Prebiotics for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

People affected by ulcerative colitis (UC) are interested in dietary therapies as treatments that can improve their health and quality of life. Prebiotics are a category of food ingredients theorised to have health benefits for the gastrointestinal system through their effect on the growth and activity of intestinal bacteria and probiotics.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of prebiotics for the induction and maintenance of remission in people with active UC.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP on 24 June 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on people with UC. We considered any type of standalone or combination prebiotic intervention, except those prebiotics combined with probiotics (known as synbiotics), compared to any control intervention. We considered interventions of any dose and duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 9 RCTs involving a total of 445 participants. Study duration ranged from 14 days to 2 to 3 months for induction and 1 to 6 months for maintenance of remission. All studies were on adults. Five studies were on people with mild to moderate active disease, three in remission or mild activity, and one did not mention. We judged only one study as at low risk of bias in all areas. Two studies compared prebiotics with placebo for induction of remission. We cannot draw any conclusions about clinical remission (70% versus 67%; risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.94); clinical improvement (mean Rachmilewitz score on day 14 of 4.1 versus 4.5; mean difference (MD) -0.40, 95% CI -2.67 to 1.87); faecal calprotectin levels (mean faecal calprotectin on day 14 of 1211 μg/mL versus 3740 μg/mL; MD -2529.00, 95% CI -6925.38 to 1867.38); interleukin-8 (IL-8) levels (mean IL-8 on day 7 of 2.9 pg/mL versus 5.0 pg/mL; MD -2.10, 95% CI -4.93 to 0.73); prostaglandin E2 (PGE-2) levels (mean PGE-2 on day 7 of 7.1 ng/mL versus 11.5 ng/mL; MD -4.40, 95% CI -20.25 to 11.45); or withdrawals due to adverse events (21% versus 8%; RR 2.73, 95% CI 0.51 to 14.55). All evidence was of very low certainty. No other outcomes were reported. Two studies compared inulin and oligofructose 15 g with inulin and oligofructose 7.5 g for induction of remission. We cannot draw any conclusions about clinical remission (53% versus 12.5%; RR 4.27, 95% CI 1.07 to 16.96); clinical improvement (67% versus 25%; RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.06 to 6.70); total adverse events (53.5% versus 31%; RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.06); or withdrawals due to adverse events (13% versus 25%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.50). All evidence was of very low certainty. No other outcomes were reported. One study compared prebiotics and anti-inflammatory therapy with anti-inflammatory therapy alone for induction of remission. We cannot draw any conclusions about clinical improvement (mean Lichtiger score at 4 weeks of 6.2 versus 10.3; MD -4.10, 95% CI -8.14 to -0.06) or serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (mean CRP levels at 4 weeks 0.55 ng/mL versus 0.50 ng/mL; MD 0.05, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.47). All evidence was of very low certainty. No other outcomes were reported. Three studies compared prebiotics with placebo for maintenance of remission. There may be no difference between groups in rate of clinical relapse (44% versus 33%; RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.31), and prebiotics may lead to more total adverse events than placebo (77% versus 46%; RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.40). The evidence was of low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions about clinical improvement (mean partial Mayo score at day 60 of 0.428 versus 1.625; MD -1.20, 95% CI -2.17 to -0.22); faecal calprotectin levels (mean faecal calprotectin level at day 60 of 214 μg/mL versus 304 μg/mL; MD -89.79, 95% CI -221.30 to 41.72); quality of life (mean Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) score at day 60 of 193.5 versus 188.0; MD 5.50, 95% CI -8.94 to 19.94); or withdrawals due to adverse events (28.5% versus 11%; RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.15 to 5.73). The evidence for these outcomes was of very low certainty. No other outcomes were reported. One study compared prebiotics with synbiotics for maintenance of remission. We cannot draw any conclusions about quality of life (mean IBDQ score at 4 weeks 182.4 versus 176.1; MD 6.30, 95% CI -6.61 to 19.21) or withdrawals due to adverse events (23% versus 20%; RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.62). All evidence was of very low certainty. No other outcomes were reported. One study compared prebiotics with probiotics for maintenance of remission. We cannot draw any conclusions about quality of life (mean IBDQ score at 4 weeks 182.4 versus 168.6; MD 13.60, 95% CI 1.22 to 25.98) or withdrawals due to adverse events (22.5% versus 22.5%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.26). All evidence was of very low certainty. No other outcomes were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There may be no difference in occurrence of clinical relapse when adjuvant treatment with prebiotics is compared with adjuvant treatment with placebo for maintenance of remission in UC. Adjuvant treatment with prebiotics may result in more total adverse events when compared to adjuvant treatment with placebo for maintenance of remission. We could draw no conclusions for any of the other outcomes in this comparison due to the very low certainty of the evidence. The evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes was also of very low certainty, precluding any conclusions. It is difficult to make any clear recommendations for future research based on the findings of this review given the clinical and methodological heterogeneity among studies. It is recommended that a consensus is reached on these issues prior to any further research.

Infliximab for maintenance of medically-induced remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of infliximab for maintaining remission in patients with Crohn's disease.

SEARCH METHODS

On 31 August, 2021 and 23 June, 2023, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

Infliximab for medical induction of remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

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 people with Crohn's disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of infliximab alone or in combination with another agent for induction of remission in Crohn's disease compared to placebo or active medical therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

On 31 August 2021 and 4 March 2023, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing infliximab alone or in combination with another agent to placebo or another active comparator in adults with active Crohn's disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were clinical remission, clinical response and withdrawals due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were endoscopic remission, histological remission, endoscopic response, and serious and total adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 10 RCTs with 1101 participants. They were conducted between 1999 and 2019, and 7/10 RCTs included biologically naive participants. All but one RCT, which did not provide information, were multicentre and funded by pharmaceutical companies, and their authors declared conflicts. The age of the participants ranged from 26 to 65 years. Results were based on one study unless otherwise stated. Infliximab 5 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg may be more effective than placebo at week four for clinical remission (30/55 versus 3/25; RR 4.55, 95% CI 1.53 to 13.50; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3) and response (36/55 versus 4/25; RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.63 to 10.25, NNTB 3). The evidence was low certainty. The study did not report withdrawals due to adverse events. We could not draw conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg compared to placebo for fistulating participants for clinical remission (29/63 versus 4/31; RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.38 to 9.25; NNTB 4), response (48/106 versus 15/75; RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.41; NNTB 6; 2 studies) or withdrawals due to adverse events (2/63 versus 0/31; RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.12 to 50.54). The evidence was very low certainty. Infliximab used in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective than purine analogues alone for clinical remission at weeks 24 to 26 (182/301 versus 95/302; RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.32, NNTB 4; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and clinical response at week 26 (107/177 versus 66/178; RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.05; NNTB 5; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events at week 26 (62/302 versus 53/301; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Infliximab alone may be more effective than purine analogues alone at week 26 for clinical remission (85/177 versus 57/178; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.95; NNTB 7; 2 studies) and response (94/177 versus 66/178; RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.82; NNTB 7; 2 studies). There may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (30/177 versus 43/178; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.06; 4 studies). The evidence was low certainty. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 10 mg/kg for clinical remission (19/27 versus 11/28; RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.02) and response (22/27 versus 24/28; RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.46). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 10 mg/kg in an exclusively fistulating population for clinical remission (17/31 versus 12/32; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.53), response (21/31 versus 18/32; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.78), or withdrawals due to adverse events (1/31 versus 1/32; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.79). The evidence was very low certainty. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 20 mg/kg for clinical remission (19/27 versus 11/28; RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.02) or response (22/27 versus 18/28; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.76). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 10 mg/kg compared to 20 mg/kg for clinical remission (11/28 versus 11/28; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.92) or response (14/28 versus 18/28; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.23). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. There may be little or no difference between infliximab and a CT-P13 biosimilar at week six for clinical remission (47/109 versus 49/111; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.32), response (67/109 versus 70/111; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20) and withdrawals due to adverse events (21/109 versus 17/111; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.25). The evidence was low certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective than purine analogues alone in inducing clinical remission and clinical response. Infliximab alone may be more effective in inducing clinical remission and response than purine analogues alone or placebo. Infliximab may be similar in efficacy to a CT-P13 biosimilar and there may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions as to whether infliximab alone is effective when used for exclusively fistulating populations. There was evidence that there may be little or no difference in withdrawal due to adverse events between infliximab plus purines compared with purines alone, as well as infliximab alone compared with purines alone. Meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn on all other outcomes related to adverse events due to very low certainty evidence.

Remote care through telehealth for people with inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

People with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) require intensive follow-up with frequent consultations after diagnosis. IBD telehealth management includes consulting by phone, instant messenger, video, text message, or web-based services. Telehealth can be beneficial for people with IBD, but may have its own set of challenges. It is important to systematically review the evidence on the types of remote or telehealth approaches that can be deployed in IBD. This is particularly relevant following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which led to increased self- and remote-management.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the communication technologies used to achieve remote healthcare for people with inflammatory bowel disease and to assess their effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

On 13 January 2022, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, three other databases, and three trials registries with no limitations on language, date, document type, or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated telehealth interventions targeted at people with IBD versus any other type of intervention or no intervention. We did not include studies based on digital patient information resources or education resources, unless they formed part of a wider package including an element of telehealth. We excluded studies where remote monitoring of blood or faecal tests was the only form of monitoring.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We analysed studies on adult and paediatric populations separately. We expressed the effects of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and the effects of continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), each with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 RCTs with a total of 3489 randomised participants, aged eight to 95 years. Three studies examined only people with ulcerative colitis (UC), two studies examined only people with Crohn's disease (CD), and the remaining studies examined a mix of IBD patients. Studies considered a range of disease activity states. The length of the interventions ranged from six months to two years. The telehealth interventions were web-based and telephone-based. Web-based monitoring versus usual care Twelve studies compared web-based disease monitoring to usual care. Three studies, all in adults, provided data on disease activity. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 254) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 174) in reducing disease activity in people with IBD (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.29). The certainty of the evidence is moderate. Five studies on adults provided dichotomous data that we could use for a meta-analysis on flare-ups. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 207/496) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 150/372) for the occurrence of flare-ups or relapses in adults with IBD (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.27). The certainty of the evidence is moderate. One study provided continuous data. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 465) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 444) for the occurrence of flare-ups or relapses in adults with CD (MD 0.00 events, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06). The certainty of the evidence is moderate. One study provided dichotomous data on flare-ups in a paediatric population. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 28/84) may be equivalent to usual care (n = 29/86) for the occurrence of flare-ups or relapses in children with IBD (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.51). The certainty of the evidence is low. Four studies, all in adults, provided data on quality of life. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 594) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 505) for quality of life in adults with IBD (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.20). The certainty of the evidence is moderate. Based on continuous data from one study in adults, we found that web-based disease monitoring probably leads to slightly higher medication adherence compared to usual care (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.47). The results are of moderate certainty. Based on continuous data from one paediatric study, we found no difference between web-based disease monitoring and usual care in terms of their effect on medication adherence (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.63), although the evidence is very uncertain. When we meta-analysed dichotomous data from two studies on adults, we found no difference between web-based disease monitoring and usual care in terms of their effect on medication adherence (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.21), although the evidence is very uncertain. We were unable to draw any conclusions on the effects of web-based disease monitoring compared to usual care on healthcare access, participant engagement, attendance rate, interactions with healthcare professionals, and cost- or time-effectiveness. The certainty of the evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in this review suggests that web-based disease monitoring is probably no different to standard care in adults when considering disease activity, occurrence of flare-ups or relapse, and quality of life. There may be no difference in these outcomes in children, but the evidence is limited. Web-based monitoring probably increases medication adherence slightly compared to usual care. We are uncertain about the effects of web-based monitoring versus usual care on our other secondary outcomes, and about the effects of the other telehealth interventions included in our review, because the evidence is limited. Further studies comparing web-based disease monitoring to standard care for the clinical outcomes reported in adults are unlikely to change our conclusions, unless they have longer follow-up or investigate under-reported outcomes or populations. Studies with a clearer definition of web-based monitoring would enhance applicability, enable practical dissemination and replication, and enable alignment with areas identified as important by stakeholders and people affected by IBD.

