-
Journal of Gastroenterology Apr 2021The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) revised the third edition of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease in 2020 and created an...
The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) revised the third edition of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease in 2020 and created an English version. The revised guidelines consist of nine items: epidemiology, hemorrhagic gastric and duodenal ulcers, Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy, non-eradication therapy, drug-induced ulcers, non-H. pylori, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ulcers, remnant gastric ulcers, surgical treatment, and conservative therapy for perforation and stenosis. Therapeutic algorithms for the treatment of peptic ulcers differ based on ulcer complications. In patients with NSAID-induced ulcers, NSAIDs are discontinued and anti-ulcer therapy is administered. If NSAIDs cannot be discontinued, the ulcer is treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Vonoprazan (VPZ) with antibiotics is recommended as the first-line treatment for H. pylori eradication, and PPIs or VPZ with antibiotics is recommended as a second-line therapy. Patients who do not use NSAIDs and are H. pylori negative are considered to have idiopathic peptic ulcers. Algorithms for the prevention of NSAID- and low-dose aspirin (LDA)-related ulcers are presented in this guideline. These algorithms differ based on the concomitant use of LDA or NSAIDs and ulcer history or hemorrhagic ulcer history. In patients with a history of ulcers receiving NSAID therapy, PPIs with or without celecoxib are recommended and the administration of VPZ is suggested for the prevention of ulcer recurrence. In patients with a history of ulcers receiving LDA therapy, PPIs or VPZ are recommended and the administration of a histamine 2-receptor antagonist is suggested for the prevention of ulcer recurrence.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Evidence-Based Practice; Japan; Peptic Ulcer; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 33620586
DOI: 10.1007/s00535-021-01769-0 -
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Jun 2021Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used for acid suppression in the treatment and prevention of many conditions, including gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastric...
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used for acid suppression in the treatment and prevention of many conditions, including gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastric and duodenal ulcers, erosive esophagitis, Helicobacter pylori infection, and pathological hypersecretory conditions. Most PPIs are metabolized primarily by cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) into inactive metabolites, and CYP2C19 genotype has been linked to PPI exposure, efficacy, and adverse effects. We summarize the evidence from the literature and provide therapeutic recommendations for PPI prescribing based on CYP2C19 genotype (updates at www.cpicpgx.org). The potential benefits of using CYP2C19 genotype data to guide PPI therapy include (i) identifying patients with genotypes predictive of lower plasma exposure and prescribing them a higher dose that will increase the likelihood of efficacy, and (ii) identifying patients on chronic therapy with genotypes predictive of higher plasma exposure and prescribing them a decreased dose to minimize the risk of toxicity that is associated with long-term PPI use, particularly at higher plasma concentrations.
Topics: Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Genotype; Humans; Pharmacogenetics; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 32770672
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.2015 -
Critical Care (London, England) Jan 2018Pharmacologic stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is recommended in critically ill patients with high risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, as to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pharmacologic stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is recommended in critically ill patients with high risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, as to patients receiving enteral feeding, the preventive effect of SUP is not well-known. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of pharmacologic SUP in enterally fed patients on stress-related GI bleeding and other clinical outcomes.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception through 30 Sep 2017. Eligible trials were RCTs comparing pharmacologic SUP to either placebo or no prophylaxis in enterally fed patients in the ICU. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias were explored.
RESULTS
Seven studies (n = 889 patients) were included. There was no statistically significant difference in GI bleeding (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.31, p = 0.37) between groups. This finding was confirmed by further subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis. In addition, SUP had no effect on overall mortality (RR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.56, p = 0.14), Clostridium difficile infection (RR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.25 to 3.19, p = 0.86), length of stay in the ICU (MD 0.04 days; 95% CI, -0.79 to 0.87, p = 0.92), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.38 days; 95% CI, -1.48 to 0.72, p = 0.50), but was associated with an increased risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (RR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.27; p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggested that in patients receiving enteral feeding, pharmacologic SUP is not beneficial and combined interventions may even increase the risk of nosocomial pneumonia.
