-
Cureus Aug 2023Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) refers to the occurrence of an open erosion in the inner lining of the stomach, duodenum, or sometimes lower esophagus. Treatments like proton... (Review)
Review
Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Histamine-2 Receptor Antagonists in the Management of Patients With Peptic Ulcer Disease: A Systematic Review.
Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) refers to the occurrence of an open erosion in the inner lining of the stomach, duodenum, or sometimes lower esophagus. Treatments like proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) are available on the market to efficiently treat the break in the mucosal lining. However, there is little evidence about the effects of the medication on the type and location of the ulcer and the epigastric pain caused by disintegration and increased acidity in the stomach. Given the above, we conducted a systematic review comparing the safety and efficacy of PPIs and H2RAs in various ulcer locations (gastric, duodenal, and pre-pyloric) and the effect of prolonging the treatment with the same medication or changing into a drug from another class in treatment-resistant ulcers. We employed major research literature databases and search engines such as PubMed, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Science Direct, and Google Scholar to find relevant articles. After a thorough screening, a quality check using various tools, and applying filters that suited our eligibility criteria, we identified eight articles, of which five were random clinical trials (RCTs), two review articles, and one meta-analysis. This study compares the different side effects of PPIs and H2RAs. Most studies concluded that omeprazole is superior in healing ulcers and bringing pain relief and that patients resistant to H2RAs can be treated better when switched to a PPI. This study also discusses the adverse effects of chronic use, such as diarrhea, constipation, headaches, and gastrointestinal infections. Patients on long-term PPI therapy are required to take calcium supplements to prevent the risk of fractures in older adults. Regarding long-term outcomes, PPIs remain the mainstay of treatment for peptic ulcer disease, based on the papers we reviewed.
PubMed: 37779765
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.44341 -
Cureus Jul 2022Osteoporosis is one of the most common metabolic bone diseases. Many studies were conducted to find the association between peptic ulcer disease (PUD), infection,... (Review)
Review
Osteoporosis is one of the most common metabolic bone diseases. Many studies were conducted to find the association between peptic ulcer disease (PUD), infection, proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) use, and increased risk for fracture, but results remain ambiguous. We performed this systematic review to understand the association between PUD and osteoporosis. We comprehensively searched relevant articles on April 19, 2022, by exploring different databases including PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Medline using relevant keywords. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria and undergoing quality assessment, we retained 25 studies published in and after 2015. For our systematic review, we included a total of 5,600,636 participants. The studies included in our review demonstrated a significant association between PUD, infection, and the risk of osteoporosis. Long-term PPI use was also found to be a risk factor for osteoporosis. Malabsorption of nutrients, increase in inflammatory cytokines, and alterations in hormone status were found to be the notable factors behind the association. Early management of infection and cautious use of long-term PPIs may protect against osteoporosis. Further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are necessary to establish a causal relationship.
PubMed: 36039217
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27188 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Oct 2022Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) continues to be a major health problem worldwide, causing considerable morbidity and mortality due to peptic ulcer disease and gastric... (Review)
Review
Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) continues to be a major health problem worldwide, causing considerable morbidity and mortality due to peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of 13C/14C-urea breath tests in the diagnosis of H. pylori infection. A PRISMA systematic search appraisal and meta-analysis were conducted. A systematic literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted up to August 2022. Generic, methodological and statistical data were extracted from the eligible studies, which reported the sensitivity and specificity of 13C/14C-urea breath tests in the diagnosis of H. pylori infection. A random effect meta-analysis was conducted on crude sensitivity and specificity of 13C/14C-urea breath test rates. Heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran’s Q and I2 tests. The literature search yielded a total of 5267 studies. Of them, 41 articles were included in the final analysis, with a sample size ranging from 50 to 21857. The sensitivity and specificity of 13C/14C-urea breath tests in the diagnosis of H. pylori infection ranged between 64−100% and 60.5−100%, respectively. The current meta-analysis showed that the sensitivity points of estimate were 92.5% and 87.6%, according to the fixed and random models, respectively. In addition, the specificity points of estimate were 89.9% and 84.8%, according to the fixed and random models, respectively. There was high heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 98.128 and 98.516 for the sensitivity and specificity, respectively, p-value < 0.001). The 13C/14C-urea breath tests are highly sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection.
