4.6 Review

Systematic Review with Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies: Anti-tumour Necrosis Factor for Prevention of Postoperative Crohn's Disease Recurrence

期刊

JOURNAL OF CROHNS & COLITIS
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 918-927

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjv112

关键词

Crohn's disease; anti TNF alpha; biologicals; postoperative; recurrence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aim: Although promising, the evidence supporting the use of anti-tumour necrosis factor agents [anti-TNFs] in postoperative Crohn's disease [CD] is still based on limited experience. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of prospective studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-TNFs for prevention of postoperative recurrence [POR] in CD. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane database and conference proceeding abstracts were searched. The primary outcome measure was the number of patients who developed POR as defined by the primary studies. Results: Six prospective studies were included. The rate of endoscopic recurrence [ER] was significantly lower using anti-TNFs [9.2%, 7/76] compared with the non-biologicals group [61.5%, 83/135] (odds ratio [OR] 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.13; p < 0.001]. The rate of severe ER was also lower in the anti-TNFs group [1.6%, 1/64] than that in the non-biologicals group [32.7%, 18/55, OR 0.10; p = 0.04]. A significantly lower proportion of patients in the anti-TNFs group developed clinical recurrence [3.4%, 2/59] compared with the non-biologicals arm [41.1%, 49/119, OR 0.1; p < 0.001]. More anti-TNFs-treated patients [86.5%, 45/52] were maintained in clinical remission compared with the non-biologicals group [58.1%, 43/74, OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.60-10.29; p < 0.01]. The adverse events were similar between the two groups [anti-TNFs 44.9% [22/49] vs control 52.5% [42/80]; p = 0.69]. Conclusions: Anti-TNFs are superior to non-biological agents in preventing endoscopic and clinical recurrence of CD without causing more adverse events.

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

4.6
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