scholarly journals Fecal Microbiota Transplantation as Therapy for Treatment of Active Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Xiaolei Liu ◽  
Yan Li ◽  
Kaichun Wu ◽  
Yongquan Shi ◽  
Min Chen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Remission ◽  
Fecal Microbiota Transplantation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fecal Microbiota ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Endoscopic Remission

Aim. Increasing evidence supports the role of the gut microbiota in the etiology of ulcerative colitis (UC). Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a highly effective treatment against recurrent Clostridium difficile infection; however, its efficacy in UC is still controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FMT for treatment of active UC. Methods. We searched Cochrane, Medline, Web of Science, and Embase from inception to February 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with active UC, which compared FMT with controls, were eligible. The primary outcome was combined clinical remission with endoscopic remission/response. Secondary outcomes included clinical remission, endoscopic remission, and serious adverse events. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) is reported. Results. Five RCTs with 292 participants were eligible for inclusion. When data were pooled for all patients, FMT was associated with a higher combined clinical remission with endoscopic remission/response; the RR of combined outcome not achieving after FMT vs. control was 0.79 (95% CI 0.70-0.88). FMT delivered via lower gastrointestinal route was superior to upper gastrointestinal route with regard to combined clinical remission with endoscopic remission/response ( RR = 0.79 , 95% CI 0.70-0.89). FMT with pooled donor stool ( RR = 0.69 , 95% CI 0.56-0.85) and higher frequency of administration ( RR = 0.76 , 95% CI 0.62-0.93) may be more effective with regard to clinical remission. There was no statistically significant difference in serious adverse events with FMT compared with controls ( RR = 0.98 , 95% CI 0.93-1.03). Conclusion. FMT shows a promising perspective with comparable safety and favorable clinical efficacy for the treatment of active UC in the short term. However, further larger, more rigorously conducted RCTs of FMT in UC are still needed in order to resolve the controversial questions.

scholarly journals The Clinical and Steroid-Free Remission of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation to Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: A Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wai Ching Lam ◽  
Chen Zhao ◽  
Wen Juan Ma ◽  
Liang Yao
Keyword(s):  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Clinical Remission ◽  
Fecal Microbiota Transplantation ◽  
Fecal Microbiota ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background and Purpose. Since the first case of fecal microbiota transplantation for the treatment of ulcerative colitis was described in the year 1989, there have been an increment of case reports, case series, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In this study, we were going to investigate general clinical remission, clinical response, and steroid-free remission of fecal microbiota transplantation. Methods. We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, focusing prospective studies including randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The outcomes were clinical remission, clinical response, steroid-free remission, and serious adverse events. We used RevMan 5.3 software for meta-analyses. Key Results. A total of 4 RCTs and 2 cohort studies (340 cases from 5 countries) were included. We found that FMT might be more effective than placebo on clinical remission (OR, 3.85 [2.21, 6.7]; P<0.001; I2=0%) and clinical response (OR, 2.75 [1.33, 5.67]; P=0.006; I2=49%), but no statistical difference on steroid-free remission (OR, 2.08 [0.41, 10.5]; P=0.37; I2=69%) and serious adverse events (OR, 2.0 [0.17, 22.97]; P=0.44; I2=0%). Conclusions and Inferences. Fecal microbiota transplantations were associated with significant clinical remission and response in ulcerative colitis patients while there was no significant difference found between FMT and placebo in steroid-free remission. Moreover, a common consensus on the route, volume, timing, preferred donor characteristics, and frequency of fecal administration is necessary to achieve remission.

