4.4 Article

Use of antibiotics in patients with Crohn's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF DIGESTIVE DISEASES
Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages 58-66

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/1751-2980.12216

Keywords

anti-bacterial agents; ciprofloxacin; Crohn disease; inflammatory bowel diseases; meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectivesSome studies have suggested that antibiotic treatment might be efficient for patients with active Crohn's disease (CD). However, the results are conflicting. The aim of this study was to summarize the available evidence on the efficacy of antibiotics, especially ciprofloxacin, in treating patients with CD. MethodsA literature search was conducted on the PubMed, Medline, Web of Science and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) for manuscripts published until March 2014. Randomized controlled trials that mainly evaluated the efficacy of antibiotic treatment in patients with CD using clinical remission or response as the key outcome of interest were included. Intention-to-treat analyses were used to evaluate the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). ResultsIn all, 15 randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials involving 1407 participants were included in the meta-analysis. A pooled analysis revealed that compared with placebo, antibiotics benefited CD patients to a certain extent (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.17-1.51, P < 0.00001). The random-effects model showed that there was no significant difference between patients treated with ciprofloxacin and placebo (combined RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.92-1.97, P=0.12). However, ciprofloxacin exhibited significant clinical benefits in patients with perianal fistulas (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.16-2.32, P=0.005). ConclusionsThe utility of antibiotics was beneficial for patients with CD. Nevertheless, subgroup analyses indicated that treatment with ciprofloxacin alone was significantly efficient for CD patients with perianal fistulas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available