-
Journal of Gastroenterology and... Dec 2022Potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) is a recent alternative to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for potent acid suppression. The current systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A comparison of efficacy and safety of potassium-competitive acid blocker and proton pump inhibitor in gastric acid-related diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) is a recent alternative to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for potent acid suppression. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PCAB versus PPI in treating gastric acid-related diseases.
METHODS
We searched up to June 5, 2022, for randomized controlled trials of gastric acid-related diseases that included erosive esophagitis, symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcers, and Helicobacter pylori infection. The pooled risk ratio (RR) was evaluated for the efficacy outcome and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) as the safety outcome. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the study findings.
RESULTS
Of the 710 screened studies, 19 studies including 7023 participants were analyzed. The RRs for the healing of erosive esophagitis with Vonoprazan versus PPI were 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.14), 1.03 (95% CI 1.00-1.07), and 1.02 (95% CI 1.00-1.05) in Weeks 2, 4, and 8, respectively. There were no differences in the improvement of GERD symptoms and healing of gastric and duodenal ulcers between PCAB and PPI. The pooled eradication rates of H. pylori were significantly higher in Vonoprazan versus PPI first-line treatment (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.04-1.22). The overall RR of TEAEs with Vonoprazan versus PPI was 1.08 (95% CI 0.89-1.31). Overall, the risk of bias was low to some concerns. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the study's conclusion.
CONCLUSION
Vonoprazan is superior to PPI in first-line H. pylori eradication and erosive esophagitis but non-inferior in other gastric acid-related diseases. Likewise, short-term safety is comparable in both treatment groups.
Topics: Humans; Gastric Acid; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Potassium; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori
PubMed: 36181401
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.16017 -
Medicine Nov 2022Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and vonoprazan are recommended as first-line therapies for erosive esophagitis (EE). However, it is uncertain how the magnitude of efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and vonoprazan are recommended as first-line therapies for erosive esophagitis (EE). However, it is uncertain how the magnitude of efficacy and safety of first-line therapy, the choice of individual PPIs or vonoprazan in the treatment of EE remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan and PPIs in healing esophageal mucosal injury in patients with EE.
METHODS
Relevant databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials of proton pump inhibitors and vonoprazan in the treatment of reflux esophagitis up to December 2021. Studies on standard-dose PPIs or vonoprazan that were published in Chinese or English and assessed healing effects in EE were included in the analysis. Stata16.0 was used to conduct a network Meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the treatment.
RESULTS
A total of 41 literatures were included with 11,592 enrolled patients. For the endoscopic cure rate, all the PPIs and vonoprazan significantly improve compared to Placebo; Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, Ilaprazole ranked first, followed by esomeprazole, vonoprazan, pantoprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, rabeprazole and placebo therapy ranked the last. For the rate of adverse events, there was no significant difference among all the PPIs, vonoprazan, and placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Ilaprazole, esomeprazole and vonoprazan have more advantages in mucosal erosion healing, there was no significant difference in the comparative safety among all interventions.
Topics: Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Esomeprazole; Network Meta-Analysis; Peptic Ulcer; Rabeprazole; Esophagitis, Peptic; Abdominal Injuries
PubMed: 36451489
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031807 -
Przeglad Gastroenterologiczny 2022Vonoprazan has been found to promote a better antisecretory effect addressing acid-related diseases' unmet needs. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Vonoprazan has been found to promote a better antisecretory effect addressing acid-related diseases' unmet needs.
AIM
To assess if vonoprazan effectively treats patients diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease esophagitis or with peptic ulcers induced by chronic use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A literature search was conducted (April/2021) using Medline via PubMed, Cochrane library, Lilacs, Scielo, and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination electronic databases.
RESULTS
We retrieved 55 titles. Of these, 13 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Of these 13 articles, 4 were prospective cohort studies, 1 was a follow-up analysis of a preceding prospective study, 1 was a retrospective cohort study, and 6 were randomized clinical trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that vonoprazan was effective and non-inferior to proton pump inhibitors in healing and maintaining healed reflux oesophagitis, leading to faster symptom relief. Vonoprazan may also be considered for preventing aspirin- or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-related peptic ulcer recurrence.