Topics: Clostridium Infections; Critical Care; Duodenal Ulcer; Enteral Nutrition; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Peptic Ulcer; Respiration, Artificial; Risk Management; Time Factors
PubMed: 29374489
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-017-1937-1 -
The American Journal of Medicine Oct 2022The role of antisecretory drugs for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients using anticoagulants is unclear. We investigated this question in a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The role of antisecretory drugs for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients using anticoagulants is unclear. We investigated this question in a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov thru April 2021 for controlled randomized trials and observational studies evaluating the association of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or H2-receptor antagonists with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients using anticoagulants. Independent duplicate review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed. Observational studies were included only if they provided results controlled for at least 2 variables. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models.
RESULTS
Six observational studies and 1 randomized trial were included. All but 1 study had low risk of bias. None of the studies excluded patients with concomitant aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. For PPIs, the pooled relative risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding was 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.61, 0.74) with low statistical heterogeneity (I = 15%). Individual studies showed greater treatment effect in patients with higher risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or aspirin use, elevated bleeding risk score). A single observational study evaluating the association of H2-receptor antagonists with upper gastrointestinal bleeding found a relative risk of 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.24-2.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence drawn mostly from observational studies with low risk of bias demonstrate that PPIs reduce upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients prescribed oral anticoagulants. The benefit appears to be most clearcut and substantial in patients with elevated risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Gastrointestinal Agents; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 35679879
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2022.05.031 -
Cancers Sep 2023Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of postoperative pancreatic insufficiency. The robotic platform is increasingly being used for these procedures. We sought to evaluate robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy and assess its complication profile and efficacy.
METHODS
This systematic review consisted of all studies on robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy (central pancreatectomy, duodenum-preserving partial pancreatic head resection, enucleation, and uncinate resection) published between January 2001 and December 2022 in PubMed and Embase.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies were included in this review ( = 788). Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy is being performed worldwide for benign or indolent pancreatic lesions. When compared to the open approach, robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomies led to a longer average operative time, shorter length of stay, and higher estimated intraoperative blood loss. Postoperative pancreatic fistula is common, but severe complications requiring intervention are exceedingly rare. Long-term complications such as endocrine and exocrine insufficiency are nearly nonexistent.
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy appears to have a higher risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula but is rarely associated with severe or long-term complications. Careful patient selection is required to maximize benefits and minimize morbidity.
PubMed: 37686648
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15174369 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Oct 2022This study explored the link between duodenal eosinophils and mast cells in patients with functional dyspepsia (FD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
This study explored the link between duodenal eosinophils and mast cells in patients with functional dyspepsia (FD).
METHODS
MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase electronic databases were searched until June 2021 for case-control studies reporting duodenal eosinophils and mast cells in FD. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD), odds ratio, and 95% CIs of duodenal eosinophils and mast cells in FD patients and controls were calculated, using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Twenty-two case-control studies with 1108 FD patients and 893 controls were identified. Duodenal eosinophils (SMD, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.85-1.73; P = .0001) and mast cells (SMD, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.14-3.07; P = .0001) were increased in FD patients compared with controls. Substantial heterogeneity was found (I = 93.61, P = .0001; and I = 96.69, P = .0001, respectively) and visual inspection of funnel plots confirmed publication bias. Degranulation of duodenal eosinophils was significantly higher in FD patients compared with controls (odds ratio, 3.78; 95% CI, 6.76-4.48; P = .0001), without statistically significant heterogeneity. We conducted a sensitivity analysis for duodenal eosinophils, by including only high-quality studies, and the results remained unchanged (SMD, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.06-2.40; P = .0001), with substantial heterogeneity. Postinfectious FD patients had increased duodenal eosinophils compared with controls (SMD, 3.91; 95% CI, 1.32-6.51; P = .001) and FD patients without any history of infection (SMD, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-1.96; P = .001). Helicobacter pylori-negative FD patients had significantly higher duodenal eosinophils compared with controls (SMD, 3.98; 95% CI, 2.13-5.84; P = .0001), with substantial heterogeneity. No significant difference in duodenal eosinophils was seen according to FD subtypes.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis suggests a link between duodenal microinflammation and FD. However, the quality of evidence is very low, largely owing to the unexplained heterogeneity and serious risk of publication bias in all comparative analyses. Thus, causality remains uncertain and further studies are required.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Duodenum; Dyspepsia; Eosinophilia; Eosinophils; Humans; Mast Cells
