Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Response rates in induction phases.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Response rates in induction phases.

Remission rates in induction phases.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Remission rates in induction phases.

Response rates in maintenance phases.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Response rates in maintenance phases.

Remission rates in maintenance phases.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Remission rates in maintenance phases.

Cumulative placebo response rates 1987‐2015.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 7

Cumulative placebo response rates 1987‐2015.

Cumulative placebo remission rates 1987‐2015.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 8

Cumulative placebo remission rates 1987‐2015.

Funnel plot test for asymmetry: response
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 9

Funnel plot test for asymmetry: response

Funnel plot test for asymmetry: remission
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 10

Funnel plot test for asymmetry: remission

Table 1. Summary of design features in non‐IBD trials associated with increased or decreased placebo response rates

Traditional design features

Novel design features

Other quality measures

Increase in placebo

response

Follow up > 12 months
Cross‐over design
Increasing number of arms
Comparative effectiveness trials
Higher randomisation ratio of active drug

Use of PROs
Improving medication adherence

Decrease in

placebo

response

Using treatment naive patients

Induction phases to identify drug non‐responders

Adaptive group allocation

Stepped wedge trial

Using biomarkers instead of PROs

Enrolling patients with more severe disease

Controlling for centre effects

Table constructed from information presented in Enck 2013.

PRO: patient reported outcome

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Summary of design features in non‐IBD trials associated with increased or decreased placebo response rates
Table 2. Several factors associated with placebo response and remission rates in trials of UC

Increase in placebo response and remission rate

Longer study duration
More follow up visits

Decrease in placebo response and remission rate

Defining response as UCDAI ≥ 3
More severe disease activity at enrolment
Mucosal healing as an endpoint

Table constructed from information presented in Su 2007

UCDAI: Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Several factors associated with placebo response and remission rates in trials of UC
Table 3. Baseline characteristics of induction and maintenance trials

Trial

Phase

Setting (number of centres)

Comparator

Placebo patients

Mean age

Follow‐up

(weeks)

Mean entry

UCDAI score

Response definition

Remission definition

1

Aoyama 2015

induction (1)

Multicenter, single country (NS)

Budesonide foam

NS

NS

6

NS

NS

RBS = 0, endoscopic sub score < 1 and stool frequency sub score = 0 or decrease > 1

2

Beeken 1997

induction (2)

Multicenter, multinational (4)

Aminosalicylate

13

48

6

7.8

Mean/median score improvement

NS

3

Carbonnel 2016

induction (3)

Multicenter, multinational (26)

Methotrexate

51

NS

24

NS

NS

Mayo Clinic subscore < 2 with no item >1

4

Danese 2014

induction (4)

Multicenter, multinational (30)

Tralokinumab

55

41

24

8.3

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

Mayo score ≤2 points; no individual sub score >1 point

5

Deventer 2006

induction (5)

Multicenter, multinational (30)

Alicaforsen

22

50

6

6.5

Decrease in RBS of 0‐1or more from baseline

NS

6

Deventer 2004

induction (6)

Multicenter (NS)

Alicaforsen

8

4

7.5

Percent reduction in DAI

NS

7

Feagan 2000

induction (7)

Multicenter, single country (NS)

Vedolizumab

8

NS

4

8

Improvement in Baron ≥ 2 points

Mayo 0; Modified Baron 0

8

Feagan 2005

induction (8)

Multicenter, single country (20)

Vedolizumab

63

38.9

6

6.7

Improvement in UCCS ≥ 3 points

UCCS ≤ 1 and a modified Baron ≤ 1

9

Feagan 2013a

induction (9)

Multicenter, multinational (26)

Mesalamine

141

40.4

10

NS

UCDAI decrease by ≥3 points

UCDAI, SFS and RBS scores of 0, and no fecal urgency

10

Feagan 2013b

induction (10)

Multicenter, multinational (211)

