-
BMJ Open Feb 2020To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines to assess the effectiveness of four treatment approaches (manual therapy, probiotics, proton... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines to assess the effectiveness of four treatment approaches (manual therapy, probiotics, proton pump inhibitors and simethicone) on colic symptoms including infant crying time, sleep distress and adverse events.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Mantis for studies published between 2009 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews and guidelines that used evidence and expert panel opinion. Three reviewers independently selected articles by title, abstract and full paper review. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Selected studies were assessed for quality using modified standardised checklists by two authors. Meta-analysed data for our outcomes of interest were extracted and narrative conclusions were assessed.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were selected. High-level evidence showed that probiotics were most effective for reducing crying time in breastfed infants (range -25 min to -65 min over 24 hours). Manual therapies had moderate to low-quality evidence showing reduced crying time (range -33 min to -76 min per 24 hours). Simethicone had moderate to low evidence showing no benefit or negative effect. One meta-analysis did not support the use of proton pump inhibitors for reducing crying time and fussing. Three national guidelines unanimously recommended the use of education, parental reassurance, advice and guidance and clinical evaluation of mother and baby. Consensus on other advice and treatments did not exist.
CONCLUSIONS
The strongest evidence for the treatment of colic was probiotics for breastfed infants, followed by weaker but favourable evidence for manual therapy indicated by crying time. Both forms of treatment carried a low risk of serious adverse events. The guidance reviewed did not reflect these findings.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019139074.
Topics: Antifoaming Agents; Colic; Humans; Infant; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Probiotics; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Review Literature as Topic; Simethicone; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32102827
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035405 -
Journal of Gastroenterology and... Aug 2019Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disease caused by reflux of gastric contents to the esophagus. Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are recommended as a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disease caused by reflux of gastric contents to the esophagus. Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are recommended as a first-line therapy to treat GERD. Recently, a new potassium-competitive acid blocker, vonoprazan, was launched in Japan. We aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of vonoprazan and other PPIs in healing GERD.
METHODS
We used MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to search the literature. Double-blind randomized controlled trials for PPIs and/or vonoprazan that were published in English or Japanese and assessed healing effects in adult GERD patients were included. To estimate the comparative efficacy of treatments, we performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to assess the consistency assumption.
RESULTS
Of 4001 articles identified in the database, 42 studies were eligible. One study was hand-searched and added to the analysis. For the main analysis of healing effects at 8 weeks, odds ratios (ORs) of vonoprazan (20 mg daily) to esomeprazole (20 mg), rabeprazole (20 mg), lansoprazole (30 mg), and omeprazole (20 mg) were 2.29 (95% credible interval, 0.79-7.06), 3.94 (1.15-14.03), 2.40 (0.90-6.77), and 2.71 (0.98-7.90), respectively. Subgroup analysis for patients with severe esophagitis at baseline showed significantly higher ORs for vonoprazan versus most of the comparator PPIs.
CONCLUSIONS
This analysis shows that the GERD healing effect of vonoprazan is higher than that of rabeprazole (20 mg) but not higher than other PPIs. Subgroup analysis indicated that vonoprazan is more effective than most PPIs for patients with severe erosive esophagitis.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Esophagitis, Peptic; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Patient Selection; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Pyrroles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Severity of Illness Index; Sulfonamides; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 30883868
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.14664 -
The American Journal of Gastroenterology May 2024Los Angeles grade C/D esophagitis is a severe manifestation of gastroesophageal reflux disease that require active treatment and close follow-up. Potassium competitive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
INTRODUCTION
Los Angeles grade C/D esophagitis is a severe manifestation of gastroesophageal reflux disease that require active treatment and close follow-up. Potassium competitive acid blockers (P-CAB) are promising alternatives to proton pump inhibitors (PPI). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of P-CAB and PPI in healing grade C/D esophagitis to aid clinical decision-making.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion if efficacy of P-CAB and PPI in healing grade C/D esophagitis was reported. Pooled risk ratios and risk difference with 95% credible intervals were used to summarize estimated effect of each comparison. The benefit of treatments was ranked using the surface under the cumulative probability ranking score.
