L Moja1, S Danese, G Fiorino, C Del Giovane, S Bonovas. 1. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopedic Institute, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Budesonide and mesalazine (mesalamine) are commonly used in the medical management of patients with mild to moderate Crohn's disease. AIM: To assess their comparative efficacy and harm using the methodology of network meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov, through October 2014, was performed to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited adult patients with active or quiescent Crohn's disease, and compared budesonide or mesalazine with placebo, or against each other, or different dosing strategies of one drug. RESULTS: Twenty-five RCTs were combined using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Budesonide 9 mg/day, or at higher doses (15 or 18 mg/day), was shown superior to placebo for induction of remission [odds ratio (OR), 2.93; 95% credible interval (CrI), 1.52-5.39, and OR, 3.28; CrI, 1.46-7.55 respectively] and ranks at the top of the hierarchy of the competing treatments. For maintenance of remission, budesonide 6 mg/day demonstrated superiority over placebo (OR, 1.69; CrI, 1.05-2.75), being also at the best ranking position among all compared treatment strategies. No other comparisons (i.e. different doses of mesalazine vs. placebo or budesonide, for induction or maintenance of remission) reached significance. The occurrence of withdrawals due to adverse events was not shown different between budesonide, mesalazine and placebo, in both the induction and maintenance phases. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide, at the doses of 9 mg/day, or higher, for induction of remission in active mild or moderate Crohn's disease, and at 6 mg/day for maintenance of remission, appears to be the best treatment choice.
BACKGROUND:Budesonide and mesalazine (mesalamine) are commonly used in the medical management of patients with mild to moderate Crohn's disease. AIM: To assess their comparative efficacy and harm using the methodology of network meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov, through October 2014, was performed to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited adult patients with active or quiescent Crohn's disease, and compared budesonide or mesalazine with placebo, or against each other, or different dosing strategies of one drug. RESULTS: Twenty-five RCTs were combined using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Budesonide 9 mg/day, or at higher doses (15 or 18 mg/day), was shown superior to placebo for induction of remission [odds ratio (OR), 2.93; 95% credible interval (CrI), 1.52-5.39, and OR, 3.28; CrI, 1.46-7.55 respectively] and ranks at the top of the hierarchy of the competing treatments. For maintenance of remission, budesonide 6 mg/day demonstrated superiority over placebo (OR, 1.69; CrI, 1.05-2.75), being also at the best ranking position among all compared treatment strategies. No other comparisons (i.e. different doses of mesalazine vs. placebo or budesonide, for induction or maintenance of remission) reached significance. The occurrence of withdrawals due to adverse events was not shown different between budesonide, mesalazine and placebo, in both the induction and maintenance phases. CONCLUSIONS:Budesonide, at the doses of 9 mg/day, or higher, for induction of remission in active mild or moderate Crohn's disease, and at 6 mg/day for maintenance of remission, appears to be the best treatment choice.
Authors: Christopher Andrew Lamb; Nicholas A Kennedy; Tim Raine; Philip Anthony Hendy; Philip J Smith; Jimmy K Limdi; Bu'Hussain Hayee; Miranda C E Lomer; Gareth C Parkes; Christian Selinger; Kevin J Barrett; R Justin Davies; Cathy Bennett; Stuart Gittens; Malcolm G Dunlop; Omar Faiz; Aileen Fraser; Vikki Garrick; Paul D Johnston; Miles Parkes; Jeremy Sanderson; Helen Terry; Daniel R Gaya; Tariq H Iqbal; Stuart A Taylor; Melissa Smith; Matthew Brookes; Richard Hansen; A Barney Hawthorne Journal: Gut Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Aditi Kumar; Alexander Cole; Jonathan Segal; Philip Smith; Jimmy K Limdi Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 4.409
Authors: Michał Łodyga; Piotr Eder; Magdalena Gawron-Kiszka; Agnieszka Dobrowolska; Maciej Gonciarz; Marek Hartleb; Maria Kłopocka; Ewa Małecka-Wojciesko; Piotr Radwan; Jarosław Reguła; Edyta Zagórowicz; Grażyna Rydzewska Journal: Prz Gastroenterol Date: 2021-11-19
Authors: Remo Panaccione; A Hillary Steinhart; Brian Bressler; Reena Khanna; John K Marshall; Laura Targownik; Waqqas Afif; Alain Bitton; Mark Borgaonkar; Usha Chauhan; Brendan Halloran; Jennifer Jones; Erin Kennedy; Grigorios I Leontiadis; Edward V Loftus; Jonathan Meddings; Paul Moayyedi; Sanjay Murthy; Sophie Plamondon; Greg Rosenfeld; David Schwartz; Cynthia H Seow; Chadwick Williams; Charles N Bernstein Journal: J Can Assoc Gastroenterol Date: 2018-07-10
Authors: Maryam Alkhatry; Ahmad Al-Rifai; Vito Annese; Filippos Georgopoulos; Ahmad N Jazzar; Ahmed M Khassouan; Zaher Koutoubi; Rahul Nathwani; Mazen S Taha; Jimmy K Limdi Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Amanda E Starr; Shelley A Deeke; Zhibin Ning; Cheng-Kang Chiang; Xu Zhang; Walid Mottawea; Ruth Singleton; Eric I Benchimol; Ming Wen; David R Mack; Alain Stintzi; Daniel Figeys Journal: Gut Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 23.059