The Effectiveness of Oral Vancomycin on Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Patients With Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 70% of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) patients have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The IBD therapies currently used to treat PSC-IBD patients have side effects and can be costly. Oral vancomycin (OV)-a safe, economical, and convenient therapy-has been reported to be a salvage therapy in refractory PSC-IBD patients. This systematic review aims to summarize the current literature regarding the effectiveness and safety of OV to treat IBD in PSC patients. METHODS: A systematic literature review of Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL was performed until March 2024. The Murad scale, Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool were used to determine the quality of the case reports and case series, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trial (RCT), respectively. The outcomes sought were response or remission across clinical, biochemical, endoscopic, and histological parameters. RESULTS: Of the 1725 published studies, we identified 9 case reports, 7 case series, 3 cohort studies, and 1 RCT. Most studies reported an improvement in clinical IBD symptoms such as diarrhea and hematochezia. Fewer publications provided supporting objective data in the form of fecal calprotectin, endoscopic Mayo scores, and histology. There were no reports of vancomycin-resistant enterococci infections. CONCLUSIONS: Oral vancomycin appears safe and effective to treat IBD in a subset of PSC patients. Future studies would benefit from prospective data collection incorporating standardized symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic indices. Ultimately, a well-powered RCT is needed to better assess the effectiveness, safety, and durability of OV therapy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".