This is the old version of SRDR. The next, SRDRplus is available! Registration of your SRDRPlus account is free and approval is automatic. Click Here to register an SRDRPlus account.

Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

A randomized controlled study of mesalamine after acute diverticulitis: results of the DIVA trial.



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
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title A randomized controlled study of mesalamine after acute diverticulitis: results of the DIVA trial.
Author Stollman N., Magowan S., Shanahan F., Quigley EM.
Country Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, Oakland, CA, USA. neil@stollman.com
Year 2013
Numbers Pubmed ID: 23426454

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 Placebo
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Pharm: 5-ASA AKA mesalazine, mesalamine
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
3 Pharm: Mesalamine + Probiotic
  • 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
    ) |
RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country USA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
USA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
USA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
USA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funder Industry (fully or in part)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study name DIVA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Associated articles
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00554099
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Start and end years of the Study 2007
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2010
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria 35-85 years, diagnosis of acute diverticulitis (first, second, or third attack) confirmed by CT scan, a global symptom score >=12 at baseline, including an abdominal pain assessment score >2. Female patients had to be postmenopausal, surgically sterile, or have a negative pregnancy test and practice acceptable contraception.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria Complications of diverticulitis (abscess, perforation), IBS, fulfilling ROME criteria before their attack of diverticulitis; active or recent peptic ulcer; history of major abdominal or recent GI surgery; conditions causing malabsorption, chronic abdominal pain, GI motility disorder, or short bowel syndrome; C. Diff., bacterial pathogens, or ova and parasites
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific population? No (all comers)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Was diverticulitis diagnosed with CT? CT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
If NRCS, what analytic method was used to account for differences between study arms?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How was diverticulitis diagnosed CT scan (radiographically judged to be consistent with acute diverticulitis)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about Design (or overall study) Patients initially enrolled with acute diverticulitis, but randomization occurred after resolution, up to 14 days later
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Placebo Pharm: 5-ASA Pharm: Mesalamine + Probiotic Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 53.7 Male 42.5 Male 47.2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
White 95.1 White 97.5 White 91.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Black 4.9 Black 0 Black 5.6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Hispanic/Latino 9.8 Hispanic/Latino 5 Hispanic/Latino 11.1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Asian 0 Asian 0 Asian 2.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other (or specific) race/ethnicity 1 - include race/ethnicity in parentheses Multiracial: 0 Other (or specific) race/ethnicity 1 - include race/ethnicity in parentheses Multiracial: 2.5 Other (or specific) race/ethnicity 1 - include race/ethnicity in parentheses Multiracial: 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Continuous data (in years) Mean 56.1 Mean 57.7 Mean 59.1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
SD 11.1 SD 12.8 SD 10.1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Range 39, 79 Range 35, 83 Range 35, 75
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Categorical data No data entered.
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis No data entered.
Specific Complications of Diverticulitis No data entered.
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (categorical) 0 51.2 0 45 0 52.8 0 49.6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
1 34.1 1 35 1 22.2 1 30.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 14.6 2 20 2 25 2 19.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
History of (Prior) Complicated Diverticulitis No data entered.
KQ 4: Time Since Last Episode of Diverticulitis No data entered.
Note/Comment about baseline characteristics No data entered.
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (continuous) No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Recurrence of diverticulitis      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Placebo Pharm: 5-ASA Pharm: Mesalamine + Probiotic Comparison Measure


12 weeks

N Analyzed 41 40 36
Counts 8 5 4.248
Percentage 20 12.5 11.8


52 weeks

N Analyzed 29 32 27
Counts 9 9 10
Percentage 31 28.1 37
Outcome: Adverse event - any      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Placebo Pharm: 5-ASA Pharm: Mesalamine + Probiotic


12 weeks

N Analyzed 41 40 36
Counts
Percentage 41.5 47.5 38.9
Outcome: AE - Serious (SAE)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Placebo Pharm: 5-ASA Pharm: Mesalamine + Probiotic


12 weeks

N Analyzed 41 40 36
Counts 3 2 0
Percentage 7.3 5 0
note
Outcome: Surgery for diverticulitis, including colostomy (avoidance)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Placebo Pharm: 5-ASA Pharm: Mesalamine + Probiotic


12 weeks

N Analyzed 41 40 36
Counts 1 2 0
Percentage 2.4 5.0 0
Outcome: AE - Infection requiring Abx (CD II)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Placebo Pharm: 5-ASA Pharm: Mesalamine + Probiotic


12 weeks

N Analyzed 41 40 36
Counts 0 1 1
Percentage 0 2.5 2.78
note
Outcome: Adverse event - headache      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Placebo Pharm: 5-ASA Pharm: Mesalamine + Probiotic


12 weeks

N Analyzed 41 41 36
Counts 0 0 1
Percentage 0 0 2.8
note
Outcome: Adverse events - GI disorders      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Placebo Pharm: 5-ASA Pharm: Mesalamine + Probiotic


12 weeks

N Analyzed 41 40 36
Counts 10 11 6
Percentage 24.4 27.5 16.7
note
Outcome: Global Symptom Score (GSS)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Placebo Pharm: 5-ASA Pharm: Mesalamine + Probiotic


52 weeks

N Analyzed 29 32 27
Counts 15 21 8
Percentage 50 66.7 29.2
note self-calculated the counts self-calculated the counts self-calculated the counts
P-Value
Outcome: Global Symptom Score (GSS)      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Placebo Pharm: 5-ASA Pharm: Mesalamine + Probiotic Comparison Measure Pharm: 5-ASA vs. Placebo


52 weeks

N Analyzed 29 32 27 0.0452
Counts 5 12 2
Percentage 18.2 40.7 8.3
note self-calculated the counts self-calculated the counts self-calculated the counts
P-Value
Outcome: Time to recurrence      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Placebo Pharm: 5-ASA Pharm: Mesalamine + Probiotic Comparison Measure ERROR vs. ERROR


52 weeks

N Analyzed 29 32 27 NS (across arms)
Mean 100.1 308.7 280.7
SD
SE
Outcome: Global Symptom Score (GSS)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Placebo Pharm: 5-ASA Pharm: Mesalamine + Probiotic


Baseline N/A

N Analyzed 41 40 36
Mean 23.5 22
SD 9.1 8.6
Median 19.4


52 weeks

N Analyzed 41 40 36
Mean
SD
Median 5 1 4.4


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 No The investigator or designated repre- sentative called an Interactive Voice Response System for patient randomization and allocation of study medication.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q15: Cochrane - Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment No The investigator or designated repre- sentative called an Interactive Voice Response System for patient randomization and allocation of study medication.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q16: Cochrane - Blinding of participants (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants during the study No Triple-blinded. Participant, Care Provider, Investigator (NCT)
  • 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. No Triple-blinded. Participant, Care Provider, Investigator (NCT)
  • 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. No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q20: Cochrane - Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Yes Follow up on only the 75% who completed the 12-week course
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q21: Cochrane - Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q22: Cochrane - Other Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table. If yes, describe them in the Notes. No
  • 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. No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q23: NHLBI - Were eligibility/selection criteria for the study population prespecified and clearly described?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q24: NHLBI - Was the test/service/intervention clearly described and delivered consistently across the study population?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q25: NHLBI - Were the outcome measures prespecified, clearly defined, valid, reliable, and assessed consistently across all study participants?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.