The use of anti-tnf agents in crohn's disease patients with fecal diversion and the rate of intestinal continuity restoration: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Document Type

Conference Proceeding

Publication Date


Publication Title

Am J Gastroenterol


Introduction: Up to one third of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) may require bowel surgery within 5 years of diagnosis. In patients with severe perianal disease, the creation of ostomy for fecal diversion (FD) may be necessary. Of those patients, a subgroup will end up with a permanent stoma. The rate of stoma reversal with subsequent intestinal continuity restoration varies in the literature and data in the post biologic era has been controversial. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a metaanalysis study of comparative studies comparing the use of anti tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents versus not and the rate of successful restoration of intestinal continuity and ostomy closure. Methods: A comprehensive search of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus was conducted from each database's inception to January 16th, 2021. We included comparative studies of anti TNF agents versus nonbiologic therapies in Crohn's disease patients with fecal diversion and looked at the outcome of ostomy reversal and restoration of bowel continuity. Results: A total of seven studies assessed the use of anti TNF agents in post ostomy. Of this, data from five studies with a total of 348 patients were able to be extracted. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of anti TNF agents post fecal diversion was not associated with a statistically significant risk of reducing the need for permanent ostomy (OR of 01.193; 95% CI: 0.618-2.303; I2= 22.7%). No publication bias was seen among the included studies as seen in the funnel plot. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed no difference in ostomy closure rate among patients with Crohn's disease with ostomy whether anti TNF therapy was used or not. However, our meta-analysis was limited by the small number of total patients included and the lack of randomized controlled trials.

PubMed ID

Not assigned.





First Page