***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: An updated literature search performed in July 2008 did not identify any new trials. Only two randomized controlled trials were identified that satisfied the inclusion criteria. These two trials could not be pooled for analysis because of major differences in design and patient populations. In the first trial, 11 patients received intravenous cyclosporine (4 mg/kg) and 9 received placebo. Two of 11 in the treatment group failed to respond to therapy compared with nine of nine in the placebo group (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 - 0.64). However, 3/11 and 4/9 eventually underwent colectomy in the treatment and placebo groups respectively and follow-up was less than a month. In the second trial 15 patients were treated with intravenous cyclosporine and 15 with intravenous methylprednisolone. Five of 15 patients in the cyclosporine group failed to respond to therapy as compared to 7/15 in the methylprednisolone group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.29 - 1.75). After 1 year 7/9 responders in the cyclosporine group were still in remission compared with 4/8 in the steroid group (p > 0.05) and the colectomy rate was similar in both groups. The mean time to response in the cyclosporine group in the 2 trials was short (7 days and 5.2 days). These results should be interpreted with caution given the small numbers of trials and patients evaluated for comparison, and limited follow-up (few weeks in one trial to a year in the other). The precise assessment of the occurrence of adverse events was difficult because the trials described different adverse reactions, which reversed after discontinuation of cyclosporine. There was no evidence in the trials reviewed that cyclosporine was more effective than standard treatment for preventing colectomy but this effect cannot be excluded due to the small sample size and rarity of this outcome. Additional limitations of current research include lack of data on quality of life, costs and long-term results of cyclosporine therapy. There is limited evidence that cyclosporine is more effective than standard treatment alone for severe ulcerative colitis. The relatively quick response makes the short-term use of cyclosporine potentially attractive, but the long-term benefit is unclear, when adverse events such as cyclosporine-induced nephrotoxicity may become more obvious. There is a need for additional research on quality of life, costs and long-term results from cyclosporine therapy in severe ulcerative colitis.
Output:

The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of CsA for severe UC. The literature search identified 36 studies. Only 2 studies were of high methodological quality and both support the use of CsA in UC patients with a severe attack. However, both studies were small (involving only 50 patients altogether) and limited in the length of follow-up (from a few weeks up to a year). There is limited evidence that cyclosporine is more effective than standard treatment for severe ulcerative colitis. The conclusion of the review is that while the data concerning the use of CsA in severe UC are encouraging, more studies are needed.