4.7 Review

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the management of chronic refractory pouchitis with an evidence-based treatment algorithm

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 45, 期 5, 页码 581-592

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13905

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is considered the procedure of choice in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) refractory to medical therapy. The incidence of pouchitis is 40% at 5 years. Ten to 15% of patients with pouchitis experience chronic pouchitis. Aim To determine the efficacy of medical therapies for the treatment of chronic refractory pouchitis in patients undergoing IPAA for UC. Methods A systematic computer-assisted search of the on-line bibliographic database MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed between 1966 and February 2016. All original studies reporting remission rates following medical treatment for chronic pouchitis were included. All study designs were considered. Remission was defined according to the individual study. Remission endpoints ranged from 15 days to 10 weeks. Chronic pouchitis was defined by each study. Results Twenty-one papers were considered eligible. Results from all studies combined suggested that overall remission was obtained in 59% of patients (95% CI: 44-73%). Antibiotics significantly induced remission in patients with chronic pouchitis with 74% remission rate (95% CI:56-93%), (P < 0.001). Biologics significantly induced remission in patients with chronic pouchitis with 53% remission rate (95% CI:30-76%), (P < 0.001). Steroids, bismuth, elemental diet and tacrolimus all can induce remission but failed to achieve significance. Faecal microbiota transplantation in a single study was not found to achieve remission. Conclusions Treatment of chronic refractory pouchitis remains difficult and is largely empirical. Larger randomised controlled trials will help aid the management of chronic pouchitis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据