Benchimol Eric I, Seow Cynthia H, Otley Anthony R, Steinhart A Hillary
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5G 1X8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21(1):CD002913. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002913.pub2.
Corticosteroids have been shown to be effective for induction, but not maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. However, significant concerns exist regarding their risk for adverse events, particularly when used for long treatment courses. Budesonide is a glucocorticoid with limited systemic bioavailability due to extensive first-pass hepatic metabolism. Budesonide has been shown to be effective for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.
The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane IBD/FBD Group Specialised Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Reference lists of articles, as well as conference proceedings were manually searched. Study authors, study sponsors and pharmaceutical companies were also contacted.
Randomized controlled trials comparing budesonide to a control treatment, or comparing two doses of budesonide, were included. The study population included patients of any age with Crohn's disease in remission. The primary outcome was maintenance of remission at various reported follow-up times during the study, up to 12 months following enrollment. Secondary outcomes included: time to relapse, mean change in CDAI, clinical, histological or endoscopic improvement, improvement in quality of life, adverse events and study withdrawal.
Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed study quality using Jadad's criteria. A random or fixed effects model was chosen based on an assessment of heterogeneity, and studies were weighted using the DerSimonian & Laird or the Mantel-Haenszel method accordingly. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 4.2.10 software.
Eleven studies were included in the review: 8 studies compared budesonide with placebo, one compared budesonide to 5-aminosalicylates, one compared budesonide to traditional systemic corticosteroids, and one compared two doses of budesonide with no control group. Eight studies used a controlled ileal release form of budesonide, while three used a pH-modified release formulation. Budesonide 6 mg daily was no more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission at 3 months (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.58; P = 0.05), 6 months (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.39; P = 0.14), or 12 months (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.35; P = 0.19). Budesonide was not more effective than weaning doses of prednisolone for maintenance of remission at 12 months (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13; P = 0.20), but was better than mesalamine 3 grams per day (RR of remission 2.51; 95% CI 1.03 to 6.12; P = 0.04). Budesonide 3 mg daily was more effective than placebo at 3 months (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.67; P = 0.03). This benefit was not sustained at 6 months (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.50; P = 0.53), or 12 months (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.30; P = 0.70). No differences in efficacy were detected based on the different formulations of budesonide, methods used to induce remission, or budesonide dose. The use of budesonide 6 mg resulted in slight improvements in CDAI scores when assessed at 6 months (WMD -24.3; 95% CI -46.31 to -2.29; P = 0.03) and 12 months (WMD -23.49; 95% CI -46.65 to -0.32; P = 0.05) and mean time to relapse of disease (WMD 59.93 days; 95% CI 19.02 to 100.84; P = 0.004). Adverse events were more frequent in patients treated with 6 mg of budesonide compared with placebo (RR 1.49; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.19; P = 0.05), but not in patients using lower doses of budesonide. These events were relatively minor and did not result in increased rates of study withdrawal. Abnormal adrenocorticoid stimulation tests were seen more frequently in patients receiving both 6 mg daily (RR 2.88; 95% CI 1.72 to 4.82; P < 0.0001) and 3 mg daily (RR 2.73; 95% CI 1.34 to 5.57; P = 0.006) compared with placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide is not more effective than placebo or weaning prednisolone for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Some modest benefits are noted in patients receiving budesonide compared with placebo in terms of lower CDAI scores and longer time to relapse of disease. However, these benefits are offset by higher treatment-related adverse event rates and more frequent adrenocorticoid suppression in patients receiving budesonide. Therefore, budesonide is not recommended for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.
皮质类固醇已被证明对克罗恩病的诱导缓解有效,但对维持缓解无效。然而,人们对其不良事件风险存在重大担忧,尤其是在用于长期治疗疗程时。布地奈德是一种糖皮质激素,由于广泛的首过肝代谢,其全身生物利用度有限。布地奈德已被证明对克罗恩病的诱导缓解有效。
评估口服布地奈德对克罗恩病维持缓解的疗效和安全性。
检索了以下电子数据库:MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库、Cochrane炎症性肠病/功能性肠道疾病小组专业试验注册库以及ClinicalTrials.gov。还手动检索了文章的参考文献列表以及会议论文集。同时联系了研究作者、研究赞助商和制药公司。
纳入比较布地奈德与对照治疗,或比较两种布地奈德剂量的随机对照试验。研究人群包括处于缓解期的任何年龄的克罗恩病患者。主要结局是在研究期间报告的不同随访时间(入组后长达12个月)维持缓解。次要结局包括:复发时间、CDAI的平均变化、临床、组织学或内镜改善、生活质量改善、不良事件和研究退出情况。
两名独立研究者审查研究的入选资格,提取数据并使用Jadad标准评估研究质量。根据异质性评估选择随机或固定效应模型,并相应地使用DerSimonian & Laird法或Mantel-Haenszel法对研究进行加权。使用RevMan 4.2.10软件进行荟萃分析。
该综述纳入了11项研究:8项研究比较了布地奈德与安慰剂,1项比较了布地奈德与5-氨基水杨酸酯,1项比较了布地奈德与传统全身皮质类固醇,1项比较了两种布地奈德剂量且无对照组。8项研究使用了布地奈德的控释回肠剂型,而3项使用了pH值调节释放制剂。每日6毫克布地奈德在3个月(RR 1.25;95% CI 1.00至1.58;P = 0.05)、6个月(RR 1.15;95% CI 0.95至1.39;P = 0.14)或12个月(RR 1.13;95% CI 0.94至1.35;P = 0.19)维持缓解方面并不比安慰剂更有效。在12个月时,布地奈德在维持缓解方面并不比泼尼松龙的减量剂量更有效(RR 0.79;95% CI 0.55至1.13;P = 0.20),但比每日3克美沙拉嗪更有效(缓解RR 2.51;95% CI 1.03至6.12;P = 0.04)。每日3毫克布地奈德在3个月时比安慰剂更有效(RR 1.31;95% CI 1.03至1.67;P = 0.03)。这种益处在6个月(RR 1.10;95% CI 0.81至1.50;P = 0.53)或12个月(RR 1.04;95% CI 0.84至1.30;P = 0.70)时未持续。基于布地奈德的不同剂型、诱导缓解所用方法或布地奈德剂量,未检测到疗效差异。在6个月(WMD -24.3;95% CI -46.31至 -2.29;P = 0.03)和12个月(WMD -23.49;95% CI -46.65至 -0.32;P = 0.05)评估时,使用6毫克布地奈德使CDAI评分略有改善,疾病复发的平均时间也有所延长(WMD 59.93天;95% CI 19.02至100.84;P = 0.004)。与安慰剂相比,接受6毫克布地奈德治疗的患者不良事件更频繁(RR 1.49;95% CI 1.01至2.19;P = 0.05),但使用较低剂量布地奈德的患者并非如此。这些事件相对较轻,并未导致研究退出率增加。与安慰剂相比,每日接受6毫克(RR 2.88;95% CI 1.72至4.82;P < 0.0001)和每日3毫克(RR 2.73;95% CI 1.34至5.57;P = 0.006)布地奈德的患者更频繁出现肾上腺皮质刺激试验异常。
布地奈德在克罗恩病维持缓解方面并不比安慰剂或泼尼松龙减量更有效。与安慰剂相比,接受布地奈德治疗的患者在较低的CDAI评分和较长的疾病复发时间方面有一些适度益处。然而,这些益处被接受布地奈德治疗的患者中较高的治疗相关不良事件发生率和更频繁的肾上腺皮质抑制所抵消。因此,不推荐布地奈德用于克罗恩病的维持缓解。