MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1537571917 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009400.pub2

Helminth therapy (worms) for induction of remission in inflammatory bowel disease

2014· review· en· W1537571917 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Sushil Kumar Garg, Ashley M Croft, Peter Bager

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineImmunology and Microbiology
ThématiqueParasites and Host Interactions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and DiabetesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésMedicineUlcerative colitisInflammatory bowel diseaseInternal medicineClinical trialAsymptomaticDiseaseRandomized controlled trialImmunologyCochrane Library

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic, globally-occurring gastrointestinal disorder and a major cause of illness and disability. It is conventionally classified into Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Helminths are parasitic worms with complex life cycles involving tissue- or lumen-dwelling stages in their hosts, and causing long-lasting or chronic infections that are frequently asymptomatic. Helminths modulate immune responses of their hosts, and many observational and experimental studies support the hypothesis that helminths suppress immune-mediated chronic inflammation that occurs in asthma, allergy and IBD. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of helminth treatment for induction of remission in IBD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to 13 July 2013: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease Group Specialized Trials Register. We also searched four online trials registries, and abstracts from major meetings. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was any helminth species or combination of helminth species, administered in any dose and by any route and for any duration of exposure to people with active CD or UC, confirmed through any combination of clinical, endoscopic and histological criteria were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed eligibility using a standardized data collection form. We used the RevMan software for analyses. The primary outcome was induction of remission as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcomes included clinical, histologic, or endoscopic improvement as defined by the authors, endoscopic mucosal healing, change in disease activity index score, change in quality of life score, hospital admissions, requirement for intravenous corticosteroids, surgery, study withdrawal and the incidence of adverse events. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting each outcome was assessed using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs (90 participants) were included. One trial assessed the efficacy and safety of Trichuris suis (T. suis) ova in patients with UC (n = 54). The other RCT was a phase one that assessed the safety and tolerability of T. suis ova in patients with CD (n = 36). The risk of bias in both studies was judged to be low. In the UC study, during the 12-week study period, participants in the active arm received 2-weekly aliquots of 2500 T. suis eggs, added to 0.8 mL of saline; those in the placebo arm received 0.8 mL saline only. There were sparse data available for the outcomes clinical remission and clinical improvement. Ten per cent (3/30) of patients in the T. suis arm entered remission compared to 4% (1/24) of patients in the placebo arm (RR 2.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 21.63). Forty-three per cent (13/30) of patients in the T. suis group achieved clinical improvement compared to 17% (4/24) of placebo patients (RR 2.60, 95% CI 0.97 to 6.95). The mean ulcerative colitis disease activity index (UCDAI) score was lower in the T. suis group (6.1 +/- 0.61) compared to the placebo group (7.5 +/- 0.66) after 12 weeks of treatment (MD -1.40, 95% CI -1.75 to -1.05). There was only limited evidence relating to the proportion of patients who experienced an adverse event. Three per cent (1/30) of patients in the T. suis group experienced at least one adverse event compared to 12% (3/24) of placebo patients (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.40). None of the adverse events reported in this study were judged to be related to the study treatment. GRADE analyses rated the overall quality of the evidence for the primary and secondary outcomes (i.e. clinical remission and improvement) as low due to serious imprecision. In the CD study, participants received a single treatment of T. suis ova at a dosage of 500 (n = 9), 2500 (n = 9), or 7500 (n = 9) embryonated eggs or matching placebo (n = 9). The CD study did not assess clinical remission or improvement as outcomes. There were sparse data on adverse events at two weeks. Thirty-seven per cent (10/27) of patients in the T. suis group experienced at least one adverse event compared to 44% (4/9) of placebo patients (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.01). Only one adverse event (dysgeusia) was judged to be possibly related to treatment in this study. Dysgeusia was reported in one patient in the T. suis group and in one patient in the placebo group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is insufficient evidence to allow any firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of helminths used to treat patients with IBD. The evidence for our primary efficacy outcomes in this review comes from one small study and is of low quality due to serious imprecision. We do not have enough evidence to determine whether helminths are safe when used in patients with UC and CD. Further RCTs are required to assess the efficacy and safety of helminth therapy in IBD.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,037

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,020
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,004
Bibliométrie0,0040,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,097
Tête enseignante GPT0,403
Écart entre enseignants0,306 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations94
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetParasites and Host InteractionsTravaux en français237 207