PubMed: 35123088
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.01.014 -
Metabolic Effects of Endoscopic Duodenal Mucosal Resurfacing: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Obesity Surgery Mar 2021Duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) is an innovative endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapy (EBMT) emerging in recent years. It uses the duodenum to achieve better... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) is an innovative endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapy (EBMT) emerging in recent years. It uses the duodenum to achieve better glycemic and weight control. This study aimed to evaluate in a critical and systematic way the metabolic effects of this procedure. Electronic searches were performed evaluating the DMR procedure based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Changes in measured outcomes were evaluated using random-effects models by computing weighted mean differences (MD) and corresponding 95% CIs between pre-and post-procedure metabolic characteristics. Four studies were selected for qualitative and quantitative analysis. DMR demonstrated beneficial glycemic and hepatic metabolic effects among patients with non-insulin dependent type 2 diabetes (T2D) at 3 and 6 months post-procedure.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Duodenum; Humans; Intestinal Mucosa; Obesity, Morbid
PubMed: 33417100
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-020-05170-3 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Feb 2024The role of systemic therapy in the management of ampullary (AA) and duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA) remains poorly understood. This study sought to synthesize current... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The role of systemic therapy in the management of ampullary (AA) and duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA) remains poorly understood. This study sought to synthesize current evidence supporting the use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in AA and DA.
METHODS
The study searched PubMed, Cochrane Library (Wiley), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for observational or randomized studies published between 2002 and 2022 evaluating survival outcomes for patients with non-metastatic AA or DA who received systemic therapy and surgical resection. The data extracted included overall survival, progression-free survival, and pathologic response (PR) rate.
RESULTS
From the 347 abstracts identified in this study, 29 reports were reviewed in full, and 15 were included in the final review. The selected studies published from 2007 to 2022 were retrospective. Eight were single-center studies; five used the National Cancer Database (NCDB); and two were European multicenter/national studies. Overall, no studies identified survival differences between NAT and upfront surgery (with or without adjuvant therapy). Two NCDB studies reported longer survival with NAT/AT than with surgery. Five single-center studies reported a significant portion of NAT patients who achieved PR, and one study identified major PR as an independent predictor of survival. Other outcomes associated with NAT included conversion from unresectable to resectable disease, reduced lymph node positivity, and decreased local recurrence rate.
CONCLUSION
Evidence supporting the use of NAT in AA and DA is weak. No randomized studies exist, and observational data show mixed results. For patients with DA and AA, NAT appears safe, but better evidence is needed to understand the preferred multidisciplinary management of DA and AA periampullary malignancies.
Topics: Humans; Adenocarcinoma; Combined Modality Therapy; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37952021
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-14531-y -
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2022Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by ingesting gluten. It affects approximately 1% of the UK population, but only one in three people is thought to...
BACKGROUND
Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by ingesting gluten. It affects approximately 1% of the UK population, but only one in three people is thought to have a diagnosis. Untreated coeliac disease may lead to malnutrition, anaemia, osteoporosis and lymphoma.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives were to define at-risk groups and determine the cost-effectiveness of active case-finding strategies in primary care.
DESIGN
(1) Systematic review of the accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease. (2) Routine data analysis to develop prediction models for identification of people who may benefit from testing for coeliac disease. (3) Systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for coeliac disease. (4) Systematic review of the accuracy of genetic tests for coeliac disease (literature search conducted in April 2021). (5) Online survey to identify diagnostic thresholds for testing, starting treatment and referral for biopsy. (6) Economic modelling to identify the cost-effectiveness of different active case-finding strategies, informed by the findings from previous objectives.
