↓ Skip to main content

Aminosalicylates for induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 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
Aminosalicylates for induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008870.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wee-Chian Lim, Yongjun Wang, John K MacDonald, Stephen Hanauer

Abstract

Randomized trials investigating the efficacy of aminosalicylates for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease have yielded conflicting results. A systematic review was conducted to critically examine current available data on the efficacy of sulfasalazine and mesalamine for inducing remission or clinical response in these patients. To evaluate the efficacy of aminosalicylates compared to placebo, corticosteroids, and other aminosalicylates (alone or in combination with corticosteroids) for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Library from inception to June 2015 to identify relevant studies. There were no language restrictions. We also searched reference lists from potentially relevant papers and review articles, as well as proceedings from annual meetings (1991-2015) of the American Gastroenterological Association and American College of Gastroenterology. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of sulfasalazine or mesalamine in the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease compared to placebo, corticosteroids, and other aminosalicylates (alone or in combination with corticosteroids) were included. Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality was independently performed by the investigators and any disagreement was resolved by discussion and consensus. We assessed methodological quality 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 measure was a well defined clinical endpoint of induction of remission or response to treatment. Secondary outcomes included mean Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) scores, adverse events, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated the pooled risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses based on a fixed-effect model and duration of therapy were conducted where appropriate. Twenty studies (2367 patients) were included. Two studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. Eight studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to incomplete outcomes data (high drop-out rates) and potential selective reporting. The other 10 studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. A non-significant trend in favour of sulfasalazine over placebo for inducing remission was observed, with benefit confined mainly to patients with Crohn's colitis. Forty-five per cent (63/141) of sulfasalazine patients entered remission at 17-18 weeks compared to 29% (43/148) of placebo patients (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.89, 2 studies). A GRADE analysis rated the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome as moderate due to sparse data (106 events). There was no difference between sulfasalazine and placebo in adverse event outcomes. Sulfasalazine was significantly less effective than corticosteroids and inferior to combination therapy with corticosteroids (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.86, 1 study, 110 patients). Forty-three per cent (55/128) of sulfasalazine patients entered remission at 17 to 18 weeks compared to 60% (79/132) of corticosteroid patients (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.91; 2 studies, 260 patients). A GRADE analysis rated the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome as moderate due to sparse data (134 events). Sulfasalazine patients experienced significantly fewer adverse events than corticosteroid patients (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.82; 1 study, 159 patients). There was no difference between sulfasalazine and corticosteroids in serious adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events. Olsalazine was less effective than placebo in a single trial (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.71; 91 patients). Low dose mesalamine (1 to 2 g/day) was not superior to placebo for induction of remission. Twenty-three per cent (43/185) of low dose mesalamine patients entered remission at week 6 compared to 15% (18/117) of placebo patients (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.40; n = 302). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to risk of bias (incomplete outcome data) and sparse data (61 events). There was no difference between low dose mesalamine and placebo in the proportion of patients who had adverse events (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.96; 3 studies, 342 patients) or withdrew due to adverse events (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.95; 3 studies, 342 patients). High dose controlled-release mesalamine (4 g/day) was not superior to placebo, inducing a clinically non significant reduction in CDAI (MD -19.8 points, 95% CI -46.2 to 6.7; 3 studies, 615 patients), and was also inferior to budesonide (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.78; 1 study, 182 patients, GRADE = low). While high dose delayed-release mesalamine (3 to 4.5 g/day) was not superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.75 to 5.45; 1 study, 38 patients, GRADE = very low), no significant difference in efficacy was found when compared to conventional corticosteroids (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36; 3 studies, 178 patients, GRADE = moderate) or budesonide (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05; 1 study, 307 patients, GRADE = moderate). However, these trials were limited by risk of bias (incomplete outcome data) and sparse data (small numbers of events). There was a lack of good quality clinical trials comparing sulfasalazine with other mesalamine formulations. Adverse events that were commonly reported included headache, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhea. Sulfasalazine is only modestly effective with a trend towards benefit over placebo and is inferior to corticosteroids for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease. Olsalazine and low dose mesalamine (1 to 2 g/day) are not superior to placebo. High dose mesalamine (3.2 to 4 g/day) is not more effective than placebo for inducing response or remission. However, trials assessing the efficacy of high dose mesalamine (4 to 4.5 g/day) compared to budesonide yielded conflicting results and firm conclusions cannot be made. Future large randomized controlled trials are needed to provide definitive evidence on the efficacy of aminosalicylates in active Crohn's disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Chile 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 128 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Unspecified 16 12%
Student > Postgraduate 15 11%
Other 47 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 46%
Unspecified 26 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 24 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,325,667
of 13,488,484 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,832
of 10,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,896
of 263,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#61
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,488,484 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,619 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 263,723 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.