Lim Wee-Chian, Hanauer Stephen
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, Singapore, Singapore, S 308433.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Dec 8(12):CD008870. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008870.
Controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy of aminosalicylates for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease have yielded conflicting results. A systematic review was conducted to critically examine current available data on the efficacy of sulfasalazine and mesalamine for inducing remission or clinical response in patients with mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease.
To evaluate the efficacy of aminosalicylates compared to placebo, corticosteroids, and other aminosalicylates (alone or in combination with corticosteroids) for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease.
Separate MEDLINE (1966-July 2010), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 3, 2010) and EMBASE database searches (1985-July 2010) of all relevant English and non-English language articles were performed, followed by manual searches of the reference list from potentially relevant papers and review articles, as well as proceedings from annual meetings (1991-2010) of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).
Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of sulfasalazine or mesalamine in the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease compared to placebo, corticosteroids, and other aminosalicylates (alone or in combination with corticosteroids) were included.
Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality of each selected study was independently performed by the investigators and any disagreement was resolved by discussion and consensus. The primary outcome measure was a well defined clinical endpoint of induction of remission or response to treatment. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Pooled relative risks (RR) for inducing remission or clinical response and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated (random effects model) where appropriate.
Sulfasalazine was more likely to induce remission (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.87; n = 263) compared to placebo with benefit confined mainly to patients with colitis. Sulfasalazine was less effective than corticosteroids (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 260). Olsalazine was less effective than placebo in a single trial. Low dose mesalamine (1 to 2 g/day) was not superior to placebo (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 0.89-2.40; n = 302) and was less effective than corticosteroids. High dose mesalamine (3 to 4.5 g/day) was not superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR 2.02; 95% CI 0.75 to 5.45) or response (Weighted Mean Difference -19.8 points; 95% CI -46.2 to 6.7; n = 615). In a single randomized controlled trial, 5-ASA was inferior to budesonide (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.78). No statistically significant difference was found between high dose mesalamine and conventional corticosteroids (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36; n = 178). However, relatively few patients were available for analysis. There was a lack of good quality clinical trials comparing sulfasalazine with other mesalamine formulations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Sulfasalazine has modest efficacy compared to placebo and is inferior to corticosteroids for the treatment of mild to moderately active Crohn's disease. Olsalazine and low dose mesalamine (1 to 2 g/day) are not superior to placebo. High dose mesalamine (3 to 4.5 g/day) is not more effective than placebo for inducing response or remission. High dose mesalamine was inferior to budesonide for inducing remission in a single trial. In conclusion, sulfasalazine shows modest efficacy for the treatment of active Crohn's disease. However, the existing data show little benefit for 5-aminosalicylates.
关于氨基水杨酸酯治疗轻度至中度活动性克罗恩病疗效的对照临床试验结果相互矛盾。进行了一项系统评价,以严格审查目前关于柳氮磺胺吡啶和美沙拉嗪诱导轻度至中度活动性克罗恩病患者缓解或临床反应疗效的现有数据。
评估氨基水杨酸酯与安慰剂、皮质类固醇及其他氨基水杨酸酯(单独或与皮质类固醇联合使用)相比,治疗轻度至中度活动性克罗恩病的疗效。
分别对MEDLINE(1966年至2010年7月)、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL;2010年第3期)和EMBASE数据库(1985年至2010年7月)进行检索,纳入所有相关的英文和非英文文章,并对潜在相关论文和综述文章的参考文献列表以及美国胃肠病学会(AGA)和美国胃肠病学院(ACG)年会(1991年至2010年)的会议记录进行手工检索。
纳入评估柳氮磺胺吡啶或美沙拉嗪与安慰剂、皮质类固醇及其他氨基水杨酸酯(单独或与皮质类固醇联合使用)相比治疗轻度至中度活动性克罗恩病疗效的随机对照试验。
研究人员独立进行数据提取和对每项入选研究的方法学质量评估,任何分歧通过讨论和达成共识解决。主要结局指标是明确界定的诱导缓解或治疗反应的临床终点。19项研究符合纳入标准并进行了分析。在适当情况下计算诱导缓解或临床反应的合并相对风险(RR)及其95%置信区间(随机效应模型)。
与安慰剂相比,柳氮磺胺吡啶更有可能诱导缓解(RR 1.38;95% CI 1.02至1.87;n = 263),获益主要限于结肠炎患者。柳氮磺胺吡啶比皮质类固醇效果差(RR 0.66;95% CI 0.53至0.81;n = 260)。在一项单一试验中,奥沙拉嗪比安慰剂效果差。低剂量美沙拉嗪(1至2克/天)不优于安慰剂(RR = 1.46,95% CI 0.8至2.40;n = 302),且比皮质类固醇效果差。高剂量美沙拉嗪(3至4.5克/天)在诱导缓解(RR 2.02;95% CI 0.75至5.45)或反应方面(加权平均差 -19.8分;95% CI -46.2至6.7;n = 615)不优于安慰剂。在一项单一随机对照试验中,5-氨基水杨酸比布地奈德差(RR 0.56;95% CI 0.40至0.78)。高剂量美沙拉嗪与传统皮质类固醇之间未发现统计学显著差异(RR 1.04;95% CI 0.79至1.36;n = 178)。然而,可供分析的患者相对较少。缺乏比较柳氮磺胺吡啶与其他美沙拉嗪制剂的高质量临床试验。
与安慰剂相比,柳氮磺胺吡啶疗效一般,在治疗轻度至中度活动性克罗恩病方面不如皮质类固醇。奥沙拉嗪和低剂量美沙拉嗪(1至2克/天)不优于安慰剂。高剂量美沙拉嗪(3至4.5克/天)在诱导反应或缓解方面不比安慰剂更有效。在一项单一试验中高剂量美沙拉嗪诱导缓解方面比布地奈德差。总之,柳氮磺胺吡啶在治疗活动性克罗恩病方面显示出一般疗效。然而,现有数据表明5-氨基水杨酸酯益处不大。