-
Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics &... Nov 2019Follow-up of the side effects of uterotonics used for postpartum hemorrhage is one of the most important roles of health care providers. In this review, it is aimed to...
Follow-up of the side effects of uterotonics used for postpartum hemorrhage is one of the most important roles of health care providers. In this review, it is aimed to compare the side effects of misoprostol and oxytocin that are used to prevent postpartum hemorrhage. This systematic review was carried out in accordance with the guidelines for the Center for Reviews and Dissemination 2009 (CRD). Articles published in the PubMed, CINAHL, Wiley Interscience, Science Direct and Cochrane databases between 2010 and 2016 were examined. Finally, although 2277 articles were found to be related to misoprostol and oxytocin, only 12 randomized controlled (n = 6290) articles were included in the review. Results: In the misoprostol group, the rate of >500 mL blood loss was lower than that in the oxytocin group (p < 0.05). The groups were similar in terms of ≥500 mL blood loss were similar (p > 0.05). Although misoprostol was more effective than oxytocin in preventing PPH, the side effects of misoprostol were more. The incidence of drug-induced shivering, nausea and increase in body temperature were significantly higher in the misoprostol group than the oxytocin and placebo groups (p < 0.05). Shivering was most frequently seen in the 600 mg of sublingual misoprostol group (56.4%). Severe side effects of uterotonics used to prevent postpartum hemorrhage on maternal health were determined. Nurses and midwives should be aware of the side effects of uterotonic drugs and should develop care guidelines that explain the interventions to be performed in case of side effects.
Topics: Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Administration Routes; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Maternal Health; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy
PubMed: 31759522
DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2019.09.004 -
PloS One 2020Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the impact of pharmacy-supported interventions on the proportion of patients discharged from the hospital on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Impact of pharmacy-supported interventions on proportion of patients receiving non-indicated acid suppressive therapy upon discharge: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the impact of pharmacy-supported interventions on the proportion of patients discharged from the hospital on inappropriate acid suppressive therapy (AST).
METHODS
To identify studies, the following databases were systematically searched on October 14th, 2018 and repeated on September 12th, 2019: Ovid MEDLINE(R) and In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Embase.com, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL (EBSCO), and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible studies consisted of adults, intervention and historical/usual care groups, description of active pharmacy-supported intervention, and proportion of patients discharged on inappropriate AST. Qualitative assessments and quantitative analyses were performed. Modified funnel plot analysis assessed heterogeneity. Preferred reporting items of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) methodology was used to evaluate studies in this review.
RESULTS
Seventeen publications resulting in 16 studies were included in the review. Using random effects model, meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in the odds of being discharged on inappropriate AST from the hospital in the pharmacist-supported intervention arm versus comparator (Odds Ratio 0.33 [95%CI 0.20 to 0.53]), with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 86%). Eleven studies favored pharmacy-supported interventions, four were inconclusive and one favored usual care. Using modified funnel plot analysis, our final evaluation was distilled to 11 studies and revealed a similar outcome (OR 0.36 [95%CI 0.27 to 0.48]), but with less heterogeneity (I2 = 36%).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that pharmacy-supported interventions were associated with a significantly reduced probability of patients discharged on inappropriate AST. However, heterogeneity was high and may affect interpretation of results. Using funnel plot optimization method, three positive and two negative studies were objectively removed from analyses, resulting in a similar effect size, but with less heterogeneity. To improve study quality, future researchers should consider utilizing a pre-post, multi-arm, prospective design with sampling randomization, training of data extractors (preferably two extractors), re-evaluating a small dataset to check for agreement and providing a comprehensive methodology in subsequent publications.
Topics: Antacids; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Patient Discharge; Pharmacies; Pharmacists; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 33270710
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243134 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Asthma and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) are common medical conditions that frequently co-exist. GORD has been postulated as a trigger for asthma; however,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Asthma and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) are common medical conditions that frequently co-exist. GORD has been postulated as a trigger for asthma; however, evidence remains conflicting. Proposed mechanisms by which GORD causes asthma include direct airway irritation from micro-aspiration and vagally mediated oesophagobronchial reflux. Furthermore, asthma might precipitate GORD. Thus a temporal association between the two does not establish that GORD triggers asthma.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of GORD treatment in adults and children with asthma, in terms of its benefits for asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles, and online clinical trial databases were searched. The most recent search was conducted on 23 June 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing treatment of GORD in adults and children with a diagnosis of both asthma and GORD versus no treatment or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A combination of two independent review authors extracted study data and assessed trial quality. The primary outcome of interest for this review was acute asthma exacerbation as reported by trialists.
