADE analyses indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes was high for induction of remission and moderate for relapse (due to sparse data 246 events). There was no statistically significant difference between vedolizumab and placebo in terms of the risk of any adverse event (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.07), or serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42). There was a statistically significant difference in withdrawals due to adverse events. Six per cent of vedolizumab patients withdrew due to an adverse event compared to 11% of placebo patients (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.87; 2 studies, 941 patients). Adverse events commonly reported across the studies included: worsening ulcerative colitis, headache, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, and abdominal pain. Moderate to high quality data from four studies shows that vedolizumab is superior to placebo for induction of clinical remission and response and endoscopic remission in patients with moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis and prevention of relapse in patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis. Moderate quality data from one study suggests that vedolizumab is superior to placebo for prevention of relapse in patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis. Adverse events appear to be similar to placebo. Future trials are needed to define the optimal dose, frequency of administration and long-term efficacy and safety of vedolizumab used for induction and maintenance therapy of ulcerative colitis. Vedolizumab should be compared to other currently approved therapies for ulcerative colitis in these trials.