Unfractionated or low-molecular weight heparin for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis

• Published in: Cochrane database of systematic reviews no. 2; p. CD006774
• Main Authors: Chande, N, McDonald, J W, Macdonald, J K
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01.01.2008
• Subjects: Anticoagulants - adverse effects; Anticoagulants - therapeutic use; Colitis, Ulcerative - drug therapy; Heparin - adverse effects; Heparin - therapeutic use; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight - adverse effects; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight - therapeutic use; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction
• ISSN: 1469-493X
• DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006774.pub2

There are a limited number of treatment options for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). An increased risk of thrombosis in UC coupled with an observation that UC patients being treated with anticoagulant therapy for thrombotic events had an improvement in their bowel symptoms led to trials examining the use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in patients with active UC. To review randomized trials examining the efficacy of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for remission induction in patients with ulcerative colitis. The MEDLINE (PUBMED), and EMBASE databases, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane IBD/FBD group specialized trials register, review papers on ulcerative colitis, and references from identified papers were searched in an effort to identify all randomized trials studying UFH or LMWH use in patients with ulcerative colitis. Abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings were searched to identify research published in abstract form only. Each author independently reviewed potentially relevant trials to determine their eligibility for inclusion based on the criteria identified above. The Jadad scale was used to assess study quality. Studies published in abstract form only were included if the authors could be contacted for further information. A data extraction form was developed and used to extract data from included studies. At least 2 authors independently extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data were analyzed using Review Manager (RevMan 4.2.9). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, and treated dichotomously. In cross-over studies, only data from the first arm were included. The primary endpoint was induction of remission, as defined by the studies. Data were combined for analysis if they assessed the same treatments (UFH or LMWH versus placebo or other therapy). If a comparison was only assessed in a single trial, P-values were derived using the chi-square test. If the comparison was assessed in more than one trial, summary test statistics were derived using the Peto odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The presence of heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the chi-square test (a P value of 0.10 was regarded as statistically significant). If statistically significant heterogeneity was identified the odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated using a random effects model. There were 2 randomized, double-blind studies assessing LMWH versus placebo for the treatment of mild-moderate active UC. Various outcomes were assessed in the 2 studies. LMWH showed no benefit over placebo in any outcome, including clinical remission (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.26 to 4.63; P = 0.91), clinical improvement (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66; P = 0.45 and OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.18 to 6.58; P = 0.92 in the two studies, respectively), endoscopic improvement (OR 1.35; 95% CI 0.29 to 6.18; P = 0.70), or histological improvement (OR 2.00; 95% CI 0.45 to 8.96; P = 0.37). LMWH was also not beneficial when added to standard therapy in a randomized open-label trial in which the outcome measures included clinical remission (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.17 to 2.95; P = 0.64), clinical improvement (OR 2.00; 95% CI 0.31 to 12.75; P = 0.46), endoscopic remission (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.17 to 2.95; P = 0.64), or endoscopic improvement (OR 1.40; 95% CI 0.34 to 5.79; P = 0.64). LMWH was well-tolerated and provided no significant benefit for quality of life. One study examining UFH versus corticosteroids in the treatment of severe UC demonstrated inferiority of UFH in clinical improvement as an outcome measure (OR 0.02; 95% CI 0 to 0.40; P = 0.01). Patients assigned to UFH did not improve clinically. More patients assigned to UFH had rectal hemorrhage as an adverse event. There is no evidence to support the use of UFH or LMWH for the treatment of active UC. No further trials examining these drugs for patients with UC are warranted, except perhaps a trial of UFH in patients with mild disease. Any benefit found would need to be weighed against a possible increased risk of rectal bleeding in patients with active UC.