MAIN RESULTS
The systematic search yielded a total of 3354 citations; 23 studies (n = 2872 participants) were suitable for inclusion. Included studies reported data from participants in 25 different countries across Europe, North and South America, Asia, Australia, and the Middle East. Participants included in this review had moderate to severe asthma and a diagnosis of GORD and were predominantly adults presenting to a clinic for treatment. Only two studies assessed effects of intervention on children, and two assessed the impact of surgical intervention. The remainder were concerned with medical intervention using a variety of dosing protocols. There was an uncertain reduction in the number of participants experiencing one or more moderate/severe asthma exacerbations with medical treatment for GORD (odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.63; 1168 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported data related to the other primary outcomes for this review: hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and unscheduled doctor visits. Medical treatment for GORD probably improved forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) by a small amount (mean difference (MD) 0.10 L, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.15; 1333 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) as well as use of rescue medications (MD -0.71 puffs per day, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.22; 239 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the benefit of GORD treatment for morning peak expiratory flow rate was uncertain (MD 6.02 L/min, 95% CI 0.56 to 11.47; 1262 participants, 5 studies). It is important to note that these mean improvements did not reach clinical importance. The benefit of GORD treatment for outcomes synthesised narratively including benefits of treatment for asthma symptoms, quality of life, and treatment preference was likewise uncertain. Data related to adverse events with intervention were generally underreported by the included studies, and those that were available indicated similar rates regardless of allocation to treatment or placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Effects of GORD treatment on the primary outcomes of number of people experiencing one or more exacerbations and hospital utilisation remain uncertain. Medical treatment for GORD in people with asthma may provide small benefit for a number of secondary outcomes related to asthma management. This review determined with moderate certainty that with treatment, lung function measures improved slightly, and use of rescue medications for asthma control was reduced. Further, evidence is insufficient to assess results in children, or to compare surgery versus medical therapy.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Child; Cisapride; Disease Progression; Forced Expiratory Volume; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Peak Expiratory Flow Rate; Placebos; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33998673
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001496.pub2 -
PloS One 2021Famotidine is a competitive histamine H2-receptor antagonist most commonly used for gastric acid suppression but thought to have potential efficacy in treating patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Famotidine is a competitive histamine H2-receptor antagonist most commonly used for gastric acid suppression but thought to have potential efficacy in treating patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to summarize the current literature and report clinical outcomes on the use of famotidine for treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
Five databases were searched through February 12, 2021 to identify observational studies that reported on associations of famotidine use with outcomes in COVID-19. Meta-analysis was conducted for composite primary clinical outcome (e.g. rate of death, intubation, or intensive care unit admissions) and death separately, where either aggregate odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) was calculated.
RESULTS
Four studies, reporting on 46,435 total patients and 3,110 patients treated with famotidine, were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant association between famotidine use and composite outcomes in patients with COVID-19: HR 0.63 (95% CI: 0.35, 1.16). Across the three studies that reported mortality separated from other endpoints, there was no association between famotidine use during hospitalization and risk of death-HR 0.67 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.73) and OR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.19, 3.34). Heterogeneity ranged from 83.69% to 88.07%.
CONCLUSION
Based on the existing observational studies, famotidine use is not associated with a reduced risk of mortality or combined outcome of mortality, intubation, and/or intensive care services in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19, though heterogeneity was high, and point estimates suggested a possible protective effect for the composite outcome that may not have been observed due to lack of power. Further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may help determine the efficacy and safety of famotidine as a treatment for COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Data Management; Famotidine; Female; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Hospitalization; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Odds Ratio; Proportional Hazards Models; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34735523
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259514 -
International Wound Journal Feb 2023Pain and wound after haemorrhoidectomy constantly bothered the patient's convenience. Recurrently, topical sucralfate is used to treat excoriations and burns. It is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy of topical sucralfate in improving pain and wound healing after haemorrhoidectomy procedure: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomised clinical trials.