Vedolizumab

149

41.2

6

8.6

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

Mayo score ≤ 2 points; no individual sub score > 1 point

maintenance (1)

Multicenter, multinational (211)

Vedolizumab

126

40.3

52

8.4

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

Mayo score ≤ 2 points; no individual sub score > 1 point

11

Hanauer 2000

maintenance (2)

Multicenter

(9)

Mesalamine

34

37.3

96

NS

NS

UCDAI score = 0 was the definition of clinical and endoscopic remission

Relapse defined as symptoms of rectal bleeding or increase in stool frequency for > 1 wk and endoscopic evidence of inflammation

12

Jiang 2015

induction (11)

Single centre

Infliximab

41

34.5

8

NS

Decrease in total MCS > 3 points or > 30% from baseline, with a decrease in RBS > 1 point or an absolute RBS of 0 or 1

Total Mayo score = 2 points with no individual sub score > 1 point

maintenance (3)

Single centre

Infliximab

41

34.5

30

NS

Decrease in total MCS > 3 points or > 30% from baseline, with a decrease in RBS > 1 point or an absolute RBS of 0 or 1

Total Mayo score of < 2 points with no individual sub score > 1 point

13

Kamm 2007

induction (12)

Multicenter. multinational (49)

MMX mesalamine

86

43.2

8

NS

UCDAI decrease by ≥3 points

UCDAI ≤1+ RBS=0 + SFS=0 ; and ≥1 point reduction in sigmoidoscopy score

14

Leiper 2011

induction (13)

Single country (1)

Rituximab

8

50

24

7.6

Decrease in Mayo ≥ 3 points

Decrease in Mayo to ≤ 2

15

Lewis 2008

induction (14)

Multicenter, single country (15)

Rosiglitazone

53

12

NS

Decrease in Mayo ≥2 points

Mayo score ≤ 2

16

Lichtenstein 2007

induction (15)

Multicenter, multinational (52)

MMX mesalamine

93

42.6

8

NS

UCDAI decrease by ≥3 points

UCDAI ≤1+ RBS=0 + SFS=0 ; and ≥1 point reduction in sigmoidoscopy score

17

Lichtenstein 2010

maintenance (4)

Multicenter, multinational (48)

Mesalamine

96

46

24

NS

NS

Relapse free at 6 months

18

Marteau 2005

induction (16)

Multicenter, multinational (43)

Mesalazine enema

56

NS

8

NS

UCDAI decrease by ≥2 points

UCDAI ≤1

19

Mayer 2014

induction (17)

Multicenter, multinational (54)

BMS‐936557

54

41.8

8

7.9

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

Mayo score ≤2 points; no individual sub score >1 point

20

Nikolaus 2003

induction (18)

Multicenter, multinational (6)

rIFN‐β‐1a

7

6

NS

Reduction of ≥3 points in the UCSS symptoms score and PGA

All clinical UCSS sub scores equal to 0, with a proctosigmoidoscopy score of 0 or 1

21

Ogata 2006

induction (19)

Multicenter, single country (17)

Tacrolimus

21

30

2

9.4

Reduction in DAI of more than 4 points with improvement of all categories

Complete resolution of all symptoms (all assessment scores were zero)

22

Ogata 2012

induction (20)

Multicenter, single country (NS)

Tacrolimus

30

NS

2

9.1

Reduction in DAI of more than 4 points with improvement of all categories

Total DAI score 2 with all individual sub scores

of 0 or 1

23

Oren 1996

induction (21)

Multicenter, single country (12)

Methotrexate

37

38.9

36

6.8

NS

MCS (including the endoscopic sub score) of < 3 with no steroid use, and without a score of < 2 without sigmoidoscopy results

maintenance (5)

Multicenter, single country (12)

Methotrexate

37

38.9

36

6.8

NS

Relapse was an increase in the MCS of > 3 (not including sigmoidoscopy) and/or reintroduction of steroids at a dose of > 300 mg/month