Patient education interventions for the management of inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a life-long condition for which currently there is no cure. Patient educational interventions deliver structured information to their recipients. Evidence suggests patient education can have positive effects in other chronic diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the different types of educational interventions, how they are delivered, and to determine their effectiveness and safety in people with IBD.

SEARCH METHODS

On 27 November 2022, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP with no limitations to language, date, document type, or publication status. Any type of formal or informal educational intervention, lasting for any time, that had content focused directly on knowledge about IBD or skills needed for direct management of IBD or its symptoms was included. Delivery methods included face-to-face or remote educational sessions, workshops, guided study via the use of printed or online materials, the use of mobile applications, or any other method that delivers information to patients.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published, unpublished and ongoing randomised control trials (RCTs) that compare educational interventions targeted at people with IBD to any other type of intervention or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment of the included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager Web. 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 GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies with a total of 2708 randomised participants, aged 11 to 75 years. Two studies examined populations who all had ulcerative colitis (UC); the remaining studies examined a mix of IBD patients (UC and Crohn's disease). Studies considered a range of disease activity states. The length of the interventions ranged from 30 minutes to 12 months. Education was provided in the form of in-person workshops/lectures, and remotely via printed materials or multimedia, smartphones and internet learning. Thirteen studies compared patient education interventions plus standard care against standard care alone. The interventions included seminars, information booklets, text messages, e-learning, a multi professional group-based programme, guidebooks, a staff-delivered programme based on an illustrated book, a standardised programme followed by group session, lectures alternating with group therapy, educational sessions based on an IBD guidebook, internet blog access and text messages, a structured education programme, and interactive videos. Risk of bias findings were concerning in all judgement areas across all studies. No single study was free of unclear or high of bias judgements. Reporting of most outcomes in a homogeneous fashion was limited, with quality of life at study end reported most commonly in six of the 14 studies which allowed for meta-analysis, with all other outcomes reported in a more heterogeneous manner that limited wider analysis. Two studies provided data on disease activity. There was no clear difference in disease activity when patient education (n = 277) combined with standard care was compared to standard care (n = 202). Patient education combined with standard care is probably equivalent to standard care in reducing disease activity in patients with IBD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.20), moderate-certainty evidence. Two studies provided continuous data on flare-up/relapse. There was no clear difference for flare-ups or relapse when patient education (n = 515) combined with standard care was compared to standard care (n = 507), as a continuous outcome. Patient education combined with standard care is probably equivalent to standard care in reducing flare-ups or relapse in patients with IBD (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies provided dichotomous data on flare-up/relapse. The evidence is very uncertain on whether patient education combined with standard care (n = 157) is different to standard care (n = 150) in reducing flare-ups or relapse in patients with IBD (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.18; very low-certainty evidence). Six studies provided data on quality of life. There was no clear difference in quality of life when patient education combined with standard care (n = 721) was compared to standard care (n = 643). Patient education combined with standard care is probably equivalent to standard care in improving quality of life in patients with IBD (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.18; moderate-certainty evidence). The included studies did not report major differences on healthcare access. Medication adherence, patient knowledge and change in quality of life showed conflicting results that varied between no major differences and differences in favour of the educational interventions. Only five studies reported on adverse events. Four reported zero total adverse events and one reported one case of breast cancer and two cases of surgery in their interventions groups, and zero adverse events in their control group. Two studies compared delivery methods of patient education, specifically: web-based patient education interventions versus colour-printed books or text messages; and one study compared frequency of patient education, specifically: weekly educational text messages versus once every other week educational text messages. These did not show major differences for disease activity and quality of life. Other outcomes were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The ways in which patient educational support surrounding IBD may impact on disease outcomes is complex. There is evidence that education added to standard care is probably of no benefit to disease activity or quality of life when compared with standard care, and may be of no benefit for occurrence of relapse when compared with standard care. However, as there was a paucity of specific information regarding the components of education or standard care, the utility of these findings is questionable. Further research on the impact of education on our primary outcomes of disease activity, flare-ups/relapse and quality of life is probably not indicated. However, further research is necessary, which should focus on reporting details of the educational interventions and study outcomes that educational interventions could be directly targeted to address, such as healthcare access and medication adherence. These should be informed by direct engagement with stakeholders and people affected by Crohn's and colitis.

Probiotics for management of functional abdominal pain disorders in children

BACKGROUND

Functional abdominal pain is pain occurring in the abdomen that cannot be fully explained by another medical condition and is common in children. It has been hypothesised that the use of micro-organisms, such as probiotics and synbiotics (a mixture of probiotics and prebiotics), might change the composition of bacterial colonies in the bowel and reduce inflammation, as well as promote normal gut physiology and reduce functional symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics in the treatment of functional abdominal pain disorders in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and two clinical trials registers from inception to October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare probiotic preparations (including synbiotics) to placebo, no treatment or any other interventional preparation in patients aged between 4 and 18 years of age with a diagnosis of functional abdominal pain disorder according to the Rome II, Rome III or Rome IV criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were treatment success as defined by the primary studies, complete resolution of pain, improvement in the severity of pain and improvement in the frequency of pain. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, adverse events, school performance or change in school performance or attendance, social and psychological functioning or change in social and psychological functioning, and quality of life or change in quality life measured using any validated scoring tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs assessing the effectiveness of probiotics and synbiotics in reducing the severity and frequency of pain, involving a total of 1309 patients. Probiotics may achieve more treatment success when compared with placebo at the end of the treatment, with 50% success in the probiotic group versus 33% success in the placebo group (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.36; 554 participants; 6 studies; I2 = 70%; low-certainty evidence).  It is not clear whether probiotics are more effective than placebo for complete resolution of pain, with 42% success in the probiotic group versus 27% success in the placebo group (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.56; 460 participants; 6 studies; I2 = 70%; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the evidence to be of very low certainty due to high inconsistency and risk of bias. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of the pain severity and pain frequency outcomes due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between probiotics (1/275) and placebo (1/269) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.12). The results were identical for the total patients with any reported adverse event outcome. However, these results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias. Synbiotics may result in more treatment success at study end when compared with placebo, with 47% success in the probiotic group versus 35% success in the placebo group (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.74; 310 participants; 4 studies; I2 = 0%; low certainty). One study used Bifidobacterium coagulans/fructo-oligosaccharide, one used Bifidobacterium lactis/inulin, one used Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG/inulin and in one study this was not stated).  Synbiotics may result in little difference in complete resolution of pain at study end when compared with placebo, with 52% success in the probiotic group versus 32% success in the placebo group (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 131 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 18%; low-certainty evidence). We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of pain severity or frequency of pain due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence.  None of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between synbiotics (8/155) and placebo (1/147) (RR 4.58, 95% CI 0.80 to 26.19), or in any reported adverse events (3/96 versus 1/93, RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.32 to 25.92). These results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias. There were insufficient data to analyse by subgroups of specific functional abdominal pain syndrome (irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, abdominal migraine, functional abdominal pain - not otherwise specified) or by specific strain of probiotic. There was insufficient evidence on school performance or change in school performance/attendance, social and psychological functioning, or quality of life to draw conclusions about the effects of probiotics or synbiotics on these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results from this review demonstrate that probiotics and synbiotics may be more efficacious than placebo in achieving treatment success, but the evidence is of low certainty. The evidence demonstrates little to no difference between probiotics or synbiotics and placebo in complete resolution of pain. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions about the impact of probiotics or synbiotics on the frequency and severity of pain as the evidence was all of very low certainty due to significant unexplained heterogeneity or imprecision. There were no reported cases of serious adverse events when using probiotics or synbiotics amongst the included studies, although a review of RCTs may not be the best context to assess long-term safety. The available evidence on adverse effects was of very low certainty and no conclusions could be made in this review. Safety will always be a priority in paediatric populations when considering any treatment. Reporting of all adverse events, adverse events needing withdrawal, serious adverse events and, particularly, long-term safety outcomes are vital to meaningfully move forward the evidence base in this field. Further targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies to confirm the safety of specific strains not yet investigated and studies to investigate long-term follow-up of patients are both warranted.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Treatments and Predictive Biomarkers of Therapeutic Response

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic immune-mediated inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract with a highly heterogeneous presentation. It has a relapsing and remitting clinical course that necessitates lifelong monitoring and treatment. Although the availability of a variety of effective therapeutic options including immunomodulators and biologics (such as TNF, CAM inhibitors) has led to a paradigm shift in the treatment outcomes and clinical management of IBD patients, some patients still either fail to respond or lose their responsiveness to therapy over time. Therefore, according to the recent Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE-II) recommendations, continuous disease monitoring from symptomatic relief to endoscopic healing along with short- and long-term therapeutic responses are critical for providing IBD patients with a tailored therapy algorithm. Moreover, considering the high unmet need for novel therapeutic approaches for IBD patients, various new modulators of cytokine signaling events (for example, JAK/TYK inhibitors), inhibitors of cytokines (for example IL-12/IL-23, IL-22, IL-36, and IL-6 inhibitors), anti-adhesion and migration strategies (for example, β7 integrin, sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors, and stem cells), as well as microbial-based therapeutics to decolonize the bed buds (for example, fecal microbiota transplantation and bacterial inhibitors) are currently being evaluated in different phases of controlled clinical trials. This review aims to offer a comprehensive overview of available treatment options and emerging therapeutic approaches for IBD patients. Furthermore, predictive biomarkers for monitoring the therapeutic response to different IBD therapies are also discussed.

Antibiotics for the induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics have been considered to treat ulcerative colitis (UC) due to their antimicrobial properties against intestinal bacteria linked to inflammation. However, there are concerns about their efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether antibiotic therapy is safe and effective for the induction and maintenance of remission in people with UC.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched five electronic databases on 10 December 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antibiotic therapy to placebo or an active comparator.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered people with UC of all ages, treated with antibiotics of any type, dose, and route of administration for inclusion. Induction studies required a minimum duration of two weeks for inclusion. Maintenance studies required a minimum duration of three months to be considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome for induction studies was failure to achieve remission and for maintenance studies was relapse, as defined by the primary studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs (847 participants). One maintenance of remission study used sole antibiotic therapy compared with 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA). All other trials used concurrent medications or standard care regimens and antibiotics as an adjunct therapy or compared antibiotics with other adjunct therapies to examine the effect on induction of remission. There is high certainty evidence that antibiotics (154/304 participants) compared to placebo (175/304 participants) result in no difference in failure to achieve clinical remission (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.06). A subgroup analysis found no differences when steroids, steroids plus 5-ASA, or steroids plus 5-ASA plus probiotics were used as additional therapies to antibiotics and placebo. There is low certainty evidence that antibiotics (102/168 participants) compared to placebo (121/175 participants) may result in no difference in failure to achieve clinical response (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.22). A subgroup analysis found no differences when steroids or steroids plus 5-ASA were used as additional therapies to antibiotics and placebo. There is low certainty evidence that antibiotics (6/342 participants) compared to placebo (5/349 participants) may result in no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.71). A subgroup analysis found no differences when steroids were additional therapies to antibiotics and placebo. There is low certainty evidence that antibiotics (3/342 participants) compared to placebo (1/349 participants) may result in no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 2.06, 95% CI 0.27 to 15.72). A subgroup analysis found no differences when steroids or steroids plus 5-ASA were additional therapies to antibiotics and placebo. It is unclear if there is any difference between antibiotics in combination with probiotics compared to no treatment or placebo for failure to achieve clinical remission (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.19), serious adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.08), or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.08). The certainty of the evidence is very low. It is unclear if there is any difference between antibiotics compared to 5-ASA for failure to achieve clinical remission (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.14). The certainty of the evidence is very low. It is unclear if there is any difference between antibiotics compared to probiotics for failure to achieve clinical remission (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.94). The certainty of the evidence is very low. It is unclear if there is any difference between antibiotics compared to 5-ASA for failure to maintain clinical remission (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.06). The certainty of the evidence is very low. It is unclear if there is any difference between antibiotics compared to no treatment for failure to achieve clinical remission in a mixed population of people with active and inactive disease (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.07). The certainty of the evidence is very low. For all other outcomes, no effects could be estimated due to a lack of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high certainty evidence that there is no difference between antibiotics and placebo in the proportion of people who achieve clinical remission at the end of the intervention period. However, there is evidence that there may be a greater proportion of people who achieve clinical remission and probably a greater proportion who achieve clinical response with antibiotics when compared with placebo at 12 months. There may be no difference in serious adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events between antibiotics and placebo. No clear conclusions can be drawn for any other comparisons. A clear direction for future research appears to be comparisons of antibiotics and placebo (in addition to standard therapies) with longer-term measurement of outcomes. Additionally. As there were single studies of other head-to-head comparisons, there may be scope for future studies in this area.