Pain and wound after haemorrhoidectomy constantly bothered the patient's convenience. Recurrently, topical sucralfate is used to treat excoriations and burns. It is considered to enhance epidermal growth and tissue granulation, thus, alleviating patients' problems. This study evaluated topical sucralfate's feasibility, safety, and superiority after haemorrhoidectomy. We searched randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies in PubMed, Google Scholar, Europe PMC, and ClinicalTrials.gov until March 29th, 2022. We investigated the influence of topical sucralfate on pain score postoperatively (24 hours, 7 days, and 14 days), pethidine usage, diclofenac usage, and wound healing rate compared to placebo. This study was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. This study sorted the final six studies with 439 patients underwent haemorrhoidectomy. Topical sucralfate demonstrated significant outcomes on VAS 24 hours post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.00 (95% CI -1.70, -0.31), P = .005], VAS 7 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -2.29 (95% CI -3.34, -1.25), P < .0001], VAS 14 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.88 (95% CI -2.74, -1.01), P < .0001], pethidine usage within 24 hours post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -0.62 (95% CI -0.96, -0.27), P = .0004], diclofenac usage 7 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.76 (95% CI -2.61, -0.92), P < .0001], diclofenac usage 14 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.64 (95% CI -2.38, -0.91), P < .0001], and wound healing rate at 28-day post-operative [RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.25-1.68), P < .00001]. Topical sucralfate alleviated pain, improved wound healing, and minimised the usage of pethidine and diclofenac compared to placebo.
Topics: Humans; Diclofenac; Hemorrhoidectomy; Meperidine; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sucralfate; Wound Healing
PubMed: 35864080
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13901 -
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Apr 2022Globally, access to safe abortion is limited. We aimed to assess the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of harm reduction counselling for abortion, which we define... (Review)
Review
Reducing the harms of unsafe abortion: a systematic review of the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of harm reduction counselling for pregnant persons seeking induced abortion.
BACKGROUND
Globally, access to safe abortion is limited. We aimed to assess the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of harm reduction counselling for abortion, which we define as the provision of information about safe abortion methods to pregnant persons seeking abortion.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, Global Index Medicus and the grey literature up to October 2021. We included studies in which healthcare providers gave pregnant persons information on safe use of abortifacient medications without providing the actual medications. We conducted a descriptive summary of results and a risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-I tool. Our primary outcome was the proportion of pregnant persons who used misoprostol to induce abortion rather than other methods among those who received harm reduction counselling.
RESULTS
We included four observational studies with a total of 4002 participants. Most pregnant persons who received harm reduction counselling induced abortion using misoprostol (79%-100%). Serious complication rates were low (0%-1%). Uterine aspiration rates were not always reported but were in the range of 6%-22%. Patient satisfaction with the harm reduction intervention was high (85%-98%) where reported. We rated the risk of bias for all studies as high due to a lack of comparison groups and high lost to follow-up rates.
DISCUSSION
Based on a synthesis of four studies with serious methodological limitations, most recipients of harm reduction counselling use misoprostol for abortion, have low complication rates, and are satisfied with the intervention. More research is needed to determine abortion success outcomes from the harm reduction approach.
FUNDING
This work did not receive any funding.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
We registered the review in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (ID number: CRD42020200849).
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Counseling; Female; Harm Reduction; Humans; Misoprostol; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35017226
DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2021-201389 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Jan 2019To summarize available data on the effectiveness and safety of single-agent misoprostol for medical abortion in the first trimester.
OBJECTIVE
To summarize available data on the effectiveness and safety of single-agent misoprostol for medical abortion in the first trimester.
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE, CABI, Cochrane, EMBASE, LILACS, the Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for English-language studies that evaluated misoprostol alone for abortion of a viable pregnancy in the first trimester.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Our search yielded 1,562 citations, of which 38 included data from 53 trial groups that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
We abstracted data about each trial group, including study characteristics, treatment regimen, clinical protocol, number of women treated and followed, and numbers with outcomes of interest. We used meta-analytic methods and logistic regression to examine factors associated with surgical intervention after treatment. Among all 12,829 evaluable women, 2,536 (meta-analytic estimate 22.0%, 95% CI 18.8-25.5%) had surgical uterine evacuation. Multiple factors were significantly associated with this proportion, including misoprostol amount per dose and route of administration, loss to follow-up rate, publication date, geographic region, number of misoprostol doses, duration of dosing, and time between dosing and evaluation. Of 6,359 evaluable women, 384 (meta-analytic estimate 6.8%, 95% CI 5.3-8.5%) had ongoing pregnancies. At most 26 of 12,184 evaluable women (meta-analytic estimate 0.7%, 95% CI 0.4-1.0%) were transfused or hospitalized for abortion-related reasons. In trials that provided satisfaction data, most women were satisfied or very satisfied with the treatment (meta-analytic estimate 78%, 95% CI 71-85%).