RESULTS
Of 5,876 articles identified in the database, 24 studies were eligible. Studies included incorporated 3 P-CAB (vonoprazan, tegoprazan, and keverprazan) and 6 PPI (lansoprazole, esomeprazole, omeprazole, rabeprazole extended-release (ER), pantoprazole, and dexlansoprazole). Based on the failure to achieve mucosal healing, 20 mg of vonoprazan q.d. ranked the first among PPI in initial and maintained healing of grade C/D esophagitis (surface under the cumulative probability ranking score = 0.89 and 0.87, respectively). Vonoprazan had similar risk of incurring adverse events, severe adverse events, and withdrawal to drug when compared with PPI. For those who attempted lower maintenance treatment dose, 10 mg of vonoprazan q.d. was a reasonable choice, considering its moderate efficacy and safety.
DISCUSSION
Vonoprazan has considerable efficacy in initial and maintained healing of grade C/D esophagitis compared with PPI, with moderate short-term and long-term safety.
Topics: Humans; Esophagitis; Esophagitis, Peptic; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Network Meta-Analysis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Pyrroles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfonamides; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38345252
DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002714 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jan 2023Due to increasing resistance rates of () to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and...
BACKGROUND
Due to increasing resistance rates of () to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and treatment algorithms for first-line and second-line therapy against infection are well-established, there is no clear recommendation for third-line and rescue therapy in refractory infection.
AIM
To perform a systematic review evaluating the efficacy and safety of rescue therapies against refractory infection.
METHODS
A systematic search of available rescue treatments for refractory infection was conducted on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed search platform based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the effectiveness of infection rescue therapies were included.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies were included in the analysis of mean eradication rates as rescue therapy, and 21 of these were selected for analysis of mean eradication rate as third-line treatment. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple-therapy as third-line treatment, mean eradication rates of 81.6% and 84.4%, 79.4% and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. For third-line quadruple therapy, mean eradication rates of 69.2% and 72.1% were found for bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT), 88.9% and 90.9% for bismuth quadruple therapy, three-in-one, Pylera (BQT-Pylera), and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT) in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple therapy as rescue therapy, mean eradication rates of 75.4% and 78.8%, 79.4 and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For quadruple therapy as rescue treatment, mean eradication rates of 76.7% and 79.2% for BQT, 84.9% and 87.8% for BQT-Pylera, and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For susceptibility-guided therapy, mean eradication rates as third-line and rescue treatment were 75.0% in ITT and 79.2% in PP analysis.
CONCLUSION
We recommend sitafloxacin-based triple therapy containing vonoprazan in regions with low macrolide resistance profile. In regions with known resistance to macrolides or unavailability of bismuth, rifabutin-based triple therapy is recommended.
Topics: Humans; Helicobacter Infections; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Metronidazole; Helicobacter pylori; Bismuth; Levofloxacin; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Macrolides; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Tetracycline; Rifabutin
PubMed: 36687120
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i2.390 -
Surgical Oncology Sep 2021Locally advanced rectal cancer is often treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery. Radiotherapy carries significant risk of toxicity to organs at risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Locally advanced rectal cancer is often treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery. Radiotherapy carries significant risk of toxicity to organs at risk (OAR). Proton beam therapy (PBT) has demonstrated to be effective in other cancers, delivering equivalent dosimetric radiation but with the benefit of improved sparing of OAR. This review compares dosimetric irradiation of OAR and oncological outcomes for PBT versus conventional photon-based radiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer.
METHODS
An electronic literature search was performed for studies with comparative cohorts receiving proton beam therapy and photon-based radiotherapy for rectal cancer.
RESULTS
Eight articles with a total of 127 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was significantly less irradiated small bowel with PBT compared to three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) (MD -17.01, CI [-24.06, -9.96], p < 0.00001 and MD -6.96, CI [-12.99, -0.94], p = 0.02, respectively). Similar dosimetric results were observed for bladder and pelvic bone marrow. Three studies reported clinical and oncological results for PBT in recurrent rectal cancer with overall survival reported as 43 %, 68 % and 77.2 %, and one study in primary rectal cancer with 100 % disease free survival.
CONCLUSION
PBT treatment plans revealed significantly less irradiation of OAR for rectal cancer compared to conventional photon-based radiotherapy. Trials for recurrent rectal cancer and PBT have shown promising results. There are currently no ongoing clinical trials for primary rectal cancer and PBT. More research is required to validate its potential role in dose escalation, higher complete response rate and organ preservation without increasing toxicity.
