Background & Aims: Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 (EcN) has been recommended as a therapeutic tool for ulcerative colitis (UC) treatment. However, to date, no meta-analysis has been performed on this topic. Methods. We performed a literature search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Science Direct and EMBASE. We evaluated success rates for induction of remission, relapse rates and side effects, expressed as Intention-To-Treat. Odd ratios (OR), pooled OR and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, based on the Mantel-Haenszel method. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the χ2 and I2 statistics and, if present, a random-effects model was adopted. Results. We selected six eligible trials, with 719 patients, 390 assigned to the study group and 329 to the control group. EcN induced remission in 61.6% of cases, while in the control group (mesalazine) the remission was achieved in 69.5% of cases, with a mean difference of 7.9%. The pooled OR was 0.92 (95% CI 0.15-9.66, p=0.93). A single study showed a better performance of EcN than the placebo. A relapse of the disease occurred in 36.8% in the EcN group and in 36.1% in the control group (mesalazine), with a mean difference of 0.8%, OR=1.07, with a 95% CI of 0.70-1.64 (p=0.74). Side effects were comparable (OR=1.44, 95% CI 0.80-2.59, p=0.22). Conclusions. EcN is equivalent to mesalazine in preventing disease relapse, thus confirming current guideline recommendations. EcN seems to be as effective as controls in inducing remission and therefore, its use cannot be recommended as in one study the comparison was performed against placebo. Further studies may be helpful for this subject.

Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 in ulcerative colitis treatment: Systematic review and meta-analysis

LOSURDO, GIUSEPPE;IANNONE, ANDREA;CONTALDO, ANTONELLA;PRINCIPI, MARIABEATRICE
2015-01-01

Abstract

Background & Aims: Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 (EcN) has been recommended as a therapeutic tool for ulcerative colitis (UC) treatment. However, to date, no meta-analysis has been performed on this topic. Methods. We performed a literature search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Science Direct and EMBASE. We evaluated success rates for induction of remission, relapse rates and side effects, expressed as Intention-To-Treat. Odd ratios (OR), pooled OR and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, based on the Mantel-Haenszel method. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the χ2 and I2 statistics and, if present, a random-effects model was adopted. Results. We selected six eligible trials, with 719 patients, 390 assigned to the study group and 329 to the control group. EcN induced remission in 61.6% of cases, while in the control group (mesalazine) the remission was achieved in 69.5% of cases, with a mean difference of 7.9%. The pooled OR was 0.92 (95% CI 0.15-9.66, p=0.93). A single study showed a better performance of EcN than the placebo. A relapse of the disease occurred in 36.8% in the EcN group and in 36.1% in the control group (mesalazine), with a mean difference of 0.8%, OR=1.07, with a 95% CI of 0.70-1.64 (p=0.74). Side effects were comparable (OR=1.44, 95% CI 0.80-2.59, p=0.22). Conclusions. EcN is equivalent to mesalazine in preventing disease relapse, thus confirming current guideline recommendations. EcN seems to be as effective as controls in inducing remission and therefore, its use cannot be recommended as in one study the comparison was performed against placebo. Further studies may be helpful for this subject.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11586/171798
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 71
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 65
social impact