Tacrolimus (FK506) for induction of remission in corticosteroid-refractory ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

There are a limited number of treatment options for people with corticosteroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. Animal models of inflammatory bowel disease and uncontrolled studies in humans suggest that tacrolimus may be an effective treatment for ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus for induction of remission in people with corticosteroid-refractory ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gut group specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP from inception to October 2021 to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCT).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant studies to determine eligibility based on the prespecified criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed them using Review Manager Web. The primary outcomes were induction of remission and clinical improvement, as defined by the studies and expressed as a percentage of the participants randomised (intention-to-treat analysis).

MAIN RESULTS

This review included five RCTs with 347 participants who had active ulcerative colitis or ulcerative proctitis. The duration of intervention varied between two weeks and eight weeks. Tacrolimus versus placebo Tacrolimus (oral and rectal) may be superior in achieving clinical remission compared to placebo (oral and rectal) (14/87 participants with tacrolimus versus 1/61 participants with placebo; risk ratio (RR) 3.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 13.73; 3 studies). These results are of low certainty due to imprecision and risk of bias. Tacrolimus (oral and rectal) may be superior for clinical improvement compared to placebo (oral and rectal) (45/87 participants with tacrolimus versus 7/61 participants with placebo; RR 4.47, 95% CI 2.15 to 9.29; 3 studies). These results are of low certainty due to imprecision and risk of bias. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of tacrolimus (oral and rectal) on serious adverse events compared to placebo (oral and rectal) (2/87 participants with tacrolimus versus 0/61 participants with placebo; RR 2.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 48.77; 3 studies). These results are of very low certainty due to high imprecision and risk of bias. Tacrolimus versus ciclosporin One study compared oral tacrolimus to intravenous ciclosporin, with an intervention lasting two weeks and 113 randomised participants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tacrolimus on achievement of clinical remission compared to ciclosporin (15/33 participants with tacrolimus versus 24/80 participants with ciclosporin; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.50). The results are of very low certainty due to risk of bias and high imprecision. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tacrolimus on clinical improvement compared to intravenous ciclosporin (23/33 participants with tacrolimus versus 62/80 participants with ciclosporin; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.16). The results are of very low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision. Tacrolimus versus beclometasone One study compared tacrolimus suppositories with beclometasone suppositories in an intervention lasting four weeks with 88 randomised participants. There may be little to no difference in achievement of clinical remission (16/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 15/44 participants with beclometasone; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.88). The results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. There may be little to no difference in clinical improvement when comparing tacrolimus suppositories to beclometasone suppositories (22/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 22/44 with beclometasone; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52). The results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. There may be little to no difference in serious adverse events when comparing tacrolimus suppositories to beclometasone suppositories (1/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 0/44 with beclometasone; RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 71.70). These results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. There may be little to no difference in total adverse events when comparing tacrolimus suppositories to beclometasone suppositories (21/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 14/44 participants with beclometasone; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.55). These results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. No secondary outcomes were reported for people requiring rescue medication or to undergo surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-certainty evidence that tacrolimus may be superior to placebo for achievement of clinical remission and clinical improvement in corticosteroid-refractory colitis or corticosteroid-refractory proctitis. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tacrolimus compared to ciclosporin for achievement of clinical remission or clinical improvement. There may be no difference between tacrolimus and beclometasone for inducing clinical remission or clinical improvement. The cohorts studied to date were small, with missing data sets, offered short follow-up and the clinical endpoints used were not in line with those suggested by regulatory bodies. Therefore, no clinical practice conclusions can be made. This review highlights the need for further research that targets the relevant clinical questions, uses appropriate trial methodology and reports key findings in a systematic manner that facilitates future integration of findings with current evidence to better inform clinicians and patients. Future studies need to be adequately powered and of pertinent duration so as to capture the efficacy and effectiveness of tacrolimus in the medium to long term. Well-structured efficacy studies need to be followed up by long-term phase 4 extensions to provide key outputs and inform in a real-world setting.

Probiotics for treatment of chronic constipation in children

BACKGROUND

Functional constipation is defined as chronic constipation with no identifiable underlying cause. It is a significant cause of morbidity in children, accounting for up to 25% of visits to paediatric gastroenterologists. Probiotic preparations may sufficiently alter the gut microbiome and promote normal gut physiology in a way that helps relieve functional constipation. Several studies have sought to address this hypothesis, as well as the role of probiotics in other functional gut disorders. Therefore, it is important to have a focused review to assess the evidence to date.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of probiotics for the management of chronic constipation without a physical explanation in children.

SEARCH METHODS

On 28 June 2021, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, WHO ICTR, and ClinicalTrials.gov, with no language, date, publication status, or document type limitations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed probiotic preparations (including synbiotics) compared to placebo, no treatment or any other interventional preparation in people aged between 0 and 18 years old with a diagnosis of functional constipation according to consensus criteria (such as Rome IV).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies (1127 randomised participants): 12 studies assessed probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation, whilst two studies investigated synbiotic preparations. Three studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to the frequency of defecation at study end, but we did not pool them as there was very significant unexplained heterogeneity. Four studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to treatment success. There may be no difference in global improvement/treatment success (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.26; 313 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to withdrawals due to adverse events, with the pooled effect suggesting there may be no difference (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.95; 357 participants; low-certainty evidence). The pooled estimate from three studies that compared probiotics plus an osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone found there may be no difference in frequency of defecation (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.56; 268 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies compared probiotics plus an osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone in relation to global improvement/treatment success, and found there may be no difference between the treatments (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.15; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three studies compared probiotics plus osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone in relation to withdrawals due to adverse events, but it is unclear if there is a difference between them (RR 2.86, 95% CI 0.12 to 68.35; 268 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies compared probiotics versus magnesium oxide. It is unclear if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.58 to 1.14; 36 participants), treatment success (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.57; 36 participants) or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.04; 77 participants). The certainty of the evidence is very low for these outcomes. One study assessed the role of a synbiotic preparation in comparison to placebo. There may be higher treatment success in favour of synbiotics compared to placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.47; 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. One study assessed a synbiotic plus paraffin compared to paraffin alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD 0.74, 95% CI -0.96, 2.44; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or treatment success (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. One study compared a synbiotic preparation to paraffin. It is uncertain if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD -1.53, 95% CI -3.00, -0.06; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or in treatment success (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65, 1.13; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. All secondary outcomes were either not reported or reported in a way that did not allow for analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether probiotics are efficacious in successfully treating chronic constipation without a physical explanation in children or changing the frequency of defecation, or whether there is a difference in withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There is limited evidence from one study to suggest a synbiotic preparation may be more likely than placebo to lead to treatment success, with no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to draw efficacy or safety conclusions about the use of probiotics in combination with or in comparison to any of the other interventions reported. The majority of the studies that presented data on serious adverse events reported that no events occurred. Two studies did not report this outcome. Future studies are needed to confirm efficacy, but the research community requires guidance on the best context for probiotics in such studies, considering where they should be best considered in a potential treatment hierarchy and should align with core outcome sets to support future interpretation of findings.

Tipping the Balance: Vitamin D Inadequacy in Children Impacts the Major Gut Bacterial Phyla

Vitamin D inadequacy appears to be on the rise globally, and it has been linked to an increased risk of osteoporosis, as well as metabolic, cardiovascular, and autoimmune diseases. Vitamin D concentrations are partially determined by genetic factors. Specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in vitamin D transport, metabolism, or binding have been found to be associated with its serum concentration, and these SNPs differ among ethnicities. Vitamin D has also been suggested to be a regulator of the gut microbiota and vitamin D deficiency as the possible cause of gut microbial dysbiosis and inflammation. This pilot study aims to fill the gap in our understanding of the prevalence, cause, and implications of vitamin D inadequacy in a pediatric population residing in Qatar. Blood and fecal samples were collected from healthy subjects aged 4–14 years. Blood was used to measure serum metabolite of vitamin D, 25-hydroxycholecalciferol 25(OH)D. To evaluate the composition of the gut microbiota, fecal samples were subjected to 16S rRNA gene sequencing. High levels of vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency were observed in our cohort with 97% of the subjects falling into the inadequate category (with serum 25(OH)D < 75 nmol/L). The CT genotype in rs12512631, an SNP in the GC gene, was associated with low serum levels of vitamin D (ANOVA, p = 0.0356) and was abundant in deficient compared to non-deficient subjects. Overall gut microbial community structure was significantly different between the deficient (D) and non-deficient (ND) groups (Bray Curtis dissimilarity p = 0.049), with deficient subjects also displaying reduced gut microbial diversity. Significant differences were observed among the two major gut phyla, Firmicutes (F) and Bacteroidetes (B), where deficient subjects displayed a higher B/F ratio (p = 0.0097) compared to ND. Vitamin D deficient children also demonstrated gut enterotypes dominated by the genus Prevotella as opposed to Bacteroides. Our findings suggest that pediatric vitamin D inadequacy significantly impacts the gut microbiota. We also highlight the importance of considering host genetics and baseline gut microbiome composition in interpreting the clinical outcomes related to vitamin D deficiency as well as designing better personalized strategies for therapeutic interventions.

