↓ Skip to main content

Oral budesonide for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Oral budesonide for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007698.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary E Sherlock, John K MacDonald, Anne Marie Griffiths, A Hillary Steinhart, Cynthia H Seow

Abstract

Corticosteroids are first-line therapy for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis. Although corticosteroids may improve symptoms, they have significant adverse effects. Steroids which act topically, with less systemic side-effects may be more desirable. Budesonide is a topically acting corticosteroid with extensive first pass hepatic metabolism. There are currently three formulations of budesonide: two standard formulations including a controlled-ileal release capsule and a pH-dependent capsule both designed to release the drug in the distal small intestine and right colon; and the newer Budesonide-MMX® capsule designed to release the drug throughout the entire colon. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for the induction of remission in ulcerative colitis. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialised Register from inception to April 2015. We also searched reference lists of articles, conference proceedings and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomised controlled trials comparing oral budesonide to placebo or another active therapy for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis were considered eligible. There were no exclusions based on patient age or the type, dose, duration or formulation of budesonide therapy. Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. The primary outcome was induction of remission (as defined by the primary studies) at week eight. Secondary outcomes included clinical, endoscopic and histologic improvement, adverse events and early withdrawal. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each dichotomous outcome and the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI for each continuous outcome. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Six studies (1808 participants) were included. Four studies compared budesonide-MMX® with placebo, one small pilot study looked at clinical remission at week four, and was subsequently followed by three large, studies that assessed combined clinical and endoscopic remission at week eight. Although two placebo-controlled studies had mesalamine and Entocort (standard budesonide) treatment arms, these studies were not sufficiently powered to compare Budesonide-MMX® with these active comparators. One small study compared standard budesonide with prednisolone and one study compared standard budesonide to mesalamine. Four studies were rated as low risk of bias and two studies had an unclear risk of bias. A pooled analysis of three studies (900 participants) showed that budesonide-MMX® 9 mg was significantly superior to placebo for inducing remission (combined clinical and endoscopic remission) at 8 weeks. Fifteen per cent (71/462) of budesonide-MMX® 9 mg patients achieved remission compared to 7% (30/438) of placebo patients (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.50 to 3.39). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (101 events). A subgroup analysis by concurrent mesalamine use suggests higher efficacy in the 442 patients who were not considered to be mesalamine-refractory (RR 2.89, 95% CI 1.59 to 5.25). A subgroup analysis by disease location suggests budesonide is most effective in patients with left-sided disease (RR 2.98, 95% CI 1.56 to 5.67; 289 patients). A small pilot study reported no statistically significant difference in endoscopic remission between budesonide and prednisolone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.42; 72 patients). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to unclear risk of bias and very sparse data (10 events). Standard oral budesonide was significantly less likely to induce clinical remission than oral mesalamine after 8 weeks of therapy (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 1 study, 343 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (161 events). Another study found no difference in remission rates between budesonide-MMX® 9 mg and mesalamine (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.71; 247 patients). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (37 events). One study found no difference in remission rates between budesonide-MMX® 9 mg and standard budesonide 9 mg (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.65; 212 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (32 events). Suppression of plasma cortisol was more common in prednisolone-treated patients (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.33). While budesonide does appear to suppress morning cortisol to some extent, mean morning cortisol values remained within the normal range in 2 large studies (n = 899) and there was no difference in glucocorticoid-related side-effects across different treatment groups. Further, study withdrawal due to adverse events was not more common in budesonide compared with placebo treated patients (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.38). Common adverse events included worsening ulcerative colitis, headache, pyrexia, insomnia, back pain, nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, flatulence and nasopharyngitis. Moderate quality evidence to supports the use of oral budesonide-MMX® at a 9 mg daily dose for induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis, particularly in patients with left-sided colitis. Budesonide-MMX® 9 mg daily is effective for induction of remission in the presence or absence of concurrent 5-ASA therapy. Further, budesonide-MMX® appears to be safe, and does not lead to significant impairment of adrenocorticoid function compared to placebo. Moderate quality evidence from a single study suggests that mesalamine may be superior to standard budesonide for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis. Low quality evidence from one study found no difference in remission rates between budesonide MMX® and mesalamine. Very low quality evidence from one small study showed no difference in endoscopic remission rates between standard budesonide and prednisolone. Low quality evidence from one study showed no difference in remission rates between budesonide-MMX® and standard budesonide. Adequately powered studies are needed to allow conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of budesonide versus prednisolone, budesonide-MMX® versus standard budesonide and budesonide versus mesalamine.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 147 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 20%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 11%
Other 14 9%
Researcher 13 9%
Other 35 24%
Unknown 21 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 20 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Psychology 8 5%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 27 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2016.
All research outputs
#1,947,112
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,455
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,714
of 275,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#163
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,612 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.