Topics: Humans; Proton Therapy; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated; Rectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 34340196
DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2021.101638 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Dec 2014Choroidal metastases (CM) are the most common malignant intraocular lesion observed in up to 4-12% of necropsy series of patients with solid cancer. The spectrum of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Choroidal metastases (CM) are the most common malignant intraocular lesion observed in up to 4-12% of necropsy series of patients with solid cancer. The spectrum of presentations varies from prevalent CM in disseminated cancer to isolated CM. CM are responsible for visual deterioration. Depending on the primary cancer, estimated life expectancy, overall cancer presentation and ocular symptoms, the management of CM varies widely. We address the multidisciplinary management of CM and technical aspects of radiotherapy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review of literature was performed from 1974 to 2014.
RESULTS
Choroidal metastases occur preferentially in breast and lung carcinomas but are reported in all cancer types. The standard treatment remains external beam radiotherapy, applying 30Gy in 10 fractions or 40Gy in 20 fractions. The reported complete response and improved visual acuity rates are 80% and 57% to 89%, respectively. Some chemotherapy or new targeted therapy regimens yield promising CM response rates.
DISCUSSION
Radiation therapy consistently shows rapid symptom alleviation, yield excellent local control and functional outcomes. However, there are only few reports on late toxicities after 6months given the unfavorable prognostic of CM patients. Selected patients may live more than two years, underlying the need to better assess mean and long term outcomes. Some authors have favored exclusive systemic strategies with omission of irradiation. The current literature suffers from the scarcity of prospective trials. Duration of tumor response following systemic therapy is rarely reported but appears less favorable as compared to radiotherapy. Systemic treatments may be proposed for pauci-symptomatic CM in a polymetastatic context while radiation therapy remains necessary in symptomatic CM either upfront or as an alternating treatment. Focalized radiation like brachytherapy and proton therapy may be proposed for isolated CM with long disease-free interval between primary and CM, as these techniques have the potential to yield better tumor and functional outcomes in patients with long life expectancy.
Topics: Brachytherapy; Choroid Neoplasms; Combined Modality Therapy; Fluorescein Angiography; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Microscopy, Acoustic; Ophthalmoscopy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25451606
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2014.09.006 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Sep 2017To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) therapy and the risk of infection (CDI). METHODS We conducted a systematic search of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) therapy and the risk of infection (CDI). METHODS We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed and seven other databases through January 1990 to March 2017 for published studies that evaluated the association between PPIs and CDI. Adult case-control and cohort studies providing information on the association between PPI therapy and the development of CDI were included. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random effect. Heterogeneity was assessed by test and Cochran's statistic. Potential publication bias was evaluated funnel plot, and quality of studies by the Newcastle-Otawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS).
RESULTS
Fifty-six studies (40 case-control and 16 cohort) involving 356683 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Both the overall pooled estimates and subgroup analyses showed increased risk for CDI despite substantial statistical heterogeneity among studies. Meta-analysis of all studies combined showed a significant association between PPI users and the risk of CDI (pooled OR = 1.99, CI: 1.73-2.30, < 0.001) as compared with non-users. The association remained significant in subgroup analyses: by design-case-control (OR = 2.00, CI: 1.68-2.38, < 0.0001), and cohort (OR = 1.98, CI: 1.51-2.59, < 0.0001); adjusted (OR = 1.95, CI: 1.67-2.27, < 0.0001) and unadjusted (OR = 2.02, CI: 1.41-2.91, 0.0001); unicenter (OR = 2.18, CI: 1.72-2.75, 0.0001) and multicenter (OR = 1.82, CI: 1.51-2.19, P < 0.0001); age ≥ 65 years (OR = 1.93, CI: 1.40-2.68, 0.0001) and < 65 years (OR = 2.06, CI: 1.11-3.81, 0.01). No significant differences were found in subgroup analyses (test for heterogeneity): 0.93 for case-control cohort, 0.85 for adjusted unadjusted, 0.24 for unicenter multicenter, 0.86 for age ≥ 65 years and < 65 years. There was significant heterogeneity across studies ( = 85.4%, 0.001) as well as evidence of publication bias (funnel plot asymmetry test, 0.002).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis provides further evidence that PPI use is associated with an increased risk for development of CDI. Further high-quality, prospective studies are needed to assess whether this association is causal.
Topics: Adult; Clostridioides difficile; Clostridium Infections; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Incidence; Prospective Studies; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29085200
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i35.6500 -
Clinical and Translational Radiation... Nov 2022A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to better understand the benefits of particle beam therapy for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) treatment. The survival... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to better understand the benefits of particle beam therapy for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) treatment. The survival outcomes and toxicity of primary and recurrent NPC patients treated with proton or carbon ion beam therapy were investigated.