Interventions for the management of abdominal pain in Crohn's disease and inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Crohn's disease is a remitting and relapsing disorder that can affect the whole gastrointestinal tract. Active disease symptoms include abdominal pain, fatigue, weight loss, and diarrhoea. There is no known cure; however, the disease can be managed, and therefore places a huge financial burden on healthcare systems. Abdominal pain is a common and debilitating symptom of Crohn's and other inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), and is multifaceted. Abdominal pain in Crohn's disease could be a symptom of disease relapse or related to medication adverse effects, surgical complications and strictures or adhesions secondary to IBD. In the absence of these factors, around 20 to 50% of people with Crohn's in remission still experience pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of interventions for managing abdominal pain in people with Crohn's disease and IBD (where data on ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease could not be separated).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases, and clinical trials registries on 29 April 2021. We also searched the references of trials and systematic reviews for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised trials that compared interventions for the management of abdominal pain in the setting of Crohn's disease and IBD, with other active interventions or standard therapy, placebo, or no therapy were included. We excluded studies that did not report on any abdominal pain outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Five review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of the included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies (743 randomised participants). Five studies evaluated participants with Crohn's disease; seven studies evaluated participants with IBD where the data on ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease could not be separated; and two studies provided separate results for Crohn's disease participants. Studies considered a range of disease activity states. Two studies provided intervention success definitions, whilst the remaining studies measured pain as a continuous outcome on a rating scale. All studies except one measured pain intensity, whilst three studies measured pain frequency. Withdrawals due to adverse events were directly or indirectly reported in 10 studies. No conclusions could be drawn about the efficacy of the majority of the interventions on pain intensity, pain frequency, and treatment success, except for the comparison of transcranial direct current stimulation to sham stimulation. The certainty of the evidence was very low in all but one comparison because of imprecision due to sparse data and risk of bias assessed as unclear or high risk. Two studies compared a low FODMAP diet (n=37) to a sham diet (n=45) in IBD patients. The evidence on pain intensity was of very low certainty (MD -12.00, 95% CI -114.55 to 90.55). One study reported pain intensity separately for CD participants in the low FODMAP group [n=14, mean(SD)=24 (82.3)] and the sham group [n=12, mean(SD)=32 (69.3)]. The same study also reported pain frequency for IBD participants in the low FODMAP group [n=27, mean(SD)=36 (26)] and sham group [n=25, mean(SD)=38(25)] and CD participants in the low FODMAP group [n=14, mean(SD)=36 (138.4)] and sham group [n=12, mean(SD)=48 (128.2)]. Treatment success was not reported. One study compared a low FODMAP diet (n=25) to high FODMAP/normal diet (n=25) in IBD patients. The data reported on pain intensity was unclear. Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared medicine-separated moxibustion combined with acupuncture (n=51) versus wheat bran-separated moxibustion combined with shallow acupuncture (n=51) in CD patients. The data reported on pain intensity and frequency were unclear. Treatment success was not reported. One study compared mindfulness with CBT (n=33) versus no treatment (n=33) in IBD patients. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity and frequency (MD -37.00, 95% CI -87.29 to 13.29). Treatment success was not reported. One study compared soft non-manipulative osteopathic treatment (n=16) with no treatment besides doctor advice (n=14) in CD patients. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity (MD 0.01, 95% CI -1.81 to 1.83). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared stress management (n=15) to self-directed stress management(n=15) and to standard treatment (n=15) in CD patients. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these treatments on pain intensity (MD -30.50, 95% CI -58.45 to -2.55 and MD -34.30, 95% CI -61.99 to -6.61). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared enteric-release glyceryl trinitrate (n=34) with placebo (n=36) in CD patients. The data reported on pain intensity was unclear. Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported.  One study compared 100 mg olorinab three times per day (n=8) with 25 mg olorinab three times per day (n=6) in CD patients. Pain intensity was measured as a 30% reduction in weekly average abdominal pain intensity score for the 100mg group (n=5) and the 25mg group (n=6). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared relaxation training (n=28) to a waitlist (n=28) in IBD patients. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity (MD -0.72, 95% CI -1.85 to 0.41). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared web-based education (n=30) with a book-based education (n=30) in IBD patients. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity (MD -0.13, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.99). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared yoga (n=50) with no treatment (n=50) in IBD patients. The data reported on treatment success were unclear. Pain frequency and intensity were not reported. One study compared transcranial direct current stimulation (n = 10) to sham stimulation (n = 10) in IBD patients. There may be an improvement in pain intensity when transcranial direct current is compared to sham stimulation (MD -1.65, 95% CI -3.29 to -0.01, low-certainty evidence). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared a kefir diet (Lactobacillus bacteria) to no intervention in IBD patients and provided separate data for their CD participants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity in IBD (MD 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.07) and CD (MD -1.10, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.53). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. Reporting of our secondary outcomes was inconsistent. The most adverse events were reported in the enteric-release glyceryl trinitrate and olorinab studies.  In the enteric-release glyceryl trinitrate study, the adverse events were higher in the intervention arm. In the olorinab study, more adverse events were observed in the higher dose arm of the intervention.  In the studies on non-drug interventions, adverse events tended to be very low or zero. However, no clear judgements regarding adverse events can be drawn for any interventions due to the low number of events. Anxiety and depression were measured and reported at the end of intervention in only one study; therefore, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn for this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low certainty evidence that transcranial direct current stimulation may improve pain intensity compared to sham stimulation. We could not reach any conclusions on the efficacy of any other interventions on pain intensity, pain frequency, and treatment success. The certainty of the evidence was very low due to the low numbers of studies and participants in each comparison and clinical heterogeneity amongst the studies. While no serious or total adverse events were elicited explicitly with any of the treatments studied, the reported events were very low. The certainty of the evidence for all comparisons was very low, so no conclusions can be drawn.

Interventions for the management of abdominal pain in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammation of the colon characterised by periods of relapse and remission. It starts in the rectum and can extend throughout the colon. UC and Crohn's disease (CD) are the most common inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). However, UC tends to be more common than CD. It has no known cure but can be managed with medication and surgery. However, studies have shown that abdominal pain persists in up to one-third of people with UC in remission. Abdominal pain could be a symptom of relapse of the disease due to adverse effects of medication, surgical complications and strictures or adhesions secondary to UC.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of interventions for managing abdominal pain in people with ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and five other databases and clinical trials registries on 28 April 2021. We contacted authors of relevant studies and ongoing or unpublished trials that may be relevant to the review. We also searched references of trials and systematic reviews for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published, unpublished and ongoing randomised trials that compared interventions for the management of abdominal pain with other active interventions or standard therapy, placebo or no therapy were included. People with both active and inactive disease were included. We excluded studies that did not report on any abdominal pain outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments. We analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs), respectively, with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies (360 randomised participants). Studies considered mainly participants in an inactive state of the disease.   No conclusions could be drawn about the efficacy of any of the interventions on pain frequency, pain intensity, and treatment success. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all comparisons because of imprecision due to sparse data, and risk of bias. One study compared a low FODMAPs diet (n=13) to a sham diet (n=13). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain frequency (MD -4.00, 95% CI -20.61 to 12.61) and intensity (MD -9.00, 95% CI -20.07 to 2.07). Treatment success was not reported. One study compared relaxation training (n=20) to wait-list (n=20). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain frequency at end of intervention (MD 2.60, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.06) and 6-month follow-up (MD 3.30, 95% CI 1.64 to 4.96). Similarly, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity at end of intervention (MD -1.70, 95% CI -2.92 to -0.48) and 6-month follow-up (MD -2.30, 95% CI -3.70 to -0.90). Treatment success was not reported. One study compared yoga (n=30) to no intervention (n=30). The study defined treatment success as the presence or absence of pain; however, the data they provided was unclear. Pain frequency and intensity were not reported. One study compared a kefir diet (Lactobacillus bacteria, n=15) to no intervention (n=15). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.57). Pain frequency and treatment success were not reported. One study compared a stellate ganglion block treatment (n=90) to sulfasalazine treatment (n=30). The study defined treatment success as "stomachache"; however, the data they provided was unclear. Pain frequency and intensity were not reported. Two studies reported withdrawals due to adverse events. One study reported withdrawals due to adverse events as zero. Two studies did not report this outcome.  We cannot draw any conclusions about the effects of any of the interventions on withdrawals due to adverse events because of the very limited evidence. The reporting of secondary outcomes was inconsistent. Adverse events tended to be very low or zero. However, we can make no clear judgements about adverse events for any of the interventions, due to the low number of events. Anxiety was measured and reported at end of intervention in only one study (yoga versus no intervention), and depression was not measured in any of the studies. We can therefore draw no meaningful conclusions about these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low-certainty evidence on the efficacy and safety of interventions for the management of abdominal pain in ulcerative colitis. Pervasive issues with very serious imprecision from small samples size and high risk of bias have led to very low-certainty outcomes, precluding conclusions. While few adverse events and no serious adverse events were reported, the certainty of these findings was again very low for all comparisons, so no conclusions can be drawn. There is a need for further research. We have identified eight ongoing studies in this review, so an update will be warranted. It is key that future research addresses the issues leading to reduced certainty of outcomes, specifically sample size and reporting that leads to high risk of bias. It is also important that if researchers are considering pain as a critical outcome, they should report clearly if participants were pain-free at baseline; in that case, data would be best presented as separate subgroups throughout their research.

Corneal confocal microscopy identifies a reduction in corneal keratocyte density and sub-basal nerves in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus

PURPOSE

To assess whether alterations in stromal keratocyte density are related to loss of corneal nerve fibres in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

METHODS

Twenty participants with T1DM and 20 age-matched healthy controls underwent corneal confocal microscopy. Corneal sub-basal nerve morphology and corneal keratocyte density (KD) were quantified.

RESULTS

Corneal nerve fibre density (CNFD) (p<0.001), corneal nerve branch density (p<0.001), corneal nerve fibre length (CNFL) (p<0.001) and inferior whorl length (IWL) (p<0.001) were lower in children with T1DM compared with healthy controls. Anterior (p<0.03) and mid (p=0.03) stromal KDs were lower with no difference in posterior KD (PKD) in children with T1DM compared with controls. Age, duration of diabetes, height, weight and body mass index did not correlate with anterior (AKD), mid (MKD) or PKD. Inverse correlations were found between glycated haemoglobin and PKD (r=-0.539, p=0.026), bilirubin with MKD (r=-0.540, p=0.025) and PKD (r=-0.531, p=0.028) and 25-hydroxycholecalciferol with MKD (r=-0.583, p=0.018). CNFD, CNFL and IWL did not correlate with AKD, MKD or PKD.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates a reduction in corneal nerves and anterior and mid stromal KD in children with T1DM, but no correlation between corneal nerve and keratocyte cell loss.

Distinctive Microbial Signatures and Gut-Brain Crosstalk in Pediatric Patients with Coeliac Disease and Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Coeliac disease (CD) and Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) are immune-mediated diseases. Emerging evidence suggests that dysbiosis in the gut microbiome plays a role in the pathogenesis of both diseases and may also be associated with the development of neuropathy. The primary goal in this cross-sectional pilot study was to identify whether there are distinct gut microbiota alterations in children with CD (n = 19), T1DM (n = 18) and both CD and T1DM (n = 9) compared to healthy controls (n = 12). Our second goal was to explore the relationship between neuropathy (corneal nerve fiber damage) and the gut microbiome composition. Microbiota composition was determined by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Corneal confocal microscopy was used to determine nerve fiber damage. There was a significant difference in the overall microbial diversity between the four groups with healthy controls having a greater microbial diversity as compared to the patients. The abundance of pathogenic proteobacteria Shigella and E. coli were significantly higher in CD patients. Differential abundance analysis showed that several bacterial amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) distinguished CD from T1DM. The tissue transglutaminase antibody correlated significantly with a decrease in gut microbial diversity. Furthermore, the Bacteroidetes phylum, specifically the genus Parabacteroides was significantly correlated with corneal nerve fiber loss in the subjects with neuropathic damage belonging to the diseased groups. We conclude that disease-specific gut microbial features traceable down to the ASV level distinguish children with CD from T1DM and specific gut microbial signatures may be associated with small fiber neuropathy. Further research on the mechanisms linking altered microbial diversity with neuropathy are warranted.