25

Probert 2003

induction (22)

Multicenter, multinational (4)

Infliximab

20

NS

6

8.5

Decrease in Baron of ≥ 1

UCCS ≤ 2 AND/OR Baron score = 0

25

Reinisch 2011

induction (23)

Multicenter, multinational (94)

Adalimumab

130

NS

8

8.7

Decrease in Mayo > 3 points and decrease in the RBS >1/absolute RBS of 0 or 1

Mayo score < 2 with no individual sub score > 1

26

Reinisch 2015

induction (24)

Multicenter, multinational (38)

Anrukinzumab

21

36.6

32

6.6

Decrease from baseline of ≥3 points in total Mayo score, with at least a 30% change, accompanied by ≥1 point decrease or absolute score of 0 or 1 in RBS

Defined as proportion of subjects with a total Mayo score ≤ 2, with no individual sub score > 1

27

Rubin 2015

induction (25)

NS

Budesonide MMX®

NS

NS

NS

rectal bleeding and stool frequency sub scores = 0

28

Rutgeerts 2005a

induction (26)

Multicenter, multinational (62)

Infliximab

121

41.4

8

8.4

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

Mayo score ≤2 points; no individual sub score >1 point

maintenance (6)

29

Rutgeerts 2005b

induction (27)

Multicenter, multinational (55)

Infliximab

123

39.3

8

8.5

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

Mayo score ≤2 points; no individual sub score >1 point

maintenance (7)

30

Rutgeerts 2013a

induction (28)

Multicenter, multinational (15)

Etrolizumab

5

30.2

4

9

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

Mayo score ≤2 points; no individual sub score >1 point

31

Rutgeerts 2013b

induction (29)

Multicenter, multinational (15)

Etrolizumab

5

39

5

10

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

Mayo score ≤2 points; no individual sub score >1 point

32

Rutgeerts 2015

induction (30)

33

Sandborn 1994

induction (31)

Single centre

Cyclosporin

20

4

NS

Reduction

of ≥3 points in DAI

UCDAI=0

34

Sandborn 2003

induction (32)

Multicenter, single country (15)

Repifermin

28

NS

6

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points compared with baseline at week 4

A score of zero on the sigmoidoscopy all sub scores = 0 (SFS, PGA, RBS)

35

Sandborn 2012a

induction (33)

Multicenter, multinational (103)

Adalimumab

260

41.3

8

8.9

Decrease in Mayo ≥ 3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

Mayo score ≤2 points; no individual sub score >1 point

maintenance (8)

36

Sandborn 2012b

induction (34)

Multicenter, multinational (108)

Budesonide MMX

128

8

NS

≥3‐point decrease in

UCDAI, and ≥1‐point reduction in the endoscopy sub score

UCDAI ≤1+ RBS=0 + SFS=0; no mucosal on colonoscopy ; and ≥1 point reduction in sigmoidoscopy score

37

Sandborn 2012c

induction (35)

Multicenter, multinational (51)

Tofacitinib

48

42.5

8

8.2

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

MCS = 2 with no individual sub score> 1

38

Sandborn 2012d

induction (36)

Multicenter, multinational (142)

Abatacept

140

40.9

12

8.8

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

MCS = 2 with no individual sub score> 1

maintenance (9)

Multicenter, multinational (142)

Abatacept

66

NS

52

NS

NS

NS

39

Sandborn 2013a (BUCF3001)

induction (37)

Multicenter, multinational (NS)

Budesonide Foam

NS

NS

7.9

NS

Endoscopy score ≤ 1, RBS = 0 and improvement or no change from baseline in stool frequency subscales of MMDAI**

40

Sandborn 2013b (BUCF3002)

induction (38)

Multicenter, multinational (NS)

Budesonide Foam

NS

NS

NS

8

NS

Endoscopy score ≤ 1, RBS = 0 and improvement or no change from baseline in stool frequency subscales of MMDAI

