Comparative Ef fi cacy of Pharmacologic Interventions in Preventing Relapse of Crohn ’ s Disease After Surgery
Siddharth Singh,S. Garg,D. Pardi,Zhen Wang,M. Murad,E. Loftus
2014-01-01
Abstract:Abbreviations used in this paper: CD, Crohn’s disease; CDAI, Crohn’s Disease Activity Index; CI, confidence interval; CrI, credible interval; ITT, intention-to-treat; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RR, relative risk; TNF, tumor necrosis factor. 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are several drugs that might decrease the risk of relapse of Crohn’s disease (CD) after surgery, but it is unclear whether one is superior to others. We estimated the comparative efficacy of different pharmacologic interventions for postoperative prophylaxis of CD, through a network metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature through March 2014. We identified randomized controlled trials that compared the abilities of mesalamine, antibiotics, budesonide, immunomodulators, anti–tumor necrosis factor a (anti-TNF) (started within 3 months of surgery), and/or placebo or no intervention to prevent clinical and/or endoscopic relapse of CD in adults after surgical resection. We used a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence and estimate the relative effects of treatment. RESULTS: We identified 21 trials comprising 2006 participants comparing 7 treatment strategies. In a network meta-analysis, compared with placebo, mesalamine (relative risk [RR], 0.60; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.37–0.88), antibiotics (RR, 0.26; 95% CrI, 0.08–0.61), immunomodulator monotherapy (RR, 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.17–0.63), immunomodulators with antibiotics (RR, 0.11; 95% CrI, 0.02–0.51), and antiTNF monotherapy (RR, 0.04; 95% CrI, 0.00–0.14), but not budesonide (RR, 0.93; 95% CrI, 0.40–1.84), reduced the risk of clinical relapse. Likewise, compared with placebo, antibiotics (RR, 0.41; 95% CrI, 0.15–0.92), immunomodulator monotherapy (RR, 0.33; 95% CrI, 0.13–0.68), immunomodulators with antibiotics (RR, 0.16; 95% CrI, 0.04–0.48), and anti-TNF monotherapy (RR, 0.01; 95% CrI, 0.00–0.05), but neither mesalamine (RR, 0.67; 95% CrI, 0.39–1.08) nor budesonide (RR, 0.86; 95% CrI, 0.61–1.22), reduced the risk of endoscopic relapse. Anti-TNF monotherapy was the most effective pharmacologic intervention for postoperative prophylaxis, with large effect sizes relative to all other strategies (clinical relapse: RR, 0.02–0.20; endoscopic relapse: RR, 0.005–0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Based on a Bayesian network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect treatment comparisons, anti-TNF monotherapy appears to be the most effective strategy for postoperative prophylaxis for CD.