Interventions for treating iron deficiency anaemia in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel disease affects approximately seven million people globally. Iron deficiency anaemia can occur as a common systemic manifestation, with a prevalence of up to 90%, which can significantly affect quality of life, both during periods of active disease or in remission. It is important that iron deficiency anaemia is treated effectively and not be assumed to be a normal finding of inflammatory bowel disease. The various routes of iron administration, doses and preparations present varying advantages and disadvantages, and a significant proportion of people experience adverse effects with current therapies. Currently, no consensus has been reached amongst physicians as to which treatment path is most beneficial.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interventions for the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in people with inflammatory bowel disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 21st November 2019. We also contacted experts in the field and searched references of trials for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness and safety of iron administration interventions compared to other iron administration interventions or placebo in the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in inflammatory bowel disease. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies (1670 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. The studies compared intravenous iron sucrose vs oral iron sulphate (2 studies); oral iron sulphate vs oral iron hydroxide polymaltose complex (1 study); oral iron fumarate vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); erythropoietin injection + intravenous iron sucrose vs intravenous iron sucrose + injection placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs oral placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); intravenous iron isomaltoside vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); erythropoietin injection vs oral placebo (1 study). All studies compared participants with CD and UC together, as well as considering a range of disease activity states. The primary outcome of number of responders, when defined, was stated to be an increase in haemoglobin of 20 g/L in all but two studies in which an increase in 10g/L was used. In one study comparing intravenous ferric carboxymaltose and intravenous iron sucrose, moderate-certainty evidence was found that intravenous ferric carboxymaltose was probably superior to intravenous iron sucrose, although there were responders in both groups (150/244 versus 118/239, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.46, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 9). In one study comparing oral ferric maltol to placebo, there was low-certainty evidence of superiority of the iron (36/64 versus 0/64, RR 73.00, 95% CI 4.58 to 1164.36). There were no other direct comparisons that found any difference in the primary outcomes, although certainty was low and very low for all outcomes, due to imprecision from sparse data and risk of bias varying between moderate and high risk. The reporting of secondary outcomes was inconsistent. The most common was the occurrence of serious adverse events or those requiring withdrawal of therapy. In no comparisons was there a difference seen between any of the intervention agents being studied, although the certainty was very low for all comparisons made, due to risk of bias and significant imprecision due to the low numbers of events. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes were reported in any of the studies. An analysis of all intravenous iron preparations to all oral iron preparations showed that intravenous administration may lead to more responders (368/554 versus 205/373, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, NNTB = 11, low-certainty due to risk of bias and inconsistency). Withdrawals due to adverse events may be greater in oral iron preparations vs intravenous (15/554 versus 31/373, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74, low-certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose probably leads to more people having resolution of IDA (iron deficiency anaemia) than intravenous iron sucrose. Oral ferric maltol may lead to more people having resolution of IDA than placebo. We are unable to draw conclusions on which of the other treatments is most effective in IDA with IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) due to low numbers of studies in each comparison area and clinical heterogeneity within the studies. Therefore, there are no other conclusions regarding the treatments that can be made and certainty of all findings are low or very low. Overall, intravenous iron delivery probably leads to greater response in patients compared with oral iron, with a NNTB (number needed to treat) of 11. Whilst no serious adverse events were specifically elicited with any of the treatments studied, the numbers of reported events were low and the certainty of these findings very low for all comparisons, so no conclusions can be drawn. There may be more withdrawals due to such events when oral is compared with intravenous iron delivery. Other outcomes were poorly reported and once again no conclusions can be made as to the impact of IDA on any of these outcomes. Given the widespread use of many of these treatments in practice and the only guideline that exists recommending the use of intravenous iron in favour of oral iron, research to investigate this key issue is clearly needed. Considering the current ongoing trials identified in this review, these are more focussed on the impact in specific patient groups (young people) or on other symptoms (such as fatigue). Therefore, there is a need for studies to be performed to fill this evidence gap.

Role of the gut microbiota in the pathogenesis of coeliac disease and potential therapeutic implications

PURPOSE

Although genetic predisposition and exposure to dietary gluten are considered necessary triggers for the development of coeliac disease, alterations in the gut microbial composition may also contribute towards the pathogenesis of coeliac disease. This review aims to provide an overview of the available data on the potential mechanisms through which the gut microbiota plays a role in the causation of coeliac disease and to discuss the potential therapeutic strategies that could diminish the consequences of microbial dysbiosis.

METHOD

A search of the literature was performed using the PubMed, Embase, and JSTOR databases; relevant articles were included.

RESULTS

Recent studies in patients with coeliac disease have reported an increase in the relative amounts of gram negative bacterial genera such as Bacteroides, Prevotella, and Escherichia, and reduced amounts of protective anti-inflammatory bacteria such as Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli. Dysbiotic microbiota may lead to a dysregulated immune response that may contribute to the pathogenesis of coeliac disease. In infancy, antibiotic use and certain infant feeding practices may lead to alterations in the developing gut microbiota to influence the immune maturation process and predispose to coeliac disease.

CONCLUSION

The induction of the intestinal immune system and gluten intolerance may be influenced by the relative abundance of certain microbiota. Factors such as infant feeding practices, diet, antibiotics, and infections, may be involved in the development of coeliac disease due to their influence on gut microbial composition. The efficacy of potential modulators of the gut microbiota such as probiotics, prebiotics, and fecal microbial transplant as adjunctive treatments to gluten-free diet in coeliac disease is unproven and requires further investigation.

Levetiracetam for convulsive status epilepticus in childhood: systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Prolonged seizures are life-threatening emergencies associated with significant morbidity.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in treating convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) in childhood.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTIONS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched from inception up to April 2020. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included children aged 1 month-18 years were assessed. Two reviewers performed data assessment and extraction.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Ten studies out of the 20 637 citations identified were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Cessation of seizure activities, time to cessation of seizure activities, need for rapid sequence intubation (RSI), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, recurrence of seizures at 24 hours, adverse events and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs (n=1907). There was no significant difference in cessation of seizure activities when levetiracetam was compared with phenytoin (risk ratio (RR)=1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09), levetiracetam to fosphenytoin (RR=1.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.35) or levetiracetam to valproate (RR=1.10, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.27). No differences were found in relation to the timing of cessation of seizures for levetiracetam versus phenytoin (mean difference (MD)=-0.45, 95% CI -1.83 to 0.93), or levetiracetam versus fosphenytoin (MD=-0.70, 95% CI -4.26 to 2.86). There were no significant differences with regard to ICU admissions, adverse events, recurrence of seizure at 24 hours, RSI and all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

Levetiracetam is comparable to phenytoin, fosphenytoin and valproate as a second line treatment of paediatric CSE.

Corneal confocal microscopy demonstrates minimal evidence of distal neuropathy in children with celiac disease

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to utilise corneal confocal microscopy to quantify corneal nerve morphology and establish the presence of sub-clinical small fibre damage and peripheral neuropathy in children with celiac disease.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional cohort study of twenty children with celiac disease and 20 healthy controls who underwent clinical and laboratory assessments and corneal confocal microscopy. Corneal nerve fiber density (no.mm2), corneal nerve branch density (no.mm2), corneal nerve fiber length (mm.mm2), corneal nerve fiber tortuosity and inferior whorl length (mm.mm2) were quantified manually.

RESULTS

Corneal nerve fiber density (34.7±8.6 vs. 32.9±8.6; P = 0.5), corneal nerve branch density (47.2±24.5 vs. 47.3±20.0; P = 0.1) and corneal nerve fiber length (20.0±5.1 vs. 19.5±4.5; P = 0.8) did not differ between children with celiac disease and healthy controls. Corneal nerve fiber tortuosity (11.4±1.9 vs 13.5±3.0; P = 0.01) was significantly lower and inferior whorl length (20.0±5.5 vs 23.0±3.8; P = 0.06) showed a non-significant reduction in children with celiac disease compared to healthy controls. Inferior whorl length correlated significantly with corneal nerve fiber density (P = 0.005), corneal nerve branch density (P = 0.04), and corneal nerve fiber length (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Corneal confocal microscopy demonstrates minimal evidence of neuropathy in children with celiac disease.

Gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the published evidence on the gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 in children and to determine the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and the WHO's database of publications on novel coronavirus. We included English language studies that had described original demographic and clinical characteristics of children diagnosed with COVID-19 and reported on the presence or absence of gastrointestinal symptoms. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. The pooled prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms was expressed as proportion and 95% CI.

RESULTS

The search identified 269 citations. Thirteen studies (nine case series and four case reports) comprising data for 284 patients were included. Overall, we rated four studies as having a low risk of bias, eight studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. In a meta-analysis of nine studies, comprising 280 patients, the pooled prevalence of all gastrointestinal symptoms was 22.8% (95% CI 13.1% to 35.2%; I²=54%). Diarrhoea was the most commonly reported gastrointestinal symptom followed by vomiting and abdominal pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly a quarter of children with COVID-19 have gastrointestinal symptoms. It is important for clinicians to be aware of the gastrointestinal manifestation of COVID-19.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020177569.

Probiotics for induction of remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the gastrointestinal tract, in which the pathogenesis is believed to be partly influenced by the gut microbiome. Probiotics can be used to manipulate the microbiome and have therefore been considered as a potential therapy for CD. There is some evidence that probiotics benefit other gastrointestinal conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome and ulcerative colitis, but their efficacy in CD is unclear. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics for the induction of remission in CD.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE (from inception to 6 July 2020), Embase (from inception to 6 July 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane IBD Review Group Specialised Trials Register, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared probiotics with placebo or any other non-probiotic intervention for the induction of remission in CD were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. The primary outcome was clinical remission. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

There were two studies that met criteria for inclusion. One study from Germany had 11 adult participants with mild-to-moderate CD, who were treated with a one-week course of corticosteroids and antibiotics (ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily and metronidazole 250 mg three times a day), followed by randomised assignment to Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain GG (two billion colony-forming units per day) or corn starch placebo. The other study from the United Kingdom (UK) had 35 adult participants with active CD (CDAI score of 150 to 450) randomised to receive a synbiotic treatment (comprised of freeze-dried Bifidobacterium longum and a commercial product) or placebo. The overall risk of bias was low in one study, whereas the other study had unclear risk of bias in relation to random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding. There was no evidence of a difference between the use of probiotics and placebo for the induction of remission in CD (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.71; 2 studies, 46 participants) after six months. There was no difference in adverse events between probiotics and placebo (RR 2.55; 95% CI 0.11 to 58.60; 2 studies, 46 participants). The evidence for both outcomes was of very low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is very uncertain about the efficacy or safety of probiotics, when compared with placebo, for induction of remission in Crohn's disease. There is a lack of well-designed RCTs in this area and further research is needed.

Corneal nerve loss in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus without retinopathy or microalbuminuria

Aims/Introduction

Corneal confocal microscopy is a rapid, non‐invasive ophthalmic technique to identify subclinical neuropathy. The aim of this study was to quantify corneal nerve morphology in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus compared with age‐matched healthy controls using corneal confocal microscopy.

Materials and Methods

A total of 20 participants with type 1 diabetes mellitus (age 14 ± 2 years, diabetes duration 4.08 ± 2.91 years, glycated hemoglobin 9.3 ± 2.1%) without retinopathy or microalbuminuria and 20 healthy controls were recruited from outpatient clinics. Corneal confocal microscopy was undertaken, and corneal nerve fiber density (n/mm²), corneal nerve branch density (n/mm²), corneal nerve fiber length (mm/mm²), corneal nerve fiber tortuosity and inferior whorl length (mm/mm²) were quantified manually.