PubMed: 36292117
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12102428 -
Obesity Surgery Sep 2023Marginal ulcer (MU) is an uncommon but significant complication following one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). Our study aims to understand the incidence rates, risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Marginal ulcer (MU) is an uncommon but significant complication following one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). Our study aims to understand the incidence rates, risk factors, and management of MU following OAGB.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were examined to identify all studies on OAGB where authors had reported on MU. Data were collected on basic demographics, incidence rates, risk factors, and management of this condition.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies involving 8868 patients were analysed. The mean age and body mass index (BMI) of patients in these studies were 40.9 ± 4.5 years and 47.6 ± 5.6 kg/m, respectively. Among the patient cohort, approximately 72% were female, and 20.6% had preoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The authors described prescribing proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) prophylaxis to 14.1% of patients after surgery. Two hundred twenty-eight patients were reported to have MU. The incidence of MU was 2.59% (95% CI 1.89-3.52), of which 53 patients presented within 12 months, 24 patients presented after 31 months, and five patients after 6 years. One hundred forty-six patients did not have presentation time documented. Sixty-five patients were described to have MU diagnosed on endoscopy, of which 54 were symptomatic and 11 were asymptomatic. The authors were, however, not specific on the choice of investigation for the remaining 163 patients. Of patients, 89.7% were treated conservatively with PPIs, whilst 10.3% had surgery to treat MU.
CONCLUSIONS
Marginal ulcer is an uncommon complication following OAGB. The majority of patients are treated conservatively with PPIs. Larger, well-designed studies reporting on risk factors, investigation, and management of MU following OAGB are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Female; Male; Gastric Bypass; Obesity, Morbid; Peptic Ulcer; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37526816
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-023-06762-5 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Lansoprazole, a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI), is the primary therapy for peptic ulcers (PU). Potassium competitive acid blockers (P-CAB) offer an alternative for acid...
Lansoprazole, a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI), is the primary therapy for peptic ulcers (PU). Potassium competitive acid blockers (P-CAB) offer an alternative for acid suppression. However, the efficacy and safety of P-CABs lansoprazole in the management of PU has not been evaluated. Five databases were searched for randomized clinical trials in English until 31 August 2023. Data extraction provided outcome counts for ulcer healing, recurrent NSAID-related ulcer, and adverse events. The pooled effect, presented as rate difference (RD), was stratified by ulcer location, follow-up time, and the types of P-CAB, along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The pooled healing rates of peptic ulcers were 95.3% (1,100/1,154) and 95.0% (945/995) for P-CABs and lansoprazole, respectively (RD: 0.4%, 95% CI: -1.4%-2.3%). The lower bounds of the 95% CI fell within the predefined non-inferiority margin of -6%. In subgroup analyses base on ulcer location, and follow-up time also demonstrated non-inferiority. The drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) did not differ significantly among groups (RR: 0.997, 95% CI: 0.949-1.046, = 0.893). However, P-CAB treatment was associated with an increased risk of the serious adverse events compared to lansoprazole (RR: 1.325, 95% CI: 1.005-1.747, = 0.046). P-CABs demonstrated non-inferiority to lansoprazole in the management of peptic ulcer. The safety and tolerability profile are comparable, with similar TEAEs rates. However, P-CABs appear to have a higher risk of serious adverse events. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=458361 Identifier: PROSPERO (No. CRD42023458361).
PubMed: 38273830
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1304552 -
Helicobacter Sep 2014This review summarizes important studies regarding H.pylori therapy published from April 2013 to April 2014. The main themes that emerge are assessing the efficacy of... (Review)
Review
This review summarizes important studies regarding H.pylori therapy published from April 2013 to April 2014. The main themes that emerge are assessing the efficacy of standard triple therapy, as well as exploring new first-line treatments, predominantly optimized triple therapies and non-bismuth quadruple schemes. Regarding newer non-bismuth quadruple regimens, the compliance and tolerance seem to be similar for sequential and concomitant regimens. Notably, no study yet has demonstrated a clear statistical superiority for either, and a systematic review and meta-analysis may be warranted. Other studies examined the role of levofloxacin and bismuth based therapies in H. pylori eradication. The efficacy of bismuth as a second-line after sequential therapy was particularly noteworthy. Levofloxacin-based therapies also appear to be useful and versatile as part of different antibiotic combinations and in first-, second-, and third-line therapies. The emerging problem of quinolone resistance remains a worry. Individualized therapy, based on factors such as antimicrobial information, resistance data, and CYP2C19 metabolism, may well be the most notable future trend to emerge this year.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans
PubMed: 25167944
DOI: 10.1111/hel.12163 -
Indian Journal of Gastroenterology :... Aug 2023Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the mainstay of treatment in erosive esophagitis (EE). An alternative to PPIs in EE is Vonoprazan, a potassium competitive acid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the mainstay of treatment in erosive esophagitis (EE). An alternative to PPIs in EE is Vonoprazan, a potassium competitive acid blocker. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vonoprazan to lansoprazole.