DATA SOURCES
For the first systematic review, the following databases were searched from 1997 to April 2021: MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Cochrane Library, Web of Science™ (Clarivate™, Philadelphia, PA, USA), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( WHO ICTRP ) and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For the second systematic review, the following databases were searched from January 1990 to August 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews ( KSR ) Evidence, WHO ICTRP and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For prediction model development, Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and a subcohort of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children were used; for estimates for the economic models, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum was used.
REVIEW METHODS
For review 1, cohort and case-control studies reporting on a diagnostic indicator in a population with and a population without coeliac disease were eligible. For review 2, diagnostic cohort studies including patients presenting with coeliac disease symptoms who were tested with serological tests for coeliac disease and underwent a duodenal biopsy as reference standard were eligible. In both reviews, risk of bias was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were fitted, in which binomial likelihoods for the numbers of true positives and true negatives were assumed.
RESULTS
People with dermatitis herpetiformis, a family history of coeliac disease, migraine, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis or chronic liver disease are 1.5-2 times more likely than the general population to have coeliac disease; individual gastrointestinal symptoms were not useful for identifying coeliac disease. For children, women and men, prediction models included 24, 24 and 21 indicators of coeliac disease, respectively. The models showed good discrimination between patients with and patients without coeliac disease, but performed less well when externally validated. Serological tests were found to have good diagnostic accuracy for coeliac disease. Immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase had the highest sensitivity and endomysial antibody the highest specificity. There was little improvement when tests were used in combination. Survey respondents ( = 472) wanted to be 66% certain of the diagnosis from a blood test before starting a gluten-free diet if symptomatic, and 90% certain if asymptomatic. Cost-effectiveness analyses found that, among adults, and using serological testing alone, immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase was most cost-effective at a 1% pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening). Strategies using immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody plus human leucocyte antigen or human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability had similar cost-effectiveness results, which were also similar to the cost-effectiveness results of immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase at a 1% pre-test probability. The most practical alternative for implementation within the NHS is likely to be a combination of human leucocyte antigen and immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing among those with a pre-test probability above 1.5%. Among children, the most cost-effective strategy was a 10% pre-test probability with human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase, but there was uncertainty around the most cost-effective pre-test probability. There was substantial uncertainty in economic model results, which means that there would be great value in conducting further research.
LIMITATIONS
The interpretation of meta-analyses was limited by the substantial heterogeneity between the included studies, and most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. The main limitations of the prediction models were that we were restricted to diagnostic indicators that were recorded by general practitioners and that, because coeliac disease is underdiagnosed, it is also under-reported in health-care data. The cost-effectiveness model is a simplification of coeliac disease and modelled an average cohort rather than individuals. Evidence was weak on the probability of routine coeliac disease diagnosis, the accuracy of serological and genetic tests and the utility of a gluten-free diet.
CONCLUSIONS
Population screening with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase (1% pre-test probability) and of immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody followed by human leucocyte antigen testing or human leucocyte antigen testing followed by immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability appear to have similar cost-effectiveness results. As decisions to implement population screening cannot be made based on our economic analysis alone, and given the practical challenges of identifying patients with higher pre-test probabilities, we recommend that human leucocyte antigen combined with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing should be considered for adults with at least a 1.5% pre-test probability of coeliac disease, equivalent to having at least one predictor. A more targeted strategy of 10% pre-test probability is recommended for children (e.g. children with anaemia).
FUTURE WORK
Future work should consider whether or not population-based screening for coeliac disease could meet the UK National Screening Committee criteria and whether or not it necessitates a long-term randomised controlled trial of screening strategies. Large prospective cohort studies in which all participants receive accurate tests for coeliac disease are needed.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019115506 and CRD42020170766.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 26, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: United States; Adult; Child; Male; Humans; Female; Celiac Disease; Longitudinal Studies; Prospective Studies; Skin Neoplasms; Immunoglobulin A; Osteoporosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36321689
DOI: 10.3310/ZUCE8371 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2023Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC).
METHODS
A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group.
CONCLUSIONS
This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Duodenal Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37581763
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03047-4