Results

Corneal nerve fiber density (22.73 ± 8.84 vs 32.92 ± 8.59; P < 0.001), corneal nerve branch density (26.19 ± 14.64 vs 47.34 ± 20.01; P < 0.001), corneal nerve fiber length (13.26 ± 4.06 vs 19.52 ± 4.54; P < 0.001) and inferior whorl length (15.50 ± 5.48 vs 23.42 ± 3.94; P < 0.0001) were significantly lower, whereas corneal nerve fiber tortuosity (14.88 ± 5.28 vs 13.52 ± 3.01; P = 0.323) did not differ between children with type 1 diabetes mellitus and controls. Glycated hemoglobin correlated with corneal nerve fiber tortuosity (P < 0.006) and aspartate aminotransferase correlated with corneal nerve fiber density (P = 0.039), corneal nerve branch density (P = 0.003) and corneal nerve fiber length (P = 0.037).

Conclusion

Corneal confocal microscopy identifies significant subclinical corneal nerve loss, especially in the inferior whorl of children with type 1 diabetes mellitus without retinopathy or microalbuminuria.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the efficacy of tranexamic acid in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common medical emergency associated with substantial mortality. Tranexamic acid may be effective for reducing mortality in upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIM

To examine the effects of tranexamic acid in upper gastrointestinal bleeding by systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and other relevant websites for randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of tranexamic acid published from inception to December 10, 2019. The primary outcome of interest was mortality. Estimates of effect were pooled with a random effects model. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

The search identified 1572 citations. Eleven trials comprising 2076 patients were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 10 trials (2013 patients) compared tranexamic acid with placebo. Risk of death was significantly reduced in patients who received tranexamic acid compared with those who received placebo (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.82, P = 0.001) with no significant heterogeneity noted among studies (I²  = 0%, P = 0.81). The GRADE assessment rated the quality of the evidence for mortality as moderate due to risk of bias. There were no statistically significant differences between tranexamic acid and placebo for the prevention of re-bleeding, need for surgical interventions, need for blood transfusions or frequency of thromboembolic events.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence shows that tranexamic acid is superior to placebo for the reduction in mortality in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. While our findings lend further support to the use of tranexamic acid for treating patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, additional higher-quality trials are needed.

Probiotics for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

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.

SEARCH METHODS

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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

Probiotics for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of probiotics compared with placebo or standard medical treatment (5-aminosalicylates, sulphasalazine or corticosteroids) for the induction of remission in people with active ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH METHODS

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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of probiotics compared to standard treatments or placebo in the induction of remission of active ulcerative colitis. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review, we included 14 studies (865 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of the studies looked at adult participants and two studies looked at paediatric participants with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, the average age was between 12.5 and 47.7 years. The studies compared probiotics to placebo, probiotics to 5-ASA and a combination of probiotics plus 5-ASA compared to 5-ASA alone. Seven studies used a single probiotic strain and seven used a mixture of strains. The studies ranged from two weeks to 52 weeks. The risk of bias was high for all except two studies due to allocation concealment, blinding of participants, incomplete reports of outcome data and selective reporting. This led to GRADE ratings of the evidence ranging from moderate to very low. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may induce clinical remission when compared to placebo (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.54; 9 studies, 594 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to imprecision and risk of bias, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5). Probiotics may lead to an improvement in clinical disease scores (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.63; 2 studies, 54 participants; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.59; 7 studies, 520 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal bloating and discomfort. Probiotics did not lead to any serious adverse events in any of the seven studies that reported on it, however five adverse events were reported in the placebo arm of one study (RR 0.09, CI 0.01 to 1.66; 1 study, 526 participants; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to high risk of bias and imprecision). Probiotics may make little or no difference to withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.72; 4 studies, 401 participants; low-certainty evidence). Probiotics versus 5-ASA There may be little or no difference in the induction of remission with probiotics when compared to 5-ASA (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.16; 1 study, 116 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.33; 1 study, 116 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal pain, nausea, headache and mouth ulcers. There were no serious adverse events with probiotics, however perforated sigmoid diverticulum and respiratory failure in a patient with severe emphysema were reported in the 5-ASA arm (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; 1 study, 116 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Probiotics combined with 5-ASA versus 5-ASA alone Low-certainty evidence from a single study shows that when combined with 5-ASA, probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission (based on the Sunderland disease activity index) compared to 5-ASA alone (RR 1.22 CI 1.01 to 1.47; 1 study, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to unclear risk of bias and imprecision). No information about adverse events was reported. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes (progression to surgery, need for additional therapy, quality of life scores, or steroid withdrawal) were reported in any of the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests that probiotics may induce clinical remission in active ulcerative colitis when compared to placebo. There may be little or no difference in clinical remission with probiotics alone compared to 5-ASA. There is limited evidence from a single study which failed to provide a definition of remission, that probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission when used in combination with 5-ASA. There was no evidence to assess whether probiotics are effective in people with severe and more extensive disease, or if specific preparations are superior to others. Further targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies and the use of standardised participant groups and outcome measures in line with the wider field are needed, as well as reporting to minimise risk of bias.

Interventions for maintenance of surgically induced remission in Crohn's disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic disease of the gut. About 75% of people with CD undergo surgery at least once in their lifetime to induce remission. However, as there is no known cure for the disease, patients usually experience a recurrence even after surgery. Different interventions are routinely used in maintaining postsurgical remission. There is currently no consensus on which treatment is the most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and harms of interventions for the maintenance of surgically induced remission in Crohn's disease and rank the treatments in order of effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 15 January 2019. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles, abstracts from major gastroenterology meetings, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. There was no restriction on language, date, or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different interventions used for maintaining surgically induced remission in people with CD who were in postsurgical remission. Participants had to have received maintenance treatment for at least three months. We excluded studies assessing enteral diet, diet manipulation, herbal medicine, and nutritional supplementation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected relevant studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by arbitration of a third review author when necessary. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Bayesian approach through Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation. For the pairwise comparisons carried out in Review Manager 5, we calculated risk ratios (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). For the NMA, we presented hazard ratios (HR) with corresponding 95% credible intervals (95% CrI) and reported ranking probabilities for each intervention. For the NMA, we focused on three main outcomes: clinical relapse, endoscopic relapse, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Data were insufficient to assess time to relapse and histologic relapse. Adverse events and serious adverse events were not sufficiently or objectively reported to permit an NMA. We used CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) methods to evaluate our confidence in the findings within networks, and GRADE for entire networks.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 35 RCTs (3249 participants) in the review. The average age of study participants ranged between 33.6 and 38.8 years. Risk of bias was high in 18 studies, low in four studies, and unclear in 13 studies. Of the 35 included RCTs, 26 studies (2581 participants; 9 interventions) were considered eligible for inclusion in the NMA. The interventions studied included 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), adalimumab, antibiotics, budesonide, infliximab, probiotics, purine analogues, sulfasalazine, and a combination of sulfasalazine and prednisolone. This resulted in 30 direct contrasts, which informed 102 mixed-treatment contrasts.The evidence for the clinical relapse network (21 studies; 2245 participants) and endoscopic relapse (12 studies; 1128 participants) were of low certainty while the evidence for withdrawal due to adverse events (15 studies; 1498 participants) was of very low certainty. This assessment was due to high risk of bias in most of the studies, inconsistency, and imprecision across networks. We mainly judged individual contrasts as of low or very low certainty, except 5-ASA versus placebo, the evidence for which was judged as of moderate certainty.We ranked the treatments based on effectiveness and the certainty of the evidence. For clinical relapse, the five most highly ranked treatments were adalimumab, infliximab, budesonide, 5-ASA, and purine analogues. We found some evidence that adalimumab (HR 0.11, 95% Crl 0.02 to 0.33; low-certainty evidence) and 5-ASA may reduce the probability of clinical relapse compared to placebo (HR 0.69, 95% Crl 0.53 to 0.87; moderate-certainty evidence). However, budesonide may not be effective in preventing clinical relapse (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.27 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence). We are less confident about the effectiveness of infliximab (HR 0.36, 95% CrI 0.02 to 1.74; very low-certainty evidence) and purine analogues (HR 0.75, 95% CrI 0.55 to 1.00; low-certainty evidence). It was unclear whether the other interventions reduced the probability of a clinical relapse, as the certainty of the evidence was very low.Due to high risk of bias and limited data across the network, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of interventions for preventing endoscopic relapse. Whilst there might be some evidence of prevention of endoscopic relapse with adalimumab (HR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01 to 0.32; low-certainty evidence), no other intervention studied appeared to be effective.Due to high risk of bias and limited data across the network, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of interventions for preventing withdrawal due to adverse events. Withdrawal due to adverse events appeared to be least likely with sulfasalazine (HR 1.96, 95% Crl 0.00 to 8.90; very low-certainty evidence) and most likely with antibiotics (HR 53.92, 95% Crl 0.43 to 259.80; very low-certainty evidence). When considering the network as a whole, two adverse events leading to study withdrawal (i.e. pancreatitis and leukopenia) occurred in more than 1% of participants treated with an intervention. Pancreatitis occurred in 2.8% (11/399) of purine analogue participants compared to 0.17% (2/1210) of all other groups studied. Leukopenia occurred in 2.5% (10/399) of purine analogue participants compared to 0.08% (1/1210) of all other groups studied.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to low-certainty evidence in the networks, we are unable to draw conclusions on which treatment is most effective for preventing clinical relapse and endoscopic relapse. Evidence on the safety of the interventions was inconclusive, however cases of pancreatitis and leukopenia from purine analogues were evident in the studies. Larger trials are needed to further understand the effect of the interventions on endoscopic relapse.

Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintenance of surgically-induced remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic relapsing inflammatory condition and maintenance of remission is a major issue as many patients fail to achieve remission with medical management and require surgical interventions. Purine analogues such as azathioprine (AZA) and 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) have been used to maintain surgically-induced remission in CD, but the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of these agents remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of purine analogues (AZA and 6-MP) for maintenance of surgically-induced remission in CD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 26 July 2018 (and from inception to 31 July 2019). In addition, we searched reference lists of all included studies and relevant reviews, conference proceedings and trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of at least three months that enrolled adults and children with surgically-induced remission of CD and compared AZA or 6-MP to no treatment, placebo or any other active intervention were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcome was clinical relapse. Secondary outcomes included endoscopic relapse, radiologic and surgical relapse, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), withdrawal due to AEs and health-related quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten RCTs with a total of 928 participants were included. Study participants were adults recruited from university clinics and gastroenterology hospitals who received interventions post-surgery for a duration between 12 to 36 months. Most study participants were recruited less than three months after surgery in all except one study where participants were recruited between 6 to 24 months post-surgery. One study was rated as low risk of bias, six studies were rated high risk of bias and three were rated unclear risk of bias.There was moderate certainty evidence that purine analogues are more efficient for preventing clinical relapse than placebo. At 12 to 36 months, 51% (109/215) of AZA/6-MP participants relapsed compared to 64% (124/193) of placebo participants (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.92; 408 participants; 3 studies; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence regarding the efficacy of AZA or 6-MP for maintaining postoperative clinical remission compared to 5-ASA compounds was low. At 12 to 24 months , 64% (113/177) of purine analogue participants relapsed compared to 59% (101/170) of 5-ASA participants (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.24; 347 participants; 4 studies; I² = 8%; low certainty evidence). The certainty of evidence that purine analogues are inferior for preventing postsurgical clinical relapse compared to tumour necrosis factor alpha agents (anti-TNF-α) was very low. At 12 to 24 months, 43% (29/67) of AZA participants relapsed compared to 14% (10/72) of anti-TNF-α participants (RR 2.89; 95% CI 1.50 to 5.57; 139 participants; 3 studies; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence).The effect of purine analogues compounds on AEs compared to placebo or any active treatment was uncertain, as the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. After 12 to 24 months, 14% (12/87) of purine analogue participants experienced an AE compared to 10% (8/81) of placebo participants (RR 1.36; 95% CI 0.57 to 3.27; 168 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). The effect of purine analogues on AEs compared to 5-ASA agents was uncertain. After 12 to 24 months, 41% (73/176) of purine analogue participants had an AE compared to 47% (81/171) of 5-ASA participants (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.07; 346 participants; 4 studies; I² = 15%; low certainty evidence). The effect of purine analogues on AEs in comparison to anti TNF-α agents was uncertain. At 12 to 24 months, 57% (32/56) of AZA participants had an AE compared to 51% (31/61) of anti-TNF-α participants (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.53; 117 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Purine analogue participants were more like than 5-ASA participants to have a SAE (RR 3.39, 95% CI 1.26 to 9.13, 311 participants; 3 studies; I² = 9%; very low certainty evidence), or to withdraw due to an AE (RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.81; 425 participants; 5 studies; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Commonly reported AEs across all studies included leucopenia, arthralgia, abdominal pain or severe epigastric intolerance, elevated liver enzymes, nausea and vomiting, pancreatitis, anaemia, nasopharyngitis and flatulence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate certainty evidence suggests that AZA and 6-MP may be superior to placebo for maintenance of surgically-induced remission in participants with CD. There was no clear difference in the number of clinical relapses when purine analogues were compared with 5-ASA agents, however this is based on low certainty evidence. There was very low certainty evidence that AZA and 6-MP are more likely to result in more serious adverse events (SAEs) and withdrawals due to an AE (low certainty) when compared to 5-ASA agents. Very low certainty evidence suggests that purine analogues may be inferior to anti-TNF-α agents, however, no firm conclusions can be drawn. Further research investigating the efficacy and safety of AZA and 6-MP in comparison to other active medications in surgically-induced remission of CD is warranted.