41

Sandborn 2014a

maintenance (10)

Multicenter, multinational (217)

Golimumab

331

39

8

8.3

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

Mayo score ≤2 points; no individual subscore >1 point

42

Sandborn 2014b

induction (39)

Multicenter, multinational (251)

Golimumab

156

40.2

54

8.3

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

Mayo score ≤2 points; no individual subscore >1 point

43

Sandborn 2015

induction (40)

Multicenter,

multinational

(75)

Eldelumab

83

42.7

11

8.6

Mayo score < 2 points
with no individual subscore > 1 point

Reduction
from baseline ≥ 3 points and ≥ 30% in Mayo score, reduction
≥ 1 in RBS, or absolute RBS
≤ 1

44

Sands 2012

induction (41)

Multicenter, multinational

(46)

Basiliximab

51

38

8

NS

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

Mayo score ≤2 points; no individual subscore >1 point

45

Scherl 2009

induction (42)

Multicenter, single country (55)

Balsalazide

83

45.4

8

8

≥3 point improvement in modified Mayo, ≥1 point improvement in RBS

0 for RBS and combined score of ≤2 for SFS and PGA using the Modified Mayo subscales

46

Schreiber 2007

induction (43)

Multicenter, single country (35)

Tetomilast

62

45.5

8

7.5

Reduction

of ≥3 points in DAI

UCDAI ≤1

47

Schroeder 1987

induction (44)

Single center

Mesalamine

38

42.7

6

NS

'substantial' improvement in scores

Complete resolution of symptoms (total score 0)

48

Sninsky 1991

induction (45)

Multicenter, single country (9)

Mesalamine

52

39.2

6

NS

Reduction in the PGA score and in at least one other component score

Complete resolution of all symptoms with all assessment scores 0

49

Steinhart 1996

induction (46)

Multicenter, single country (2)

Butyrate

19

38.6

6

7.8

Reduction

of ≥2 points in UCDAI

UCDAI ≤1

50

Sutherland 1987a

induction (47)

Multicenter, multinational (8)

Aminosalicylate

77

36

6

NS

PGA, % drop in DAI from baseline (total and subscores)

NS§

51

Sutherland 1987b

induction (48)

Multicenter, single country (2)

Aminosalicylate

30

36

6

NS

PGA, mean DAI

NS

52

Sutherland 1990

induction (49)

Multicenter, multinational (7)

Aminosalicylate

44

37.8

6

8.2

PGA, mean DAI

NS

53

Suzuki 2014

maintenance (11)

Multicenter,

single country (65)

Adalimumab

96

41.3

52

8.5

Decrease of > 3 points and > 30 % from
baseline plus a decrease in the RBS > 1 or an absolute score of < 1

Full Mayo
score < 2 with no individual subscore > 1

54

Suzuki 2015

induction (51)

Multicenter, single country (NS)

Infliximab

104

NS

8

NS

NS

NS

maintenance (12)

Multicenter, single country (NS)

Infliximab

104

NS

30

NS

NS

NS

55

Travis 2014

induction (52)

Multicenter, multinational (69)

Budesonide MMX

128

39.9

8

6.2

≥3‐point decrease in

UCDAI, and ≥1‐point reduction in the endoscopy subscore

UCDAI ≤1+ RBS=0 + SFS=0; no mucosal on colonoscopy; and ≥1 point reduction in sigmoidoscopy score

56

Van Assche 2006

induction (53)

Multicenter, multinational (40)

Daclizumab

56

40.7

20

8

Decrease in Mayo ≥ 3 points

Mayo 0 for endoscopy and RBS; Mayo 0/1 for SFS† and PGA‡

57

Vermeire 2011

induction (54)

Multicenter, multinational (17)

PF‐00547,659

20

47.9

4

7.5

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

Mayo score ≤2 points; no individual subscore >1 point

58

Vermeire 2014

induction (55)

