Cochrane · systematic review · CD001176
Treatment and prevention of pouchitis after ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis
Nguyen, N, Zhang, B, Holubar, SD, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
65
current version
GRADE rated
21
No studies
44
Included studies
NR
No studies 44 · 67.7%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 16 · 24.6%Low 5 · 7.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyCiprofloxacin versus metronidazole for treatment of acute pouchitis
Population: Patients with acute pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Ciprofloxacin vs metronidazole | RR 2.68 [1.13, 6.35] | 1 study · 16 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical improvement Ciprofloxacin vs metronidazole | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission Ciprofloxacin vs metronidazole | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes acute pouchitis Ciprofloxacin vs metronidazole | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Ciprofloxacin vs metronidazole | RR 0.18 [0.01, 2.98] | 1 study · 16 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Metronidazole versus budesonide enema for treatment of acute pouchitis
Population: Patients with acute pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Metronidazole vs budesonide enema | RR 0.86 [0.37, 1.96] | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical improvement Metronidazole vs budesonide enema | RR 0.86 [0.42, 1.74] | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Maintenance of clinical remission Metronidazole vs budesonide enema | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes acute pouchitis Metronidazole vs budesonide enema | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Metronidazole vs budesonide enema | RR 2.29 [0.78, 6.73] | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Rifaximin versus placebo for treatment of acute pouchitis
Population: Patients with acute pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Rifaximin vs placebo | RR 6.11 [0.33, 111.71] | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical improvement Rifaximin vs placebo | RR 1.25 [0.34, 4.6] | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Maintenance of clinical remission Rifaximin vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes acute pouchitis Rifaximin vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Rifaximin vs placebo | RR 1.5 [0.72, 3.14] | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Lactobacillus GG versus placebo for treatment of acute pouchitis
Population: Patients with acute pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Lactobacillus GG vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Lactobacillus GG vs placebo | RR 3 [0.14, 65.9] | 1 study · 20 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Maintenance of clinical remission Lactobacillus GG vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes acute pouchitis Lactobacillus GG vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Lactobacillus GG vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Glutamine versus butyrate for treatment of chronic pouchitis
Population: Patients with chronic pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Glutamine vs butyrate | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Glutamine vs butyrate | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission Glutamine vs butyrate | RR 1.8 [0.63, 5.16] | 1 study · 19 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
No episodes acute pouchitis Glutamine vs butyrate | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Glutamine vs butyrate | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Bismuth enema versus placebo for treatment of chronic pouchitis
Population: Patients with chronic pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Bismuth enema vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Bismuth enema vs placebo | RR 1 [0.5, 1.98] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Maintenance of clinical remission Bismuth enema vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes acute pouchitis Bismuth enema vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Bismuth enema vs placebo | RR 0.71 [0.27, 1.88] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
De Simone Formulation versus placebo for treatment of chronic pouchitis or prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with chronic pouchitis or ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission De Simone Formulation vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement De Simone Formulation vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission De Simone Formulation vs placebo | RR 20.24 [4.28, 95.81] | 2 studies · 76 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
No episodes of acute pouchitis De Simone Formulation vs placebo | RR 1.5 [1.02, 2.21] | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events De Simone Formulation vs placebo | RR 2.43 [0.11, 55.89] | 2 studies · 76 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
De Simone Formulation versus no treatment for prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission De Simone Formulation vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement De Simone Formulation vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission De Simone Formulation vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes of acute pouchitis De Simone Formulation vs no treatment | RR 1.1 [0.89, 1.36] | 1 study · 28 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events De Simone Formulation vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Bifidobacterium longum versus placebo for prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Bifidobacterium longum vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Bifidobacterium longum vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission Bifidobacterium longum vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes of acute pouchitis Bifidobacterium longum vs placebo | RR 1.43 [0.66, 3.11] | 1 study · 12 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Bifidobacterium longum vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Allopurinol versus placebo for prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Allopurinol vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Allopurinol vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission Allopurinol vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes of acute pouchitis Allopurinol vs placebo | RR 1.43 [0.66, 3.11] | 1 study · 184 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Allopurinol vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tinidazole