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of surgically-induced remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that can involve any part of the gastrointestinal tract. 5-Aminosalicylates (5-ASAs) are locally acting, anti-inflammatory compounds that reduce inflammation of the colonic mucosa with release profiles that vary among various commercially available formulations. This updated Cochrane review summarizes current evidence on the use of 5-ASA formulations for maintenance of surgically-induced remission in CD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of 5-ASA agents for the maintenance of surgically-induced remission in CD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 16 July 2018. We also searched references, conference abstracts, and trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with CD in remission following surgery and compared 5-ASAs to no treatment, placebo or any other active intervention with duration of at least three months were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was clinical relapse. Secondary outcomes included endoscopic recurrence, radiologic and surgical relapse, adverse events, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs (1867 participants) were included in the review. Participants (15 to 70 years) were recruited from gastroenterology hospitals and medical clinics in Europe and North America and followed up between 3 and 72 months. The risk of bias was assessed as 'low' in one study, 'unclear' in seven and as 'high' in six.At 12 months, 36% (20/55) of participants in the 5-ASA group experienced clinical relapse compared to 51% (28/55) in the no treatment control group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.10; low certainty evidence). Moderate certainty evidence suggests that 5-ASAs are more effective for preventing clinical relapse than placebo. During a follow-up period of 12 to 72 months, 36% (131/361) of 5-ASA participants relapsed compared to 43% (160/369) of placebo participants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). At 12 months, 17% (17/101) of the 4 g/day mesalamine group relapsed compared to 26% (27/105) of the 2.4 g/day group (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.13; moderate certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in clinical relapse rates when 5-ASA compounds were compared to purine antimetabolites. At 24 months, 61% (103/170) of mesalamine participants relapsed compared to 67% (119/177) of azathioprine participants (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; I² = 28%; low certainty evidence). During 24 months, 50% (9/18) of 5-ASA participants had clinical relapse compared to 13% (2/16) of adalimumab participants (RR 4.0, 95% CI 1.01 to 15.84; low certainty evidence). The effects of sulphasalazine compared to placebo on clinical relapse rate is uncertain. After 18 to 36 months, 66% (95/143) of participants treated with sulphasalazine relapsed compared to 71% (110/155) in the placebo group (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38; I² = 38%; low certainty evidence).The effect of 5-ASA drugs on safety was uncertain. During 24 months follow-up, 4% (2/55) of 5-ASA participants experienced adverse events compared to none (0/55) in the no treatment control group (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 101.81; very low certainty evidence). An equal proportion of 5-ASA participants (10%; 23/241) and placebo (9%; 20/225) groups experienced an adverse event during a follow-up of 3 to 72 months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.91; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Adverse event rates were similar in the 5-ASA and purine analogues groups. However, serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in participants who received purine analogues than 5-ASA. At 52 weeks to 24 months, 52% (107/207) of 5-ASA participants had an adverse event compared to 47% (102/218) of purine analogue participants (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.27, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Four per cent (6/152) of 5-ASA participants had a serious adverse event compared to 17% (27/159) of purine analogue participants (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80; very low certainty evidence). Eight per cent (17/207) of 5-ASA participants withdrew due to an adverse event compared to 19% (42/218) of purine analogue participants (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.83; low certainty evidence). Adverse event rates were similar in high and low dose mesalamine participants. After 12 months, 2% (2/101) of 4 g/day mesalamine participants had an adverse event compared to 2% (2/105) of 2.4 g/day participants (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.24; low certainty evidence). The proportion of participants who experienced adverse events over a 24 month follow-up in the mesalamine group was 78% (14/18) compared to 69% (11/16) of adalimumab participants (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.71; very low certainty evidence). None (0/32) of the sulphasalazine participants had an adverse event at 18 months follow-up compared to 3% (1/34) of the placebo group (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.38; very low certainty evidence). Commonly reported adverse events in the included studies were diarrhoea, nausea, increased liver function tests, pancreatitis, and abdominal pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

5-ASA preparations are superior to placebo for the maintenance of surgically-induced clinical remission in patients with CD (moderate certainty). The number needed to treat to prevent one relapse was 13 patients. The evidence for endoscopic remission is uncertain. The sulphasalazine class of 5-ASA agents failed to demonstrate superiority against placebo, 5-ASAs failed to demonstrate superiority compared to no treatment (very low and low certainty). The efficacy of two different doses of the same 5-ASA and the efficacy of 5-ASA compared to purine antimetabolites (azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine) in maintaining surgically-induced remission of CD remains unclear. However, purine analogues lead to more serious adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events. There is a low certainty that 5-ASA is inferior for maintaining surgically-induced remission of CD compared to biologics (anti TNF-ɑ). 5-ASA formulations appear to be safe with no difference in the occurrence of adverse events or withdrawal when compared with placebo, no treatment or biologics.

Probiotics to prevent infantile colic

BACKGROUND

Infantile colic is typically defined as full-force crying for at least three hours per day, on at least three days per week, for at least three weeks. Infantile colic affects a large number of infants and their families worldwide. Its symptoms are broad and general, and while not indicative of disease, may represent a serious underlying condition in a small percentage of infants who may need a medical assessment. Probiotics are live microorganisms that alter the microflora of the host and provide beneficial health effects. The most common probiotics used are of Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium and Streptococcus. There is growing evidence to suggest that intestinal flora in colicky infants differ from those in healthy infants, and it is suggested that probiotics can redress this balance and provide a healthier intestinal microbiota landscape. The low cost and easy availability of probiotics makes them a potential prophylactic solution to reduce the incidence and prevalence of infantile colic.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic probiotics in preventing or reducing severity of infantile colic.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2018 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 10 other databases and two trials registers. In addition, we handsearched the abstracts of relevant meetings, searched reference lists, ran citation searches of included studies, and contacted authors and experts in the field, including the manufacturers of probiotics, to identify unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised control trials (RCTs) of newborn infants less than one month of age without the diagnosis of infantile colic at recruitment. We included any probiotic, alone or in combination with a prebiotic (also known as synbiotics), versus no intervention, another intervention(s) or placebo, where the focus of the study was the effect of the intervention on infantile colic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search yielded 3284 records, and of these, we selected 21 reports for full-text review. Six studies with 1886 participants met our inclusion criteria, comparing probiotics with placebo. Two studies examined Lactobacillus reuteri DSM, two examined multi-strain probiotics, one examined Lactobacillus rhamnosus, and one examined Lactobacillus paracasei and Bifidobacterium animalis. Two studies began probiotics during pregnancy and continued administering them to the baby after birth.We considered the risk of bias for randomisation as low for all six trials; for allocation concealment as low in two studies and unclear in four others. All studies were blinded, and at low risk of attrition and reporting bias.A random-effects meta-analysis of three studies (1148 participants) found no difference between the groups in relation to occurrence of new cases of colic: risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence; I² = 72%.A random-effects meta-analysis of all six studies (1851 participants) found no difference between the groups in relation to serious adverse effects (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.21; low-certainty evidence; I² not calculable (only four serious events for one comparison, two in each group: meconium plug obstruction, patent ductus arteriosus and neonatal hepatitis).A random-effects meta-analysis of three studies (707 participants) found a mean difference (MD) of -32.57 minutes per day (95% CI -55.60 to -9.54; low-certainty evidence; I² = 93%) in crying time at study end in favour of probiotics.A subgroup analysis of the most studied agent, Lactobacillus reuteri, showed a reduction of 44.26 minutes in daily crying with a random-effects model (95% CI -66.6 to -21.9; I² = 92%), in favour of probiotics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence that probiotics are more effective than placebo at preventing infantile colic; however, daily crying time appeared to reduce with probiotic use compared to placebo. There were no clear differences in adverse effects.We are limited in our ability to draw conclusions by the certainty of the evidence, which we assessed as being low across all three outcomes, meaning that we are not confident that these results would not change with the addition of further research.

Melatonin for the management of sleep problems in children with neurodevelopmental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Children with neurodevelopmental disorders have a higher prevalence of sleep disturbances. Currently there is variation in the use of melatonin; hence, an up-to-date systematic review is indicated to summarise the current available evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of melatonin as therapy for sleep problems in children with neurodevelopmental disorders.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTIONS

PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception up to January 2018. Two reviewers performed data assessment and extraction. We assessed randomised controlled trials that compared melatonin with placebo or other intervention for the management of sleep disorders in children (<18 years) with neurodevelopmental disorders.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We identified 3262 citations and included 13 studies in this meta-analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Main outcomes included total sleep time, sleep onset latency, frequency of nocturnal awakenings and adverse events.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomised controlled trials (n=682) met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of nine studies (n=541) showed that melatonin significantly improved total sleep time compared with placebo (mean difference (MD)=48.26 min, 95% CI 36.78 to 59.73, I²=31%). In 11 studies (n=581), sleep onset latency improved significantly with melatonin use (MD=-28.97, 95% CI -39.78 to -18.17). No difference was noted in the frequency of nocturnal awakenings (MD=-0.49, 95% CI -1.71 to 0.73). No medication-related serious adverse event was reported.

CONCLUSION

Melatonin appeared safe and effective in improving sleep in the studied children. The overall quality of the evidence is limited due to heterogeneity and inconsistency. Further research is needed.

Interventions for maintenance of surgically‐induced remission in Crohn’s disease: a network meta‐analysis

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the effects and harms of interventions for the maintenance of surgically‐induced remission in Crohn's disease and to rank treatments in order of effectiveness.

Clinical usefulness of the faecal calprotectin test in suspected paediatric inflammatory bowel disease

AIM

The faecal calprotectin (FC) test is increasingly being used in clinical practice to help select children with gastrointestinal symptoms who might have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and benefit from endoscopies. We provide an overview of the advantages and limitations of the FC test.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for meta-analyses that had investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the FC test and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing IBD from non-IBD patients were used to calculate likelihood ratios (LR). These were applied to practical examples to explain how easily clinicians can use the results to modify pre-test probabilities of IBD and generate post-test probabilities for IBD.