CONCLUSIONS
Misoprostol alone is effective and safe and is a reasonable option for women seeking abortion in the first trimester. Research is indicated to further refine the regimen and to establish efficacy in the late first trimester.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, CRD42018083589.
Topics: Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal; Abortion, Induced; Female; Humans; Misoprostol; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30531568
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003017 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common and progressive disease characterised by chronic cough, airflow limitation and recurrent exacerbations. Since...
BACKGROUND
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common and progressive disease characterised by chronic cough, airflow limitation and recurrent exacerbations. Since COPD exacerbations are linked to rising mortality and reduced quality of life, the condition poses a substantial burden on individuals, society and the healthcare system. Effective management of COPD exacerbations that includes treatment of related conditions in people with COPD is thus recognised as a relevant clinical question and an important research topic. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a known comorbidity of COPD, and pulmonary microaspiration of gastric acid is thought to be a possible cause of COPD exacerbations. Therefore, reducing gastric acid secretion may lead to a reduction in COPD exacerbations. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most commonly prescribed medications and are recommended as first-line therapy for people with GERD because of their inhibitory effects on gastric acid secretion. Treatment with PPIs may present a viable treatment option for people with COPD.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PPI administration for people with COPD, focusing on COPD-specific outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials and conventional clinical trial registers from inception to 22 May 2020. We also screened bibliographies of relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Parallel-group and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral PPIs versus placebo, usual care or low-dose PPIs in adults with COPD were eligible for inclusion. We excluded cross-over RCTs, as well as studies with a duration of less than two months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent review authors screened search results, selected studies for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias according to standard Cochrane methodology. We resolved discrepancies by involving a third review author. Primary outcomes of interest were COPD exacerbations, pneumonia and other serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, lung function test indices, acute respiratory infections and disease-specific adverse events. We extracted data on these outcome measures and entered into them into Review Manager software for analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
The search identified 99 records, and we included one multicentre RCT that randomised 103 adults with COPD. The 12-month RCT compared an oral PPI (lansoprazole) and usual care versus usual care alone. It was conducted at one tertiary care hospital and three secondary care hospitals in Japan. This study recruited participants with a mean age of 75 years, and excluded people with symptoms or history of GERD. No placebo was used in the usual care arm. Among the primary and secondary outcomes of this review, the study only reported data on COPD exacerbations and acute respiratory infections (the common cold). As we only included one study, we could not conduct a meta-analysis. The included study reported that 12 of the 50 people on lansoprazole had at least one exacerbation over a year, compared to 26 out of 50 on usual care (risk ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.81). The frequency of COPD exacerbations per person in a year was also lower in the PPI plus usual care group than in the usual care alone group(0.34 ± 0.72 vs 1.18 ± 1.40; P < 0.001). The number of people with at least one cold over the year was similar in both groups: 26 people on lansoprazole and 27 people in the usual care group. We judged the evidence to be of low to very low certainty, according to GRADE criteria. The study reported no data on pneumonia and other serious adverse events, quality of life, lung function test indices or disease-specific adverse events. The risk of bias was largely low or unclear for the majority of domains, though the performance bias was a high risk, as the study was not blinded.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence identified by this review is insufficient to determine whether treatment with PPIs is a potential option for COPD. The sample size of the included trial is small, and the evidence is low to very low-certainty. The efficacy and safety profile of PPIs for people with COPD remains uncertain. Future large-scale, high-quality studies are warranted, which investigate major clinical outcomes such as COPD exacerbation rate, serious adverse events and quality of life.
