• Home
  • Published Projects
  • Registries
Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

One year intermittent rifaximin plus fibre supplementation vs. fibre supplementation alone to prevent diverticulitis recurrence: a proof-of-concept study.



Key Questions Addressed
4 KEY QUESTION 4 KQ 4: What are the effects, comparative effects, and harms of pharmacological interventions (e.g., mesalamine), non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., medical nutrition therapy), and elective surgery to prevent recurrent diverticulitis? • Do the (comparative) effects and harms vary by patient characteristics, course of illness, or other factors?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Post/View

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title One year intermittent rifaximin plus fibre supplementation vs. fibre supplementation alone to prevent diverticulitis recurrence: a proof-of-concept study.
Author Lanas A., Ponce J., Bignamini A., Mearin F.
Country Service of Digestive Diseases, University Hospital Lozano Blesa, IIS Aragón, CIBERehd, University of Zaragoza, Spain. alanas@unizar.es
Year 2013
Numbers Pubmed ID: 23092785

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: Extraction Form for KQs 2 and 4
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Pharm: Rifaximin intermittent rifaximin plus fibre supplementation
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Placebo fibre supplementation
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Specific KQ KQ 4a: Pharmacologic (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 4a: Pharmacologic (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 4a: Pharmacologic (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 4a: Pharmacologic (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study Design RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country ... Specify Other ... Spain
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funder Industry (fully or in part)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study name
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Associated articles
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Start and end years of the Study 2007
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2008
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria adult outpatients ≥18years old of either sex with 1 or more recent (within the last two months prior to enrolment) episodes of acute diverticulitis but in remission at the time of enrolment. The recent acute episodes were to be confirmed by CT scan, ultrasonography or endoscopy as routinely applied at the individual centre, in addition to have suffered at least 2 out of these 3 sign/symptoms: fever, leukocytosis and/or pain or tenderness at physical exploration of the abdomen
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria patients with acute episode at recruitment, with history of intolerance or allergy to rifaximin or study drugs, with cancer or other disease limiting life expectancy, immunodepressed, in poor health conditions, with severe renal, hepatic or cardiac insufficiency, pregnant or lactating women
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific population? No (all comers)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Was diverticulitis diagnosed with CT? ... Unclear/Multiple methods (explain) ... CT scan, ultrasonography or endoscopy
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
If NRCS, what analytic method was used to account for differences between study arms?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How was diverticulitis diagnosed The recent acute episodes were to be confirmed by CT scan, ultrasonography or endoscopy as routinely applied at the individual centre, in addition to have suffered at least 2 out of these 3 sign/symptoms: fever, leukocytosis and/or pain or tenderness at physical exploration of the abdomen.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about Design (or overall study) The trial was switched from evidence-gathering to proof-of-concept because the recruitment rate was largely below the minimum anticipated to ensure appropriate consistency of the monitored population.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Pharm: Rifaximin Placebo Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 66.2 Male 62.5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Continuous data (in years) Mean 53.6 Mean 54.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
SD 12.0 SD 13.2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Categorical data No data entered.
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis Not reported Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific Complications of Diverticulitis No data entered.
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (categorical) Other_1 (include definition in %) patients had to be with 1 or more recent (within the last two months prior to enrolment) episodes of acute diverticulitis but in remission at the time of enrolment. Other_1 (include definition in %) patients had to be with 1 or more recent (within the last two months prior to enrolment) episodes of acute diverticulitis but in remission at the time of enrolment.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
History of (Prior) Complicated Diverticulitis Not reported Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 4: Time Since Last Episode of Diverticulitis Median 51 Median 50
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
IQR 45-60 IQR 41-59
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about baseline characteristics No data entered.
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (continuous) Not reported Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Odds Ratio (OR) 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value
Outcome: Recurrence of diverticulitis      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Pharm: Rifaximin Placebo Comparison Measure Pharm: Rifaximin vs. Pharm: Rifaximin


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 77 88 3.20
Counts 8 17 1.16
Percentage 10.4 19.3 8.82
0.025
Outcome: Hospitalization (or re-hospitalization) for diverticulitis (avoidance)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Pharm: Rifaximin Placebo


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 77 88
Counts 2 6
Percentage 3 7
P-Value
Outcome: Adverse event - any      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Pharm: Rifaximin Placebo Comparison Measure Pharm: Rifaximin vs. Placebo


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 77 88 0.225
Counts 17 13
Percentage 22.1 14.8


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Q14: Cochrane - Random sequence generation (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate generation of a randomized sequence Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q15: Cochrane - Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q16: Cochrane - Blinding of participants (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants during the study High
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q17: Cochrane - Blinding of personnel/ care providers (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by personnel/care providers during the study. High
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q18: Cochrane - FOR OBJECTIVE OUTCOMES - Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias): Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors. Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q20: Cochrane - Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q21: Cochrane - Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q22: Cochrane - Other Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table. If yes, describe them in the Notes. High The number of patients was insufficient to yield probative information. With the number of patients actually recruited, and in view of the hetero- geneity of recruitment rate across centres, several considerations can be hinted but not definitely confirmed; thus the study can only be considered a proof-of-concept.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q1: ROBINS-I 1.1 Is there potential for confounding of the effect of intervention in this study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q3: ROBINS-I 1.4. Did the authors use an appropriate analysis method that controlled for all the important confounding domains?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q4: ROBINS-I 1.5. If Y/PY to 1.4: Were confounding domains that were controlled for measured validly and reliably by the variables available in this study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q5: ROBINS-I 1.6. Did the authors control for any post-intervention variables that could have been affected by the intervention?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q6: ROBINS-I - Risk of bias judgement for BIAS DUE TO CONFOUNDING
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q7: ROBINS-I 2.1. Was selection of participants into the study (or into the analysis) based on participant characteristics observed after the start of intervention?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q8: ROBINS-I 2.2. If Y/PY to 2.1: Were the post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be associated with intervention?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q9: ROBINS-I 2.3 If Y/PY to 2.2: Were the post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be influenced by the outcome or a cause of the outcome?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q10: ROBINS-I 2.4. Do start of follow-up and start of intervention coincide for most participants?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q12: ROBINS-I 2.5. If Y/PY to 2.2 and 2.3, or N/PN to 2.4: Were adjustment techniques used that are likely to correct for the presence of selection biases?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q13: ROBINS-I - Risk of bias judgement for BIAS IN SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS INTO THE STUDY
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q2: Did the study divide the follow up time of each individual participant into the different interventions?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q11: Did the start and follow up calendar years coincide for most participants in the study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q19: Cochrane - FOR SUBJECTIVE OUTCOMES - Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias): Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q23: NHLBI - Were eligibility/selection criteria for the study population prespecified and clearly described? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q24: NHLBI - Was the test/service/intervention clearly described and delivered consistently across the study population? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q25: NHLBI - Were the outcome measures prespecified, clearly defined, valid, reliable, and assessed consistently across all study participants? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.