4.8 Article

Ciclosporin versus infliximab in patients with severe ulcerative colitis refractory to intravenous steroids: a parallel, open-label randomised controlled trial

期刊

LANCET
卷 380, 期 9857, 页码 1909-1915

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61084-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Association Francois Aupetit
  2. Societe Nationale Francaise de Gastroenterologie
  3. International Organization for the study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease
  4. Merck Sharp Dohme
  5. Abbott
  6. Ferring
  7. ActoGeniX NV
  8. Affi logic
  9. AlbireoPharma
  10. AstraZeneca
  11. Bayer Schering Pharma
  12. Biogen Idec
  13. Boehringer Ingelheim
  14. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  15. Cellerix SL
  16. Chemocentryx
  17. Centocor
  18. Cosmo Technologies
  19. Danone France
  20. Elan Pharmaceuticals
  21. Genentech
  22. Giuliani SPA
  23. Given Imaging
  24. GlaxoSmithKline
  25. Merck
  26. Millennium Pharmaceuticals
  27. Neovacs SA
  28. Ocerra Therapeutics
  29. Otsuka American Pharmaceuticals
  30. PDL Biopharma
  31. Pfizer
  32. RiboVacs Biotech
  33. Schering Plough Corporation
  34. Shire Pharmaceuticals
  35. Synta Pharmaceutical Corporation
  36. Takeda
  37. Teva Pharmaceuticals
  38. Therakos
  39. UCB Pharma
  40. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
  41. Lesaffre
  42. Danisco
  43. Danone
  44. Roquette
  45. Mapi Naxis
  46. Dysphar

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Ciclosporin and infliximab are potential rescue treatments to avoid colectomy in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis refractory to intravenous corticosteroids. We compared the efficacy and safety of these drugs for this indication. Methods In this parallel, open-label, randomised controlled trial, patients were aged at least 18 years, had an acute severe flare of ulcerative colitis defined by a Lichtiger score greater than 10 points, and had been given an unsuccessful course of high-dose intravenous steroids. None of the patients had previously received ciclosporin or infliximab. Between June 1, 2007, and Aug 31, 2010, patients at 27 European centres were randomly assigned (via computer-derived permutation tables; 1:1) to receive either intravenous ciclosporin (2 mg/kg per day for 1 week, followed by oral drug until day 98) or infliximab (5 mg/kg on days 0, 14, and 42). In both groups, azathioprine was started at day 7 in patients with a clinical response. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to study treatment. The primary efficacy outcome was treatment failure defined by absence of a clinical response at day 7, a relapse between day 7 and day 98, absence of steroid-free remission at day 98, a severe adverse event leading to treatment interruption, colectomy, or death. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2006-005299-42) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00542152). Findings 115 patients were randomly assigned; 58 patients were allocated to receive ciclosporin and 57 to receive infliximab. Treatment failure occurred in 35 (60%) patients given ciclosporin and 31 (54%) given infliximab (absolute risk difference 6%; 95% CI -7 to 19; p=0.52). Nine (16%) patients in the ciclosporin group and 14 (25%) in the infliximab group had severe adverse events. Interpretation Ciclosporin was not more effective than infliximab in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis refractory to intravenous steroids. In clinical practice, treatment choice should be guided by physician and centre experience.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据