Multicenter. Multinational

(40)

Etrolizumab

43

37.5

10

9.1

Decrease in Mayo ≥3 points and ≥30%; plus decrease in RBS of ≥1 point or absolute RBS 0 /1

Mayo score ≤2 points; no individual subscore >1 point

59

Watanabe 2013

induction (56)

Multicenter, single country (45)

Aminosalicylate

64

41.3

4

5.5

NS

Rectal mucosal score of 0 or 1

60

Williams 1987

induction (57)

Multicenter, single country (2)

NS

13

42.7

6

7.4

NS

DAI score of 0

61

Yoshimura 2015

induction (58)

Multicenter, single country (42)

AJM300

51

42.6

8

7.7

Decrease in MCS of at least 3 points and
a decrease of at least 30% from the baseline score, with a
decrease of at least 1 point on the RBS or
an absolute RBS of 0 or 1

MCS of 2 or lower and no subscore higher than 1

NS: not stated

RBS: rectal bleeding score

DAI: Disease Activity Index

UCCS: Ulcerative Colitis Clinical Score

UCDAI: Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index

SFS: stool frequency score

PGA: physician's global assessment

Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. Baseline characteristics of induction and maintenance trials
Table 4. Stratum‐specific placebo rates in induction trials

Response

Remission

Trials

Pooled rate %

(95% CI)

I2

%

12 P value

Trials

Pooled rate %

(95% CI)

I2

%

I2 P value

All trials

50

33 (30‐36)

73

< 0.001

47

12 (9‐15)

75

< 0.001

Trial setting

Multi‐centre, single‐country

14

29 (23‐35)

64

0.003

16

11 (7‐17)

75

< 0.001

Multi‐centre, multi‐national

31

35 (31‐40)

78

< 0.001

27

12 (10‐16)

79

< 0.001

Single‐centre

4

26 (14‐44)

62

0.06

3

6(2‐16)

0

0.74

Design

Stand‐alone induction

38

34 (29‐39)

76

< 0.001

35

11 (9‐14)

68

< 0.001

Induction and maintenance

12

32 (29‐35)

28

0.04

12

13 (8‐20)

87

< 0.001

First author country

North America

26

32 (27‐36)

73

< 0.001

23

11 (9‐15)

72

< 0.001

Europe

18

37 (30‐44)

73

< 0.001

17

12 (8‐18)

74

< 0.001

Other

6

29 (22‐38)

55

< 0.05

7

12 (5‐25)

86

< 0.001

Drug class

Corticosteroid

2

23 (19‐29)

0

1.0

2

5 (2‐11)

48

< 0.17

Amicosalicylate

11

32 (20‐47)

92

< 0.001

9

18 (12‐24)

67

< 0.005

Immunosuppressant

3

19 (7‐43)

68

0.04

5

13 (3‐38)

86

< 0.001

Biological

29

35 (31‐38)

52

< 0.001

28

11 (9‐14)

61

< 0.001

Other

5

34 (25‐44)

29

0.26

3

7 (3‐18)

47

0.14

Route of administration

Topical

7

39 (27‐53)

73

< 0.001

5

18 (9‐31)

59

0.04

Oral

17

28 (22‐34)

77

< 0.001

16

10 (6‐17)

88

< 0.001

Intravenous

17

35 (30‐41)

63

< 0.001

17

13 (10‐17)

57

0.003

Subcutaneous

8

35 (30‐40)

42

0.05

8

8 (7‐10)

4

0.44

Disease severity on entry

Mild‐moderate

21

32 (25‐39)

80

< 0.001

18

12 (8‐17)

77

< 0.001

Moderate‐severe

29

34 (30‐38)

59

< 0.001

29

12 (9‐15)

75

< 0.001

Disease duration on entry

< 5 years

5

47 (37‐57)

53

0.06

9

21 (17‐25)

