Are There Any Differences in the Efficacy and Safety of Different Formulations of Oral 5-ASA Used for Induction and Maintenance of Remission in Ulcerative Colitis? Evidence from Cochrane Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We systematically reviewed and compared the efficacy and safety of oral mesalamine formulations (sustained release, delayed release, and prodrugs) used for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. The main objective of this review was to determine if there are any differences in efficacy or safety among the oral 5-ASA drugs. METHODS: A literature search in February 2013 identified all applicable randomized trials. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria were used to assess the overall quality of the evidence. Studies were subgrouped by common mesalamine comparators for meta-analysis. Studies were pooled for analysis if they compared equimolar doses of oral 5-ASA. RESULTS: Seventeen studies that evaluated 2925 patients were identified. The risk of bias was low for most factors, although 1 study was single blind and 3 were open label. No difference was observed between oral 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulations in the proportion of patients with clinical remission (relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.02), clinical improvement (relative risk, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.01), or relapse at 12 months (relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.28). Subgroup analyses showed no important differences in efficacy. No significant difference was demonstrated in rates of adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: There does not seem to be any difference in efficacy or safety among the various formulations of oral 5-ASA. Oral mesalamine is an effective and safe treatment of mild-to-moderate or quiescent ulcerative colitis regardless of the chosen formulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".