versus placebo for prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Tinidazole vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Tinidazole vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission Tinidazole vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes of acute pouchitis Tinidazole vs placebo | RR 1.38 [0.83, 2.31] | 1 study · 38 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Tinidazole vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adalimumab versus placebo for treatment of chronic pouchitis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Adalimumab vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Adalimumab vs placebo | RR 1.17 [0.36, 3.76] | 1 study · 13 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Maintenance of clinical remission Adalimumab vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No of episodes of acute pouchitis Adalimumab vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Adalimumab vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clostridium probiotic vs. placebo for prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Clostridium probiotic vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Clostridium probiotic vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission Clostridium probiotic vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No of episodes of acute pouchitis Clostridium probiotic vs placebo | RR 0.22 [0.03, 1.6] | 1 study · 17 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Clostridium probiotic vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ciprofloxacin versus metronidazole for treatment of acute pouchitis
Population: Patients with acute pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Ciprofloxacin vs metronidazole | RR 2.68 [1.13, 6.35] | 1 study · 16 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical improvement Ciprofloxacin vs metronidazole | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission Ciprofloxacin vs metronidazole | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes acute pouchitis Ciprofloxacin vs metronidazole | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Ciprofloxacin vs metronidazole | RR 0.18 [0.01, 2.98] | 1 study · 16 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Metronidazole versus budesonide enema for treatment of acute pouchitis
Population: Patients with acute pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Metronidazole vs budesonide enema | RR 0.86 [0.37, 1.96] | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical improvement Metronidazole vs budesonide enema | RR 0.86 [0.42, 1.74] | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Maintenance of clinical remission Metronidazole vs budesonide enema | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes acute pouchitis Metronidazole vs budesonide enema | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Metronidazole vs budesonide enema | RR 2.29 [0.78, 6.73] | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Rifaximin versus placebo for treatment of acute pouchitis
Population: Patients with acute pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Rifaximin vs placebo | RR 6.11 [0.33, 111.71] | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical improvement Rifaximin vs placebo | RR 1.25 [0.34, 4.6] | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Maintenance of clinical remission Rifaximin vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes acute pouchitis Rifaximin vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Rifaximin vs placebo | RR 1.5 [0.72, 3.14] | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Lactobacillus GG versus placebo for treatment of acute pouchitis
Population: Patients with acute pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Lactobacillus GG vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Lactobacillus GG vs placebo | RR 3 [0.14, 65.9] | 1 study · 20 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Maintenance of clinical remission Lactobacillus GG vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes acute pouchitis Lactobacillus GG vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Lactobacillus GG vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Glutamine versus butyrate for treatment of chronic pouchitis
Population: Patients with chronic pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Glutamine vs butyrate | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Glutamine vs butyrate | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission Glutamine vs butyrate | RR 1.8 [0.63, 5.16] | 1 study · 19 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
No episodes acute pouchitis Glutamine vs butyrate | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Glutamine vs butyrate | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Bismuth enema versus placebo for treatment of chronic pouchitis
Population: Patients with chronic pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Bismuth enema vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Bismuth enema vs placebo | RR 1 [0.5, 1.98] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Maintenance of clinical remission Bismuth enema vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes acute pouchitis Bismuth enema vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Bismuth enema vs placebo | RR 0.71 [0.27, 1.88] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
De Simone Formulation versus placebo for treatment of chronic pouchitis or prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with chronic pouchitis or ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission De Simone Formulation vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement De Simone Formulation vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission De Simone Formulation vs placebo | RR 20.24 [4.28, 95.81] | 2 studies · 76 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
No episodes of acute pouchitis De Simone Formulation vs placebo | RR 1.5 [1.02, 2.21] | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events De Simone Formulation vs placebo | RR 2.43 [0.11, 55.89] | 2 studies · 76 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