scholarly journals P547 Safety and efficacy of vedolizumab in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe Ulcerative Colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S516-S517
Author(s):  
M Khorshid Fasge ◽  
M Alboraie ◽  
W Abbas ◽  
Z E Sayed ◽  
M El-Nady
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Clinical Remission ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
P Value ◽  
Severe Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis discussing the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab (VDZ) treatment in patients with active moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods Using relevant keywords, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central databases, until June 2020. We included interventional and observational cohort studies which assessed the safety and effectiveness of VDZ 300 mg intravenous infusion, in patients with active moderate to severe UC. We used the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the quality of included interventional and cohort studies, respectively. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled as proportion, 95% Confidence interval (CI), and p-value under the random-effects model in the open meta-analyst software. Results We found 10 interventional studies and 35 cohort studies, including 4,794 patients eligible for our review. Most of the included citations were single-arm studies. Our meta-analysis showed that VDZ therapy could induce a significant clinical response in UC patients up to 54 weeks (proportion 0.516, 95% CI [0.453, 0.578], p &lt; 0.001). VDZ was associated with clinically significantly clinical remission and steroid-free clinical remission after 54 weeks (p &lt; 0.0001). Durable clinical remission, histological remission, and endoscopic response rates were maintained in UC patients taking VDZ at the 52nd week. There was no significant difference between VDZ and placebo regarding the incidence of drug-related serious adverse events (p = 0.113) and death rates (p = 0.085). Conclusion Our systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the use of VDZ in patients with active moderate to severe UC was associated with high percentages of clinical response and remission rates in induction and maintenance treatment stages. VDZ seems to be well tolerated in UC patients, apart from some infections and inflammations. Future RCTs should compare VDZ to active treatments for longer follow-up periods with larger sample size.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacological cachexia interventions: systematic review and network meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2020-002601
Author(s):  
Manit Saeteaw ◽  
Phitjira Sanguanboonyaphong ◽  
Jukapun Yoodee ◽  
Kaitlyn Craft ◽  
Ratree Sawangjit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Total Body Weight ◽  
Megestrol Acetate ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference

AimsRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits of pharmacological interventions for cachexia in improving weight and appetite. However, comparative efficacy and safety are not available. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for cachexia.MethodsPubMed, EmBase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs until October 2019. Key outcomes were total body weight (TBW) improvement, appetite (APP) score and serious adverse events. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. NMA was performed to estimate weight gain and APP score increase at 8 weeks, presented as mean difference (MD) or standardised MD with 95% CI.Results80 RCTs (10 579 patients) with 12 treatments were included. Majority is patients with cancer (7220). Compared with placebo, corticosteroids, high-dose megestrol acetate combination (Megace_H_Com) (≥400 mg/day), medroxyprogesterone, high-dose megestrol acetate (Megace_H) (≥400 mg/day), ghrelin mimetic and androgen analogues (Androgen) were significantly associated with MD of TBW of 6.45 (95% CI 2.45 to 10.45), 4.29 (95% CI 2.23 to 6.35), 3.18 (95% CI 0.94 to 5.41), 2.66 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.85), 1.73 (95% CI 0.27 to 3.20) and 1.50 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.44) kg. For appetite improvement, Megace_H_Com, Megace_H and Androgen significantly improved standardised APP score, compared with placebo. There is no significant difference in serious adverse events from all interventions compared with placebo.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that several pharmacological interventions have potential to offer benefits in treatment of cachexia especially Megace_H and short-term use corticosteroids. Nonetheless, high-quality comparative studies to compare safety and efficacy are warranted for better management of cachexia.

scholarly journals Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e0157259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanqiang Shi ◽  
Yiwei Dong ◽  
Wenhui Huang ◽  
Decong Zhu ◽  
Hua Mao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Fecal Microbiota Transplantation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fecal Microbiota

scholarly journals The safety, tolerability and mortality reduction efficacy of remdesivir; based on randomized clinical trials, observational and case studies reported safety outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 204209862110425
Author(s):  
Chenchula Santenna ◽  
Kota Vidyasagar ◽  
Krishna Chaitanya Amarneni ◽  
Sai Nikhila Ghanta ◽  
Balakrishnan Sadasivam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antiviral Drug ◽  
Mortality Reduction ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

Introduction: Remdesivir, an experimental antiviral drug has shown to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), both in vitro and in vivo. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to quantify the safety and tolerability of remdesivir, based on safety outcome findings from randomized controlled trials, observational studies and case reports of remdesivir in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: We have performed a systematic search in the PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library using specific keywords such as ‘COVID-19’ OR ‘SARS CoV-2’ AND ‘Remdesivir’. The study endpoints include total adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), grade 3 and grade 4 AEs, mortality and drug tolerability. Statistical analysis was carried out by using Revman 5.4 software. Results: Total 15 studies were included for systematic review, but only 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) ( n = 13,622) were included for meta-analysis. Visual inspection of the forest plots for remdesivir 10-day versus placebo and remdesivir 10-day versus 5-day groups revealed that there is a significant difference in SAEs [10-day remdesivir versus control (odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, 0.40–0.74) p = 0.0001; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.56, 0.38–0.84) p = 0.005; I2 = 13%]. In grade 4 AEs, there is a significant difference in 10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.32, 0.19–0.54) p = 0.0001; I2 = 0%, but not in comparison to 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.95, 0.59–1.54) p = 0.85; I2 = 0%. But there is no significant difference in grade 3 AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 0.81, 0.59–1.11) p = 0.19; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.24, 0.86–1.80) p = 0.25; I2 = 0%], in total AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.07, 0.66–1.75) p = 0.77; I2 = 79%; remdesivir 10 day versus 5 day (OR = 1.08, 0.70–1.68) p = 0.73; I2 = 54%)], in mortality [10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.93, 0.80–1.08) p = 0.32; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.39, 0.73–2.62) p = 0.32; I2 = 0%)] and tolerability [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.05, 0.51–2.18) p = 0.89; I2 = 65%, 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.86, 0.18–4.01) p = 0.85; I2 = 78%]. Discussion & Conclusion: Ten-day remdesivir was a safe antiviral agent but not tolerable over control in the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with a need of administration cautiousness for grade 3 AEs. There was no added benefit of 10- or 5-day remdesivir in reducing mortality over placebo. To avoid SAEs, we suggest for prior monitoring of liver function tests (LFT), renal function tests (RFT), complete blood count (CBC) and serum electrolytes for those with preexisting hepatic and renal impairments and patients receiving concomitant hepatotoxic or nephrotoxic drugs. Furthermore, a number of RCTs of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients are suggested. Plain Language Summary Ten-day remdesivir is a safe antiviral drug with common adverse events in comparison to placebo. The rate of serious adverse events and grade 3 adverse events were significantly lower in 10-day remdesivir in comparison to placebo/5-day remdesivir. There was no significant difference in the rate of tolerability and mortality reduction in 10-day remdesivir over placebo/5-day remdesivir. There were no new safety signals reported in vulnerable populations, paediatric, pregnant and lactating women.

scholarly journals Enough with the madness: a systematic review and meta-analysis of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-220
Author(s):  
André Santos ◽  
◽  
Érica Gonçalves ◽  
Ananda Oliveira ◽  
Douglas Lima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
P Value ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective: Because of preliminary results from in vitro studies, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) have been proposed as possible treatments for COVID-19, but the clinical evidence is discordant. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CQ and HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. An electronic search was conducted in four databases for randomized controlled trials that compared HCQ or CQ with standard-of-care. A complementary search was performed. A quantitative synthesis of clinical outcomes was performed using the inverse variance method adjusting for a random-effects model. Results: In total, 16 studies were included. The meta-analysis found no significant difference between intervention and control groups in terms of mortality at the most extended follow-up (RR = 1.09, CI95% = 0.99-1.19, p-value = 0.08), patients with negative PCR results (RR = 0.99, CI95% = 0.89-1.10, p-value = 0.86), or serious adverse events (RR = 2.21, CI95% = 0.89-5.47, p-value = 0.09). HCQ was associated with an increased risk of adverse events (RR = 2.28, CI95% = 1.36-2.83, p-value < 0.01). The quality of evidence varied from very low to high. Conclusion: There is no evidence that HCQ reduces the risk of death or improves cure rates in patients with COVID-19, but it might be associated with an increased risk of adverse events

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document