METHODS
Multiple databases searched through November 2022. Meta-analysis was performed to assess endoscopic healing at two, four and eight weeks, including for patients with severe EE (Los Angeles C/D). Serious adverse events (SAE) leading to drug discontinuation were assessed. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
RESULTS
Four RCTs with 2208 patients were included in the final analysis. Vonoprazan 20 mg once-daily was compared to lansoprazole 30 mg once-daily dosing. Among all patients, at two and eight weeks post-treatment, vonoprazan resulted in significantly higher rates of endoscopic healing as compared to lansoprazole, risk ratios (RR) 1.1, p<0.001 and RR 1.04, p=0.03. The same effect was not observed at four weeks, RR 1.03 (CI 0.99-1.06, I=0%) following therapy. Among patients with severe EE, vonoprazan resulted in higher rates of endoscopic healing at two weeks, RR 1.3 (1.2-1.4, I=47%), p=<0.001, at four weeks, RR 1.2 (1.1-1.3, I=36%), p=<0.001 and at eight weeks post-treatment, RR 1.1 (CI 1.03-1.3, I=79%), p=0.009. We found no significant difference in the overall pooled rate of SAE and pooled rate of adverse events leading to drug discontinuation. Finally, the overall certainty of evidence for our main summary estimates was rated as high (grade A).
CONCLUSION
Based on limited number of published non-inferiority RCTs, our analysis demonstrates that among patients with EE, vonoprazan 20 mg once-daily dosing achieves comparable and in those with severe EE, higher endoscopic healing rates as compared to lansoprazole 30 mg once-daily dosing. Both drugs have a comparable safety profile.
Topics: Humans; Lansoprazole; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Esophagitis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Pyrroles; Peptic Ulcer
PubMed: 37418052
DOI: 10.1007/s12664-023-01384-2 -
Gastroenterologia Y Hepatologia Dec 2016Helicobacter pylori approximately infect 50% of Spanish population and causes chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer and gastric cancer. Until now, three consensus meetings on...
Helicobacter pylori approximately infect 50% of Spanish population and causes chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer and gastric cancer. Until now, three consensus meetings on H.pylori infection had been performed in Spain (the last in 2012). The changes in the treatment schemes, and the increasing available evidence, have justified organizing the IVSpanish Consensus Conference (March 2016), focused on the treatment of this infection. Nineteen experts participated, who performed a systematic review of the scientific evidence and developed a series of recommendation that were subjected to an anonymous Delphi process of iterative voting. Scientific evidence and the strength of the recommendation were classified using GRADE guidelines. As starting point, this consensus increased the minimum acceptable efficacy of recommended treatments that should reach, or preferably surpass, the 90% cure rate when prescribed empirically. Therefore, only quadruple therapies (with or without bismuth), and generally lasting 14 days, are recommended both for first and second line treatments. Non-bismuth quadruple concomitant regimen, including a proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin, amoxicillin and metronidazole, is recommended as first line. In the present consensus, other first line alternatives and rescue treatments are also reviewed and recommended.
Topics: Algorithms; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bismuth; Clinical Trials as Topic; Delphi Technique; Drug Therapy, Combination; Gastritis; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Probiotics; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Recurrence; Salvage Therapy; Stomach Neoplasms; Stomach Ulcer; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 27342080
DOI: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2016.05.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Celecoxib; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Ulcer; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28597983
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012095.pub2 -
Digestive Diseases and Sciences May 2018The role of gastritis in dyspepsia remains controversial. We aimed to examine the efficacy of rebamipide, a gastric mucosal protective agent, in both organic and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The role of gastritis in dyspepsia remains controversial. We aimed to examine the efficacy of rebamipide, a gastric mucosal protective agent, in both organic and functional dyspepsia.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. The following databases were searched using the keywords ("rebamipide" OR "gastroprotective agent*" OR "mucosta") AND ("dyspepsia" OR "indigestion" OR "gastrointestinal symptoms"): PubMed, Wed of Science, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register. The primary outcome was dyspepsia or upper GI symptom score improvement. Pooled analysis of the main outcome data were presented as risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data.
RESULTS
From an initial 248 records, 17 randomised controlled trial (RCT) publications involving 2170 subjects (1224 rebamipide, 946 placebo/control) were included in the final analysis. Twelve RCTs were conducted in subjects with organic dyspepsia (peptic ulcer disease, reflux esophagitis or NSAID-induced gastropathy) and five RCTs were conducted in patients with functional dyspepsia (FD). Overall, dyspepsia symptom improvement was significantly better with rebamipide compared to placebo/control drug (RR 0.77, 95% CI = 0.64-0.93; SMD -0.46, 95% CI = -0.83 to -0.09). Significant symptom improvement was observed both in pooled RR and SMD in subjects with organic dyspepsia (RR 0.72, 95% CI = 0.61-0.86; SMD -0.23, 95% CI = -0.4 to -0.07), while symptom improvement in FD was observed in pooled SMD but not RR (SMD -0.62, 95% CI = -1.16 to -0.08; RR 1.01, 95% CI = 0.71-1.45).
CONCLUSION
Rebamipide is effective in organic dyspepsia and may improve symptoms in functional dyspepsia.
Topics: Alanine; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Dyspepsia; Humans; Odds Ratio; Quinolones; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29192375
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-017-4871-9