De Simone Formulation versus no treatment for prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission De Simone Formulation vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement De Simone Formulation vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission De Simone Formulation vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes of acute pouchitis De Simone Formulation vs no treatment | RR 1.1 [0.89, 1.36] | 1 study · 28 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events De Simone Formulation vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Bifidobacterium longum versus placebo for prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Bifidobacterium longum vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Bifidobacterium longum vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission Bifidobacterium longum vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes of acute pouchitis Bifidobacterium longum vs placebo | RR 1.43 [0.66, 3.11] | 1 study · 12 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Bifidobacterium longum vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Allopurinol versus placebo for prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Allopurinol vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Allopurinol vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission Allopurinol vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes of acute pouchitis Allopurinol vs placebo | RR 1.43 [0.66, 3.11] | 1 study · 184 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Allopurinol vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tinidazole versus placebo for prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Tinidazole vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Tinidazole vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission Tinidazole vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No episodes of acute pouchitis Tinidazole vs placebo | RR 1.38 [0.83, 2.31] | 1 study · 38 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Tinidazole vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adalimumab versus placebo for treatment of chronic pouchitis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Adalimumab vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Adalimumab vs placebo | RR 1.17 [0.36, 3.76] | 1 study · 13 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Maintenance of clinical remission Adalimumab vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No of episodes of acute pouchitis Adalimumab vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Adalimumab vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clostridium probiotic vs. placebo for prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Clostridium probiotic vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement Clostridium probiotic vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maintenance of clinical remission Clostridium probiotic vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No of episodes of acute pouchitis Clostridium probiotic vs placebo | RR 0.22 [0.03, 1.6] | 1 study · 17 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Clostridium probiotic vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ciprofloxacin versus metronidazole for treatment of acute pouchitis
Population: Patients with acute pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Ciprofloxacin vs metronidazole | RR 2.68 [1.13, 6.35] | 1 study · 16 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Ciprofloxacin vs metronidazole | RR 0.18 [0.01, 2.98] | 1 study · 16 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Metronidazole versus budesonide enema for treatment of acute pouchitis
Population: Patients with acute pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Metronidazole vs budesonide enema | RR 0.86 [0.37, 1.96] | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical improvement Metronidazole vs budesonide enema | RR 0.86 [0.42, 1.74] | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Metronidazole vs budesonide enema | RR 2.29 [0.78, 6.73] | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Rifaximin versus placebo for treatment of acute pouchitis
Population: Patients with acute pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical remission Rifaximin vs placebo | RR 6.11 [0.33, 111.71] | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical improvement Rifaximin vs placebo | RR 1.25 [0.34, 4.6] | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Rifaximin vs placebo | RR 1.5 [0.72, 3.14] | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Lactobacillus GG versus placebo for treatment of acute pouchitis
Population: Patients with acute pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement Lactobacillus GG vs placebo | RR 3 [0.14, 65.9] | 1 study · 20 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Glutamine versus butyrate for treatment of chronic pouchitis
Population: Patients with chronic pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Maintenance of clinical remission Glutamine vs butyrate | RR 1.8 [0.63, 5.16] | 1 study · 19 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Bismuth enema versus placebo for treatment of chronic pouchitis
Population: Patients with chronic pouchitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement Bismuth enema vs placebo | RR 1 [0.5, 1.98] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Bismuth enema vs placebo | RR 0.71 [0.27, 1.88] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
VLS#3 versus placebo for treatment of chronic pouchitis or prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with chronic pouchitis or ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Maintenance of clinical remission VLS#3 vs placebo | RR 20.24 [4.28, 95.81] | 2 studies · 76 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events VLS#3 vs placebo | RR 2.43 [0.11, 55.89] | 2 studies · 76 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
No episodes of acute pouchitis VLS#3 vs placebo | RR 1.5 [1.02, 2.21] | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
VLS#3 versus no treatment for prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
No episodes of acute pouchitis VLS#3 vs no treatment | RR 1.1 [0.89, 1.36] | 1 study · 28 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Bifidobacterium longum versus placebo for prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
No episodes of acute pouchitis Bifidobacterium longum vs placebo | RR 1.43 [0.66, 3.11] | 1 study · 12 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Allopurinol versus placebo for prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
No episodes of acute pouchitis Allopurinol vs placebo | RR 1.06 [0.76, 1.46] | 1 study · 184 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Tinidazole versus placebo for prevention of pouchitis in patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
Population: Patients with ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
No episodes of acute pouchitis Tinidazole vs placebo | RR 1.38 [0.83, 2.31] | 1 study · 38 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |