-
Journal of Infection in Developing... Jul 2015The varieties of infections caused by Helicobacter pylori may be due to differences in bacterial genotypes and virulence factors as well as environmental and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The varieties of infections caused by Helicobacter pylori may be due to differences in bacterial genotypes and virulence factors as well as environmental and host-related factors. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of cagA and vacA genes among H. pylori-infected patients in Iran and analyze their relevance to the disease status between two clinical groups via a meta-analysis method. Different databases including PubMed, ISI, Scopus, SID, Magiran, Science Direct, and Medlib were investigated, and 23 relevant articles from the period between 2001 and 2012 were finally analyzed. The relevant data obtained from these papers were analyzed by a random-effects model. Data were analyzed using R software and STATA. The prevalence of cagA and vacA genes among H. pylori-infected patients was 70% (95% CI, 64-75) and 41% (95% CI, 24.3-57.7), respectively. The prevalence of duodenal ulcers, peptic ulcers, and gastritis among cagA+ individuals was 53% (95% CI, 20-86), 65% (95% CI, 34-97), and 71% (95% CI, 59-84), respectively. Odds ratio (OR) between cagA-positive compared with cagA-negative patients showed a 1.89 (95% CI, 1.38-2.57) risk of ulcers. In conclusion, the frequency of cagA gene among H. pylori strains is elevated in Iran and it seems to be more frequently associated with gastritis. Therefore, any information about cagA and vacA prevalence among different H. pylori-infected clinical groups in the country can help public health authorities to plan preventive policies to reduce the prevalence of diseases associated with H. pylori infection.
Topics: Antigens, Bacterial; Bacterial Proteins; Gastritis; Genotype; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Iran; Peptic Ulcer; Prevalence
PubMed: 26230117
DOI: 10.3855/jidc.5970 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jul 2019Gastroduodenal disease (GDD) was initially thought to be uncommon in Africa. Amongst others, lack of access to optimal health infrastructure and suspicion of...
Gastroduodenal disease (GDD) was initially thought to be uncommon in Africa. Amongst others, lack of access to optimal health infrastructure and suspicion of conventional medicine resulted in the reported prevalence of GDD being significantly lower than that in other areas of the world. Following the increasing availability of flexible upper gastro-intestinal endoscopy, it has now become apparent that GDD, especially peptic ulcer disease (PUD), is prevalent across the continent of Africa. Recognised risk factors for gastric cancer (GCA) include (), diet, Epstein-Barr virus infection and industrial chemical exposure, while those for PUD are , non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-use, smoking and alcohol consumption. Of these, is generally accepted to be causally related to the development of atrophic gastritis (AG), intestinal metaplasia (IM), PUD and distal GCA. Here, we perform a systematic review of the patterns of GDD across Africa obtained with endoscopy, and complement the analysis with new data obtained on pre-malignant gastric his-topathological lesions in Accra, Ghana which was compared with previous data from Maputo, Mozambique. As there is a general lack of structured cohort studies in Africa, we also considered endoscopy-based hospital or tertiary centre studies of symptomatic individuals. In Africa, there is considerable heterogeneity in the prevalence of PUD with no clear geographical patterns. Furthermore, there are differences in PUD within-country despite universally endemic infection. PUD is not uncommon in Africa. Most of the African tertiary-centre studies had higher prevalence of PUD when compared with similar studies in western countries. An additional intriguing observation is a recent, ongoing decline in PUD in some African countries where infection is still high. One possible reason for the high, sustained prevalence of PUD may be the significant use of NSAIDs in local or over-the-counter preparations. The prevalence of AG and IM, were similar or modestly higher over rates in western countries but lower than those seen in Asia. . In our new data, sampling of 136 patients in Accra detected evidence of pre-malignant lesions (AG and/or IM) in 20 individuals (14.7%). Likewise, the prevalence of pre-malignant lesions, in a sample of 109 patients from Maputo, were 8.3% AG and 8.3% IM. While H. pylori is endemic in Africa, the observed prevalence for GCA is rather low. However, cancer data is drawn from country cancer registries that are not comprehensive due to considerable variation in the availability of efficient local cancer reporting systems, diagnostic health facilities and expertise. Validation of cases and their source as well as specificity of outcome definitions are not explicit in most studies further contributing to uncertainty about the precise incidence rates of GCA on the continent. We conclude that evidence is still lacking to support (or not) the African enigma theory due to inconsistencies in the data that indicate a particularly low incidence of GDD in African countries.
Topics: Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Gastric Mucosa; Gastritis, Atrophic; Ghana; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Incidence; Intestinal Mucosa; Metaplasia; Peptic Ulcer; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 31341360
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i26.3344 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2018Short-term use of standard-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is the first-line initial non-eradication treatment for duodenal ulcer (DU), but the choice on individual...
Standard-Dose Proton Pump Inhibitors in the Initial Non-eradication Treatment of Duodenal Ulcer: Systematic Review, Network Meta-Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Short-term use of standard-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is the first-line initial non-eradication treatment for duodenal ulcer (DU), but the choice on individual PPI drug is still controversial. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of standard-dose PPI medications in the initial non-eradication treatment of DU. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, and the Wanfang database from their earliest records to September 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating omeprazole (20 mg/day), pantoprazole (40 mg/day), lansoprazole (30 mg/day), rabeprazole (20 mg/day), ilaprazole (10 mg/day), ranitidine (300 mg/day), famotidine (40 mg/day), or placebo for DU were included. The outcomes were 4-week ulcer healing rate (4-UHR) and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). A network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Bayesian random effects model was conducted, and a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision tree was performed from the payer's perspective over 1 year. A total of 62 RCTs involving 10,339 participants (eight interventions) were included. The NMA showed that all the PPIs significantly increased the 4-UHR compared to H receptor antagonists (HRA) and placebo, while there was no significant difference for 4-UHR among PPIs. As to the incidence of AEs, no significant difference was observed among PPIs, HRA, and placebo during 4-week follow-up. Based on the costs of both PPIs and management of AEs in China, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year (in US dollars) for pantoprazole, lansoprazole, rabeprazole, and ilaprazole compared to omeprazole corresponded to $5134.67, $17801.67, $25488.31, and $44572.22, respectively. Although the efficacy and tolerance of different PPIs are similar in the initial non-eradication treatment of DU, pantoprazole (40 mg/day) seems to be the most cost-effective option in China.
PubMed: 30666204
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2018.01512 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Oct 2014Peptic ulcer disease continues to be issue especially due to its high prevalence in the developing world. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection associated duodenal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Peptic ulcer disease continues to be issue especially due to its high prevalence in the developing world. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection associated duodenal ulcers should undergo eradication therapy. There are many regimens offered for H. pylori eradication which include triple, quadruple, or sequential therapy regimens. The central aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence for H. pylori therapy from a meta-analytical outlook. The consequence of the dose, type of proton-pump inhibitor, and the length of the treatment will be debated. The most important risk factor for eradication failure is resistance to clarithromycin and metronidazole.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chi-Square Distribution; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Odds Ratio; Peptic Ulcer; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25356018
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i40.14527 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether a second procedure improves haemostatic efficacy or patient outcomes or both after epinephrine injection in adults with high-risk bleeding ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
For our update in 2014, we searched the following versions of these databases, limited from June 2009 to May 2014: Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to May Week 2 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily Update May 22, 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations May 22, 2014 (Appendix 1); Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews-the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) April 2014 (Appendix 2); and EMBASE 1980 to Week 20 2014 (Appendix 3).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing epinephrine alone versus epinephrine plus a second method. Populations consisted of patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers, that is, patients with haemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease (gastric or duodenal) with major stigmata of bleeding as defined by Forrest classification Ia (spurting haemorrhage), Ib (oozing haemorrhage), IIa (non-bleeding visible vessel) and IIb (adherent clot) (Forrest Ia-Ib-IIa-IIb).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model; risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented for dichotomous data.
MAIN RESULTS
Nineteen studies of 2033 initially randomly assigned participants were included, of which 11 used a second injected agent, five used a mechanical method (haemoclips) and three employed thermal methods.The risk of further bleeding after initial haemostasis was lower in the combination therapy groups than in the epinephrine alone group, regardless of which second procedure was applied (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81). Adding any second procedure significantly reduced the overall bleeding rate (persistent and recurrent bleeding) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). Mortality rates were not significantly different when either method was applied.Rebleeding in the 10 studies that scheduled a reendoscopy showed no difference between epinephrine and combined therapy; without second-look endoscopy, a statistically significant difference was observed between epinephrine and epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, with fewer participants rebleeding in the combined therapy group (nine studies) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.48).For ulcers of the Forrest Ia or Ib type (oozing or spurting), the addition of a second therapy significantly reduced the rebleeding rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.88); this difference was not seen for type IIa (visible vessel) or type IIb (adherent clot) ulcers. Few procedure-related adverse effects were reported, and this finding was not statistically significantly different between groups. Few adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant difference was noted between groups.The addition of a second injected method reduced recurrent and persistent rebleeding rates and surgery rates in the combination therapy group, but these findings were not statistically significantly different. Significantly fewer participants died in the combined therapy group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00).Epinephrine and a second mechanical method decreased recurrent and persistent bleeding (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.54) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect mortality rates.Epinephrine plus thermal methods decreased the rebleeding rate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.78) and the surgery rate (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect the mortality rate.Our risk of bias estimates show that risk of bias was low, as, although the type of study did not allow a double-blind trial, rebleeding, surgery and mortality were not dependent on subjective observation. Although some studies had limitations in their design or implementation, most were clear about important quality criteria, including randomisation and allocation concealment, sequence generation and blinding.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding and the need for surgery in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcer. The main adverse events include risk of perforation and gastric wall necrosis, the rates of which were low in our included studies and favoured neither epinephrine therapy nor combination therapy. The main conclusion is that combined therapy seems to work better than epinephrine alone. However, we cannot conclude that a particular form of treatment is equal or superior to another.
Topics: Adult; Combined Modality Therapy; Epinephrine; Hemostasis, Endoscopic; Humans; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 25308912
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005584.pub3 -
Critical Care (London, England) May 2016The relative efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) compared to histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) should guide their use in reducing bleeding risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The relative efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) compared to histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) should guide their use in reducing bleeding risk in the critically ill.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, clinical trials registries, and conference proceedings through November 2015 without language or publication date restrictions. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PPIs vs H2RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adults for clinically important bleeding, overt gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, nosocomial pneumonia, mortality, ICU length of stay and Clostridium difficile infection were included. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess our confidence in the evidence for each outcome.
RESULTS
In 19 trials enrolling 2117 patients, PPIs were more effective than H2RAs in reducing the risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR 0.39; 95 % CI 0.21, 0.71; P = 0.002; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence) and overt GI bleeding (RR 0.48; 95 % CI 0.34, 0.66; P < 0.0001; I (2) = 3 %, moderate confidence). PPI use did not significantly affect risk of pneumonia (RR 1.12; 95 % CI 0.86, 1.46; P = 0.39; I (2) = 2 %, low confidence), mortality (RR 1.05; 95 % CI 0.87, 1.27; P = 0.61; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence), or ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), -0.38 days; 95 % CI -1.49, 0.74; P = 0.51; I (2) = 30 %, low confidence). No RCT reported Clostridium difficile infection.
CONCLUSIONS
PPIs were superior to H2RAs in preventing clinically important and overt GI bleeding, without significantly increasing the risk of pneumonia or mortality. Their impact on Clostridium difficile infection is yet to be determined.
Topics: Duodenal Ulcer; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Peptic Ulcer; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Stomach Ulcer
PubMed: 27142116
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1305-6 -
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology &... Nov 2014Peptic ulcer rebleeding (PUR) usually occurs within three days following endoscopic hemostasis. However, recent data have increasingly suggested delayed rebleeding. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peptic ulcer rebleeding (PUR) usually occurs within three days following endoscopic hemostasis. However, recent data have increasingly suggested delayed rebleeding.
OBJECTIVE
To better characterize the timing of PUR (Forrest Ia to IIb) following initially successful endoscopic hemostasis.
METHODS
An exhaustive literature search (1989 to 2013), with cross-referencing, was performed to identify pertinent randomized controlled trial (RCT) arms. Patients receiving high-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) infusion following successful modern-day endoscopic hemostasis were included. A sensitivity analysis included any patients receiving PPI doses >40 mg daily. The main outcome measure was 30-day rebleeding, while weighted mean averages at t = three, seven, 14 and 28 to 30 days are also reported.
RESULTS
Of 756 citations, six RCTs were included (561 patients; 58.5% to 89.5% male; 55.3 to 67.5 years of age). Among patients receiving high-dose PPI (five RCTs [393 patients]), 11.5% (95% CI 8.4% to 14.7%) experienced rebleeding, 55.6% (95% CI 41.1% to 70.1%) rebled within three days, 20% (95% CI 8.3% to 31.7%) between four and seven days, 17.8% (95% CI 6.6% to 28.9%) at eight to 14 days, and 6.7% (95% CI 0% to 14%) at 15 to 28 to 30 days. Using the relaxed lower PPI dosing threshold, similar respective rates were 14.4% (95% CI 11.5% to 17.3%) overall, with interval rates of 39.5% (95% CI 28.9% to 50.15%), 34.6% (95% CI 24.2% to 44.9%), 19.7% (95% CI 11% to 28.4%) and 6.2% (95% CI 0.95% to 11.5%). Qualitative review of patient characteristics, limited by small sample size, possible bias and study heterogeneity, suggested increased patient comorbidity and postendoscopic use of lower PPI dosing may predict delayed rebleeding.
CONCLUSION
In patients with high-risk PUR undergoing successful endoscopic hemostasis, most rebled within three days, with many experiencing later rebleeding. Additional research is needed to better predict such an outcome.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Duodenal Ulcer; Female; Hemostasis, Endoscopic; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Peptic Ulcer; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Recurrence; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 25390616
DOI: 10.1155/2014/324967 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Ischaemic heart disease including heart failure is the most common cause of death in the world, and the incidence of the condition is rapidly increasing. Heart failure... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ischaemic heart disease including heart failure is the most common cause of death in the world, and the incidence of the condition is rapidly increasing. Heart failure is characterised by symptoms such as fatigue and breathlessness during light activity, as well as disordered breathing during sleep. In particular, sleep disordered breathing (SDB), including central sleep apnoea (CSA) and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), is highly prevalent in people with chronic heart failure. A previous meta-analysis demonstrated that positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy dramatically increased the survival rate of people with heart failure who had CSA, and thus could contribute to improving the prognosis of these individuals. However, recent trials found that adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) including PAP therapy had a higher risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. A meta-analysis that included recent trials was therefore needed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of positive airway pressure therapy for people with heart failure who experience central sleep apnoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection on 7 February 2019 with no limitations on date, language, or publication status. We also searched two clinical trials registers in July 2019 and checked the reference lists of primary studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We excluded cross-over trials and included individually randomised controlled trials, reported as full-texts, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted outcome data from the included studies. We double-checked that data had been entered correctly by comparing the data presented in the systematic review with study reports. We analysed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and continuous data as mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. Furthermore, we performed subgroup analysis in the ASV group or continuous PAP group separately. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the quality of evidence as it relates to those studies that contribute data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 randomised controlled trials involving a total of 2125 participants. The trials evaluated PAP therapy consisting of ASV or continuous PAP therapy for 1 to 31 months. Many trials included participants with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Only one trial included participants with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. We are uncertain about the effects of PAP therapy on all-cause mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.21; participants = 1804; studies = 6; I = 47%; very low-quality evidence). We found moderate-quality evidence of no difference between PAP therapy and usual care on cardiac-related mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.24; participants = 1775; studies = 5; I = 11%). We found low-quality evidence of no difference between PAP therapy and usual care on all-cause rehospitalisation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; participants = 1533; studies = 5; I = 40%) and cardiac-related rehospitalisation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.35; participants = 1533; studies = 5; I = 40%). In contrast, PAP therapy showed some indication of an improvement in quality of life scores assessed by all measurements (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.04; participants = 1617; studies = 6; I = 76%; low-quality evidence) and by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MD -0.51, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.24; participants = 1458; studies = 4; I = 0%; low-quality evidence) compared with usual care. Death due to pneumonia (N = 1, 3% of PAP group); cardiac arrest (N = 18, 3% of PAP group); heart transplantation (N = 8, 1% of PAP group); cardiac worsening (N = 3, 9% of PAP group); deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (N = 1, 3% of PAP group); and foot ulcer (N = 1, 3% of PAP group) occurred in the PAP therapy group, whereas cardiac arrest (N = 16, 2% of usual care group); heart transplantation (N = 12, 2% of usual care group); cardiac worsening (N = 5, 14% of usual care group); and duodenal ulcer (N = 1, 3% of usual care group) occurred in the usual care group across three trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effect of PAP therapy on all-cause mortality was uncertain. In addition, although we found evidence that PAP therapy did not reduce the risk of cardiac-related mortality and rehospitalisation, there was some indication of an improvement in quality of life for heart failure patients with CSA. Furthermore, the evidence was insufficient to determine whether adverse events were more common with PAP than with usual care. These findings were limited by low- or very low-quality evidence. PAP therapy may be worth considering for individuals with heart failure to improve quality of life.
Topics: Heart Failure; Humans; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Apnea, Central; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive
PubMed: 31797360
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012803.pub2