0.0

0.4

> 5 years

29

33 (28‐38)

81

< 0.001

28

11 (8‐15)

82

< 0.001

Inclusion criteria

Minimum total score > 6

21

34 (30‐39)

67

< 0.001

21

12 (9‐17)

83

< 0.001

Minimum total score < 6

24

34 (29‐40)

69

< 0.001

21

13 (9‐17)

70

< 0.001

Endoscopy subscore for inclusion

> 2

27

34 (30‐37)

59

< 0.001

27

12 (9‐15)

71

< 0.001

< 2

4

46 (31‐61)

79

0.002

4

25 (11‐48)

90

< 0.001

Not stated

17

29 (21‐39)

79

< 0.001

14

8 (5‐13)

49

0.015

Bleeding score for inclusion

Yes

9

37 (29‐45)

77

< 0.001

9

16 (10‐23)

79

< 0.001

No/not stated

41

32 (28‐36)

70

< 0.001

38

11 (8‐14)

73

< 0.001

Duration of follow‐up visits

< 8 weeks

37

33 (29‐34)

81

< 0.001

32

11 (9‐14)

71

< 0.001

> 8 weeks

9

32 (27‐37)

42

< 0.001

11

14 (8‐23)

85

< 0.001

Number of follow up visits

< 3

16

32 (23‐44)

81

< 0.001

13

11 (7‐19)

63

0.001

> 3

24

34 (30‐38)

69

< 0.001

24

12 (9‐16)

84

< 0.001

Publication date

Before (and including) 2007

23

33 (26‐40)

78

< 0.001

19

13 (9‐19)

75

< 0.001

After 2008

27

33 (29‐36)

66

< 0.001

28

11 (8‐14)

4

< 0.001

Time point to measure remission

< 6 weeks

17

31 (23‐41)

86

< 0.001

19

11 (8‐17)

70

< 0.001

> 6 weeks

26

34 (31‐38)

61

< 0.001

26

12 (9‐15)

71

< 0.001

Improvement in endoscopy subscore required for definition

Yes

21

31 (27‐36)

77

< 0.001

22

10 (7‐13)

76

< 0.001

No

29

35 (29‐40)

69

< 0.001

25

14 (10‐19)

71

< 0.001

Improvement in bleeding subscore required for definition

Yes

13

31 (26‐37)

66

< 0.001

12

12 (9‐17)

65

0.001

No

37

34 (30‐39)

75

< 0.001

35

12 (9‐15)

77

< 0.001

Figuras y tablas -
Table 4. Stratum‐specific placebo rates in induction trials
Table 5. Univariable meta‐regression analysis of factors contributing to placebo response and remission rates in induction phases

Response

Remission

Study characteristic

Odds ratio (95% CI)

p value

Odds ratio (95% CI)

p value

Trial setting

Multi‐centre, single‐country

1.0

0.16

1.0

0.59

Multi‐centre, multi‐national

1.39 (0.96‐2.03)

1.11 (0.64‐1.94)

Single‐centre

0.95 (0.45‐1.99)

0.56 (0.14‐2.22)

Design

Stand‐alone induction vs. induction and maintenance

0.86 (0.61‐1.22)

0.40

1.21 (0.70‐2.07)

0.50

First author country

North America

1.0

0.24

1.0

0.80

Europe

1.28 (0.90‐1.81)

1.15 (0.66‐2.01)

Other

0.86 (0.52‐1.42)

1.24 (0.59‐2.61)

Drug class

Corticosteroid

1.0

0.30

1.0

Amicosalicylate

1.59 (0.75‐3.36)

3.95 (1.37‐11.40)

0.02

Immunosuppressant

0.86 (0.30‐2.44)

4.95 (1.47‐16.73)

Biological

1.74 (0.86‐3.50)

2.36 (0.83‐6.40)

Other

1.69 (0.71‐3.98)