RESULTS

The positive LR and negative LR of the FC test were 2.8 and 0.015, respectively. The usefulness of the FC test depended on the pre-test probability of IBD. When the pre-test probability of IBD was low, a positive FC test did not necessarily indicate IBD. However, because of the very small negative LR, a negative FC result virtually ruled out IBD in most cases.

CONCLUSION

The FC test should not be used indiscriminately in children with gastrointestinal symptoms but should be targeted at those who are likely to have IBD.

Enteral nutrition for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Prevention of relapse is a major issue in the management of quiescent Crohn's disease (CD). Current therapies (e.g. methotrexate, biologics, 6-mercaptopurine and azathioprine) may be effective for maintaining remission in CD, but these drugs may cause significant adverse events. Interventions that are effective and safe for maintenance of remission in CD are desirable.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of enteral nutrition for the maintenance of remission in CD and to assess the impact of formula composition on effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 27 July 2018. We also searched references of retrieved studies and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants of any age with quiescent CD were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared enteral nutrition with no intervention, placebo or any other intervention were selected for review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was clinical or endoscopic relapse as defined by the primary studies. Secondary outcomes included anthropometric measures (i.e. height and weight), quality of life (QoL), adverse events, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. We calculated the risk ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference and 95% CI. A random-effects model was used for the statistical analysis. We used the GRADE criteria to assess the overall certainty of the evidence supporting the primary outcome and selected secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs (262 adult participants) met the inclusion criteria. One study (N = 33) compared an elemental diet to a non-elemental (polymeric) diet. One study (N = 51) compared a half elemental diet to a regular free diet. Another study (N = 95) compared an elemental diet to 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) or a no treatment control group. One study (N= 83) compared a polymeric diet to mesalamine. Two studies were rated as high risk of bias due to lack of blinding or incomplete outcome data. The other two studies were judged to have an unclear risk of bias. The studies were not pooled due to differences in control interventions and the way outcomes were assessed.The effect of an elemental diet compared to a polymeric diet on remission rates or withdrawal due to adverse events is uncertain. Fifty-eight per cent (11/19) of participants in the elemental diet group relapsed at 12 months compared to 57% (8/14) of participants in the polymeric diet group (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.84; very low certainty evidence). Thirty-two per cent (6/19) of participants in the elemental diet group were intolerant to the enteral nutritional formula because of taste or smell and were withdrawn from the study in the first 2 weeks compared to zero participants (0/14) in the polymeric diet group (RR 9.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 159.93; low certainty evidence). Anthropometric measures, QoL, adverse events and serious adverse events were not reported as outcomes.The effect of an elemental diet (half of total daily calorie requirements) compared to a normal free diet on relapse rates is uncertain. Thirty-five per cent (9/26) of participants in the elemental diet group relapsed at 12 months compared to 64% (16/25) of participants in the free diet group (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; very low certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported. This study reported no differences in weight change between the two diet groups. Height and QoL were not reported as outcomes.The effect of an elemental diet compared to 6-MP on relapse rates or adverse events is uncertain. Thirty-eight per cent (12/32) of participants in the elemental diet group relapsed at 12 months compared to 23% (7/30) of participants in the 6-MP group (RR 1.61; 95% CI 0.73 to 3.53; very low certainty evidence). Three per cent (1/32) of participants in the elemental diet group had an adverse event compared to 13% (4/30) of participants in the 6-MP group (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.98; low certainty evidence). Adverse events in the elemental diet group included surgery due to worsening CD. Adverse events in the 6-MP group included liver injury (n = 2), hair loss (n = 1) and surgery due to an abscess (n = 1). No serious adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events were reported. Weight, height and QoL were not reported as outcomesThe effect of a polymeric diet compared to mesalamine on relapse rates and weight is uncertain. Forty-two per cent (18/43) of participants in the polymeric diet group relapsed at 6 months compared to 55% (22/40) of participants in the mesalamine group (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.19; low certainty evidence). The mean difference in weight gain over the study period was 1.9 kg higher in the polymeric diet group compared to mesalamine (95% CI -4.62 to 8.42; low certainty evidence). Two participants in the polymeric diet group experienced nausea and four had diarrhoea. It is unclear if any participants in the mesalamine group had an adverse event. Height, QoL, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events were not reported as outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results for the outcomes assessed in this review are uncertain and no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of enteral nutrition in quiescent CD can be drawn. More research is needed to determine the efficacy and safety of using enteral nutrition as maintenance therapy in CD. Currently, there are four ongoing studies (estimated enrolment of 280 participants). This review will be updated when the results of these studies are available.

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of medically-induced remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

The prevention of relapse is a major issue in the management of Crohn's disease. Corticosteroids, the mainstay of treatment of acute exacerbations, are not effective for maintenance of remission and its chronic use is limited by numerous adverse events. Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) agents for maintenance of medically-induced remission in Crohn's disease have produced conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral 5-ASA agents for the maintenance of medically-induced remission in Crohn's disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and the IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 8 June 2016. We also searched reference lists and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared oral 5-ASA agents to either placebo or sulphasalazine in patients with quiescent Crohn's disease. The trials had to have a treatment duration of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and performed the risk of bias assessment. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of relapse as defined by the primary studies. Secondary outcomes included time to relapse, adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events and serious adverse events. We calculated the pooled risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using a fixed-effect model. All data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis and drop-outs were considered to be relapses. Sensitivity analyses included an available case analysis where drop-outs were ignored and using a random-effects model. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies (2146 participants) that compared 5-ASA to placebo were included. We did not identify any studies that compared sulphasalazine to placebo. Seven studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. The other studies were judged to have an unclear risk of bias for various items due to insufficient details to allow for a judgement. There was no statistically significant difference in relapse rates at 12 months. Fifty-three per cent (526/998) of 5-ASA patients (dose 1.6 g to 4 g/day) relapsed at 12 months compared to 54% (544/1016) of placebo patients (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07; 11 studies; 2014 patients; moderate-quality evidence). Sensitivity analyses based on an available case analysis and a random-effects model had no impact on the results. One study found no difference in relapse rates at 24 months. Fifty-four per cent (31/57) of 5-ASA patients (dose 2 g/day) relapsed at 24 months compared to 58% (36/62) of placebo patients (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29, 119 patients; low-quality evidence). One paediatric study found no statistically significant difference in relapse rates at 12 months. Sixty-two per cent (29/47) of paediatric 5-ASA patients (dose 50 mg/kg/day) relapsed at 12 months compared to 64% (35/55) of paediatric placebo patients (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.31; 102 patients; moderate-quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who experienced an adverse event, withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events. Thirty-four per cent (307/900) of 5-ASA patients had at least one adverse event compared to 33% (301/914) of placebo patients (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 10 studies; 1814 patients). Fourteen per cent (127/917) of 5-ASA patients withdrew due to adverse events compared to 13% (119/916) of placebo patients (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.38; 9 studies; 1833 patients). One per cent (3/293) of 5-ASA patients had a serious adverse event compared to 0.7% (2/283) of placebo patients (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.83; 3 studies; 576 patients). Common adverse events reported in the studies included diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain, headache and skin rash.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence in this review to suggest that oral 5-ASA preparations are superior to placebo for the maintenance of medically-induced remission in patients with Crohn's disease. Additional randomised trials may not be justified.

Osmotic and stimulant laxatives for the management of childhood constipation

BACKGROUND

Constipation within childhood is an extremely common problem. Despite the widespread use of osmotic and stimulant laxatives by health professionals to manage constipation in children, there has been a long standing paucity of high quality evidence to support this practice.

OBJECTIVES

We set out to evaluate the efficacy and safety of osmotic and stimulant laxatives used to treat functional childhood constipation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register from inception to 10 March 2016. There were no language restrictions. We also searched the references of all included studies, personal contacts and drug companies to identify studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared osmotic or stimulant laxatives to placebo or another intervention, with participants aged 0 to 18 years old were considered for inclusion. The primary outcome was frequency of defecation. Secondary endpoints included faecal incontinence, disimpaction, need for additional therapies and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Relevant papers were identified and two authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials, extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was frequency of defecation. Secondary endpoints included faecal incontinence, disimpaction, need for additional therapies and adverse events. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI using a fixed-effect model. The Chi(2) and I(2) statistics were used to assess statistical heterogeneity. A random-effects model was used in situations of unexplained heterogeneity. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five RCTs (2310 participants) were included in the review. Fourteen studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Meta-analysis of two studies (101 patients) comparing polyethylene glycol (PEG) with placebo showed a significantly increased number of stools per week with PEG (MD 2.61 stools per week, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.08). Common adverse events in the placebo-controlled studies included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhoea and headache. Participants receiving high dose PEG (0.7 g/kg) had significantly more stools per week than low dose PEG (0.3 g/kg) participants (1 study, 90 participants, MD 1.30, 95% 0.76 to 1.84). Meta-analysis of 6 studies with 465 participants comparing PEG with lactulose showed a significantly greater number of stools per week with PEG (MD 0.70 , 95% CI 0.10 to 1.31), although follow-up was short. Patients who received PEG were significantly less likely to require additional laxative therapies. Eighteen per cent (27/154) of PEG patients required additional therapies compared to 31% (47/150) of lactulose patients (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83). No serious adverse events were reported with either agent. Common adverse events in these studies included diarrhoea, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and pruritis ani. Meta-analysis of 3 studies with 211 participants comparing PEG with milk of magnesia showed that the stools per week were significantly greater with PEG (MD 0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89). However, the magnitude of this difference was quite small and may not be clinically significant. One child was noted to be allergic to PEG, but there were no other serious adverse events reported. One study found a significant difference in stools per week favouring milk of magnesia over lactulose (MD -1.51, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.39, 50 patients), Meta-analysis of 2 studies with 287 patients comparing liquid paraffin (mineral oil) with lactulose revealed a relatively large statistically significant difference in the number of stools per week favouring liquid paraffin (MD 4.94 , 95% CI 4.28 to 5.61). No serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events included abdominal pain, distention and watery stools. No statistically significant differences in the number of stools per week were found between PEG and enemas (1 study, 90 patients, MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.58 to 3.58), dietary fibre mix and lactulose (1 study, 125 patients, P = 0.481), senna and lactulose (1 study, 21 patients, P > 0.05), lactitol and lactulose (1 study, 51 patients, MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.03), hydrolyzed guar gum and lactulose (1 study, 61 patients, MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.80 to 3.80), PEG and flixweed (1 study, 109 patients, MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.33), PEG and dietary fibre (1 study, 83 patients, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.04), and PEG and liquid paraffin (2 studies, 261 patients, MD 0.35, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.95).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The pooled analyses suggest that PEG preparations may be superior to placebo, lactulose and milk of magnesia for childhood constipation. GRADE analyses indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome (number of stools per week) was low or very low due to sparse data, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and high risk of bias in the studies in the pooled analyses. Thus, the results of the pooled analyses should be interpreted with caution because of quality and methodological concerns, as well as clinical heterogeneity, and short follow-up. There is also evidence suggesting the efficacy of liquid paraffin (mineral oil). There is no evidence to demonstrate the superiority of lactulose when compared to the other agents studied, although there is a lack of placebo controlled studies. Further research is needed to investigate the long term use of PEG for childhood constipation, as well as the role of liquid paraffin. The optimal dose of PEG also warrants further investigation.

Understanding type I and type II errors, statistical power and sample size

The results of a clinical trial may be subject to random error because of the variability in the measured data, which arises purely by chance. There are two types of random error - type I error and type II error. In this study, type I and type II errors are explained, and the important concepts of statistical power and sample size estimation are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The most important way of minimising random errors is to ensure adequate sample size; that is, a sufficient large number of patients should be recruited for the study.