Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31269287›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2019

Comparative assessment of budesonide-MMX and mesalamine in active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Stefanos Bonovas, Georgios K Nikolopoulos, Daniele Piovani, Marien González-Lorenzo, Katerina Pantavou, Theodore Lytras, Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, Silvio Danese

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Saudi Arabia consensus guidance for the diagnosis and management of adults with inflammatory bowel disease.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Stefanos BonovasDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6102-6579
Georgios K NikolopoulosMedical School, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Daniele PiovaniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Marien González-LorenzoDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Katerina PantavouMedical School, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Theodore LytrasHellenic Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Athens, Greece.
Laurent Peyrin-BirouletDepartment of Hepato-Gastroenterology and Inserm U954, University Hospital of Nancy, University of Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Silvio DaneseDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe comparative efficacy, safety and tolerability of budesonide-MMX and oral mesalamine in active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC) are unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis to fill this evidence gap.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries, regulatory agencies' websites and international conference proceedings, up to July 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adult patients with active, mild-to-moderate UC, comparing budesonide-MMX or mesalamine against placebo, or against each other, or different dosing strategies, for induction of remission. Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and outcomes, and assessed each trial's risk-of-bias.

resultsWe identified and synthesized evidence from 15 eligible trials including 4083 participants. Budesonide-MMX 9 mg/day and mesalamine >2.4 g/day had similar efficacy for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission (OR = 0.97; 0.59-1.60), both showing superiority over placebo (OR = 2.68; 1.75-4.10, and OR = 2.75; 1.94-3.90, respectively). Furthermore, mesalamine >2.4 g/day was more efficacious than mesalamine 1.6-2.4 g/day (odds ratio = 1.27; 1.03-1.56). Secondary analyses showed that mesalamine >2.4 g/day ranks at the top among comparator treatments regarding safety (serious adverse events; surface under the cumulative ranking area [SUCRA] 79.2%) and tolerability (treatment discontinuations or withdrawals from the study due to adverse events; SUCRA 96.7%). There was no evidence of inconsistency, while heterogeneity between studies and risk of publication bias were low.

conclusionBudesonide-MMX and mesalamine >2.4 g/day had similar efficacy for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission in active, mild-to-moderate UC; however, mesalamine >2.4 g/day showed better tolerability. Further high-quality research is warranted.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalBudesonideColitis, UlcerativeDelayed-Action PreparationsGlucocorticoidsHumansMesalamineRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalBudesonideDelayed-Action PreparationsGlucocorticoidsMesalaminebudesonide-MMX, mesalamine, ulcerative colitis

Identifiers

PMID31269287
PMCPMC6783624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.