Topics: Aged; Disease Progression; Humans; Lansoprazole; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Tract Infections
PubMed: 32844430
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013113.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Gastric cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide. Individuals infected with Helicobacter pylori have a higher likelihood of developing gastric... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Gastric cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide. Individuals infected with Helicobacter pylori have a higher likelihood of developing gastric cancer than individuals who are not infected. Eradication of H. pylori in healthy asymptomatic individuals in the general population may reduce the incidence of gastric cancer, but the magnitude of this effect is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of eradication of H. pylori in healthy asymptomatic individuals in the general population in reducing the incidence of gastric cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified trials by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February 2020), and EMBASE (1974 to February 2020). We handsearched reference lists from trials selected by electronic searching to identify further relevant trials. We handsearched published abstracts from conference proceedings from the United European Gastroenterology Week (published in Gut) and Digestive Disease Week (published in Gastroenterology) between 2001 and 2019. We contacted members of the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Review Group and experts in the field and asked them to provide details of outstanding clinical trials and any relevant unpublished materials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We analysed randomised controlled trials comparing at least one week of H. pylori therapy with placebo or no treatment in preventing subsequent development of gastric cancer in otherwise healthy and asymptomatic H. pylori-positive adults. Trials had to follow up participants for at least two years and needed to have at least two participants with gastric cancer as an outcome. We defined gastric cancer as any gastric adenocarcinoma, including intestinal (differentiated) or diffuse (undifferentiated) type, with or without specified histology.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We collected data on incidence of gastric cancer, incidence of oesophageal cancer, deaths from gastric cancer, deaths from any cause, and adverse effects arising due to therapy.
MAIN RESULTS
Six trials met all our eligibility criteria and provided extractable data in the previous version. Following our updated search, one new RCT was identified, meaning that seven trials were included in this updated review. In addition, one previously included trial provided fully published data out to 10 years, and another previously included trial provided fully published data out to 22 years of follow-up. Four trials were at low risk of bias, one trial was at unclear risk, and two trials were at high risk of bias. Six trials were conducted in Asian populations. In preventing development of subsequent gastric cancer, H. pylori eradication therapy was superior to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.72, 7 trials, 8323 participants, moderate certainty evidence). Only two trials reported the effect of eradication of H. pylori on the development of subsequent oesophageal cancer. Sixteen (0.8%) of 1947 participants assigned to eradication therapy subsequently developed oesophageal cancer compared with 13 (0.7%) of 1941 participants allocated to placebo (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.54, moderate certainty evidence). H. pylori eradication reduced mortality from gastric cancer compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92, 4 trials, 6301 participants, moderate certainty evidence). There was little or no evidence in all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.12, 5 trials, 7079 participants, moderate certainty evidence). Adverse events data were poorly reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found moderate certainty evidence that searching for and eradicating H. pylori reduces the incidence of gastric cancer and death from gastric cancer in healthy asymptomatic infected Asian individuals, but we cannot necessarily extrapolate this data to other populations.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Asymptomatic Infections; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Drug Therapy, Combination; Esophageal Neoplasms; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Incidence; Precancerous Conditions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 32628791
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005583.pub3 -
Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology :... 2020Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) is a benign, poorly understood disorder that is difficult to manage. Medical interventions such as sucralfate, sulfasalzine, human... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/AIM
Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) is a benign, poorly understood disorder that is difficult to manage. Medical interventions such as sucralfate, sulfasalzine, human fibrin, and a high fibre diet are reported as the first line of treatment. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of medical treatments for SRUS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were searched for randomised clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies that evaluated medical treatments for SRUS. Two authors independently performed selection of eligible studies based on eligiblity criteria. Data extraction from potentially eligible studies was carried out according to predefined data collection methods. Medical treatments, including sucralfate, sulfasalzine, human fibrin, a high fibre diet, and psyllium powder as a single or combination therapy were compared to placebo alone or combined with other treatments. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with ulcer remission; this was presented as pooled prevalence (PP) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The I value and Q statistic test were used to test for heterogeneity. In the presence of heterogeneity, a random-effects model was applied.
RESULTS
A total of 9 studies with 216 patients (males = 118, females = 98) diagnosed with SRUS were analysed in the final meta-analysis. The pooled effect estimate of treatment efficacy revealed that, of the patients receiving medical treatment, 57% had resolution of their ulcers (PP 0.57; 95% CI; 0.41 to 0.73). Statistically significant heterogeneity was observed (I = 63%; τ2 = 0.64, P= <0.01). The scarcity of RCTs comparing medical treatments with other interventions was a major limitation.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of patients receiving medical treatment for the management of SRUS experience resolution of their ulcers.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Case-Control Studies; Cathartics; Child; Disease Management; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fibrin Tissue Adhesive; Gastrointestinal Agents; Hemostatics; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Placebos; Prevalence; Psyllium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Diseases; Sucralfate; Sulfasalazine; Treatment Outcome; Ulcer; Young Adult
PubMed: 31898642
DOI: 10.4103/sjg.SJG_213_19