Several published studies have evaluated the safety and effectiveness of oral and intravenous tacrolimus for the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, little is known about the effectiveness of topical tacrolimus in this patient population. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current state of literature to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of rectal administration of topical tacrolimus, in the form of suppository, ointment, and/or enema in patients with ulcerative proctitis, perianal Crohn’s disease (CD), and chronic refractory pouchitis. Electronic database searches were conducted in international databases since their inception until February 2020. Study subjects were categorized into three groups: topical tacrolimus for patients with proctitis, perianal CD, and chronic refractory pouchitis. The primary end point of this study was the remission rate. Secondary end points were response rate and the incidence of AEs. Eleven studies were included in the final assessment in this systematic review. This provided information from 188 patients. Tacrolimus was administered topically as suppositories, ointment, or enema. Clinical remission was achieved in 57.1%, 57.14%, and 70.0% in patients with proctitis, fistulizing perianal CD, and chronic pouchitis. The most commonly reported side effect was perianal itching and burning. Reversible nephrotoxicity occurred in a single patient. No clear correlation was found between blood levels and clinical outcomes. Topical tacrolimus is effective for a subset of patients with IBD. The adverse effects were minimal and tolerable. Well-designed randomized clinical trials are warranted to establish the appropriate dose and administration method.
- inflammatory bowel diseases
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors GS and KD collected and analyzed the data and designed the study. GS wrote the manuscript. KD, AS, and RC reviewed the final draft of the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was not required for this systematic review because available data from previously published studies, in which informed consent waa obtained by primary investigators, was retrieved and analyzed.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.