METHOD
PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched between 1 January 2007 to 3 November 2021. The inclusion and exclusion criteria included studies with either primary or recurrent NPC patients, sample size of ≥10 patients, and proton or carbon ion beam therapy as interventions. Twenty-six eligible studies with a total of 1502 patients were included. We used a random-effect meta-analysis to examine the impact of particle beam therapy on primary NPC patients and qualitatively described the results among recurrent patients. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), while secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), local control (LC) and toxicity.
RESULTS
The pooled OS at 1-year, 2-year and 3-year and 5-year for primary NPC patients who received particle beam therapy were 96 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) = 92 %-98 %), 93 % (95 % CI = 83 %-97 %), 90 % (95 % CI = 73 %-97 %) and 73 % (95 % CI = 52 %-87 %) respectively. The pooled 1-year and 2-year PFS, and LC for these patients were above 90 %. For locally recurrent NPC patients, the 1-year OS rate ranged from 65 % to 92 %, while the 1-year LC rate ranged from 80 % to 88 %. Both proton and carbon ion beam therapy were generally safe among primary and recurrent patients, with ≥G3 late toxicity rates of 20 % or less. Approximately a 5 % mortality rate was reported among recurrent patients.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated particle beam therapy has great potential in treating NPC, yielding excellent survival outcomes with low toxicity. However, further investigations are needed to assess the long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of this newer form of radiotherapy.
PubMed: 36065359
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2022.08.011 -
Digestion 2023Vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, has a strong acid suppression effect and potent efficacy in acid-associated diseases, including Helicobacter... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, has a strong acid suppression effect and potent efficacy in acid-associated diseases, including Helicobacter pylori eradication. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy for H. pylori eradication.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search through PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to June 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy and triple therapies for H. pylori eradication. Primary outcomes were cure rates and relative efficacy. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, dropout rate, and subgroup analysis.
RESULTS
Five studies with 1,852 patients were included in the analysis. The cure rates of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy were 85.6% with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 79.7-91.5% and 88.5% (95% CI: 83.2-93.8%) in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. The efficacy of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy was not inferior to that of triple therapy with pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.03 (95% CI: 0.97-1.10) and 1.02 (95% CI: 0.98-1.08) in intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses; while it was significantly superior to the omeprazole or lansoprazole-based triple therapy (RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.05-1.25, p = 0.001). For clarithromycin-resistant strains, vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy showed superiority to vonoprazan-based triple therapy (86.7% vs. 71.4%, RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.39, p = 0.02); however, vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy was significant inferior to vonoprazan-based triple therapy for clarithromycin-sensitive strains (83.0% vs. 92.8%, RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.85-0.95, p = 0.0002). The adverse effects of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy were lower than those of triple therapy (21.2% vs. 26.5%, RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.73-1.01, p = 0.06), especially the incidence of diarrhea (p = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy is noninferior to vonoprazan-based triple therapy but superior to the omeprazole or lansoprazole-based triple therapy and has less side effects. Patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains are particularly expected to benefit from vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy.
Topics: Humans; Amoxicillin; Clarithromycin; Helicobacter pylori; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Helicobacter Infections; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Pyrroles; Lansoprazole; Omeprazole; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37015201
DOI: 10.1159/000529622 -
Journal of Digestive Diseases Aug 2015We designed this systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to clarify the advantage of steroid therapy compared with non-steroid therapy for the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
We designed this systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to clarify the advantage of steroid therapy compared with non-steroid therapy for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, ISI Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing steroid and non-steroid therapy, and retrospective and prospective trials on steroid therapy for EoE. RevMan 5.2 was used for the analysis. Weighted mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated and pooled using meta-analysis methods.
RESULTS
Six RCTs including 193 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis, and another two RCTs, three prospective and five retrospective trials were included in systematic review. Meta-analysis showed that topical steroids significantly decreased the mean and peak esophageal eosinophils (EOS) count compared to non-steroid therapy (MDmean = -23.41, 95% CImean -42.08--4.73, P = 0.01 and MDpeak = -51.27, 95% CIpeak -78.62--23.92, P = 0.0002). There were 14 trials showing the efficacy of steroids on decreasing the EOS count, 10 showing the amelioration of symptoms, and five showing endoscopic improvement. Only mild adverse events were reported for topical steroids.
CONCLUSIONS
Steroids are effective on decreasing the EOS count in EoE patients. Its value in ameliorating symptoms and endoscopic changes remains undetermined due to the lack of comparable criteria.
Topics: Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Eosinophils; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Leukocyte Count; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 26058809
DOI: 10.1111/1751-2980.12265