1.48 (0.37‐5.88)

Route of administration

Topical

1.0

0.12

1.0

Oral

0.58 (0.35‐0.98)

0.62 (0.25‐1.53)

0.34

Intravenous

0.82 (0.49‐1.39)

0.70 (0.29‐1.70)

Subcutaneous

0.82 (0.45‐1.47)

0.41 (0.15‐1.13)

Disease severity on entry

Mild‐moderate vs. moderate‐severe

1.10 (0.80‐1.51)

0.57

0.94 (0.56‐1.56)

0.80

Disease duration on entry

< 5 years vs > 5 years

0.54 (0.32‐0.92)

0.02

0.57 (0.30‐1.11)

0.10

Inclusion criteria

Minimum total score > 6 vs. minimum total score < 6

1.00 (0.73‐1.35)

0.98

1.00 (0.59‐1.68)

0.99

Endoscopy subscore for inclusion

> 2

1.0

0.02

1.0

0.01

> 1

1.70 (1.02‐2.82)

2.60 (1.25‐5.42)

Not stated

0.78 (0.56‐1.10)

0.68 (0.39‐1.20)

Bleeding score for inclusion

Yes vs. no/not stated

1.70 (1.02‐2.82)

0.02

0.67 (0.38‐1.20)

0.18

Duration of follow‐up visits

< 8 weeks vs. > 8 weeks

0.88 (0.57‐1.37)

0.59

1.41 (0.77‐2.58)

0.26

Number of follow‐up visits

< 3 weeks vs. > 3 weeks

1.05 (0.70‐1.57)

0.83

1.08 (0.55‐2.12)

0.82

Publication date

Before (and including) 2007 vs. after 2007

0.96 (0.70‐1.33)

0.81

0.77 (0.47‐1.29)

0.32

Improvement in endoscopy subscore required for definition

Yes vs. no

1.16 (0.85‐1.59)

0.35

1.54 (0.95‐2.48)

0.08

Improvement in bleeding subscore required for definition

Yes vs. no

1.18 (0.83‐1.67)

0.36

1.0 (0.58‐1.74)

0.99

Timepoint to measure response response/remission

< 6 weeks vs. > 6 weeks

1.08 (0.76‐1.53)

0.68

0.97 (0.60‐1.59)

0.92

Number of follow‐up visits

< 3 visits vs. > 3 visits

1.05 (0.70‐1.57)

0.83

1.08 (0.55‐2.12)

0.82

Duration of follow‐up

< 8 weeks vs. > 8 weeks

0.88 (0.57‐1.37)

0.59

1.41 (0.77‐2.58)

0.26

Screening visits

Yes vs. no

1.12 (0.75‐0.66)

0.6

0.95 (0.53‐1.72)

0.9

Number of trial centres

per 1‐centre increment

1.00 (1.00‐1.03)

0.728

1.00 (0.99‐1.00)

0.304

Publication year

Per 1 = year increment

1.01 (0.99‐1.03)

0.24

0.99 (0.95‐1.03)

0.65

Extensive disease/pancolitis

> 30% vs. < 30%

1.01 (0.69‐1.47)

0.969

1.23 (0.64‐2.36)

0.532

Concurrent steroids

Yes vs. no

0.88 (0.59‐1.32)

0.539

1.13(0.63‐2.05)

0.68

Concurrent immunosuppressive

Yes vs. no

0.76 (0.53‐1.16)

0.727

0.18 (0.66‐2.10)

0.575

Ratio of active drug

Placebo > 1 vs. < 1

1.01 (0.68‐1.50)

0.972

0.91 (0.49‐1.67)

0.757

Primary time point to measure endpoint

per 1‐week increment

1.00 (0.93‐1.07)

0.97

1.06 (1.02‐1.10)

0.01

Figuras y tablas -
Table 5. Univariable meta‐regression analysis of factors contributing to placebo response and remission rates in induction phases