PubMed: 36127938
DOI: 10.5114/pg.2021.111401 -
BMC Cancer Jan 2024The optimal reconstruction method after proximal gastrectomy remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term outcomes and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The optimal reconstruction method after proximal gastrectomy remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term outcomes and long-term quality of life of various reconstruction methods.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to identify comparative studies concerning the reconstruction methods after proximal gastrectomy. The reconstruction methods were classified into six groups: double tract reconstruction (DTR), esophagogastrostomy (EG), gastric tube reconstruction (GT), jejunal interposition (JI), jejunal pouch interposition (JPI) and double flap technique (DFT). Esophagogastric anastomosis group (EG group) included EG, GT and DFT, while esophagojejunal anastomosis group (EJ group) included DTR, JI and JPI.
RESULTS
A total of 27 studies with 2410 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that the incidences of reflux esophagitis of DTR, EG, GT, JI, JPI and DFT were 7.6%, 27.3%, 4.5%, 7.1%, 14.0%, and 9.1%, respectively. The EG group had more reflux esophagitis (OR = 3.68, 95%CI 2.44-5.57, P < 0.00001) and anastomotic stricture (OR = 1.58, 95%CI 1.02-2.45, P = 0.04) than the EJ group. But the EG group showed shorter operation time (MD=-56.34, 95%CI -76.75- -35.94, P < 0.00001), lesser intraoperative blood loss (MD=-126.52, 95%CI -187.91- -65.12, P < 0.0001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD=-2.07, 95%CI -3.66- -0.48, P = 0.01). Meanwhile, the EG group had fewer postoperative complications (OR = 0.68, 95%CI 0.51-0.90, P = 0.006) and lesser weight loss (MD=-1.25, 95%CI -2.11- -0.39, P = 0.004). For specific reconstruction methods, there were lesser reflux esophagitis (OR = 0.10, 95%CI 0.06-0.18, P < 0.00001) and anastomotic stricture (OR = 0.14, 95%CI 0.06-0.33, P < 0.00001) in DTR than the esophagogastrostomy. DTR and esophagogastrostomy showed no significant difference in anastomotic leakage (OR = 1.01, 95%CI 0.34-3.01, P = 0.98).
CONCLUSION
Esophagojejunal anastomosis after proximal gastrectomy can reduce the incidences of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stricture, while esophagogastric anastomosis has advantages in technical simplicity and long-term weight status. Double tract reconstruction is a safe technique with excellent anti-reflux effectiveness and favorable quality of life.
REGISTRATION
This meta-analysis was registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42022381357).
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Constriction, Pathologic; Esophagitis, Peptic; Gastrectomy; Anastomosis, Surgical
PubMed: 38200411
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-11827-4 -
Clinical Otolaryngology : Official... Jul 2023To investigate the association between laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the association between laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus.
REVIEW METHODS
Three investigators searched the specified databases for studies investigating the relationship between LPR, GERD and recalcitrant CRS with or without polyposis. The following outcomes were investigated with PRISMA criteria: age; gender; reflux and CRS diagnosis; association outcomes and potential treatment outcomes. The authors performed a bias analysis of papers and provided recommendations for future studies.
RESULTS
A total of 17 studies investigated the association between reflux and recalcitrant CRS. According to pharyngeal pH monitoring, 54% of patients with recalcitrant CRS reported hypo or nasopharyngeal acid reflux events. The number of hypo- and nasopharyngeal acid reflux events was significantly higher in patients compared to healthy individuals in 4 and 2 studies, respectively. Only one study did not report intergroup differences. The proportion of GERD was significantly higher in CRS patients compared to controls, with a prevalence ranging from 32% to 91% of cases. No author considered nonacid reflux events. There was significant heterogeneity in the inclusion criteria; definition of reflux and association outcomes, limiting the ability to draw clear conclusions. Pepsin was found in sinonasal secretions more frequently in CRS patients than controls.
CONCLUSION
Laryngopharyngeal reflux and GERD may be contributing factors of CRS therapeutic resistance, but future studies are needed to confirm the association considering nonacid reflux events.
Topics: Humans; Laryngopharyngeal Reflux; Esophagitis, Peptic; Pepsin A; Sinusitis
PubMed: 36895147
DOI: 10.1111/coa.14047 -
PloS One 2017To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the gastric-tube vs. whole-stomach for esophageal cancer in order to determine the optimal surgical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the gastric-tube vs. whole-stomach for esophageal cancer in order to determine the optimal surgical technique of esophagectomy.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Clinical trials that compared the gastric-tube versus whole-stomach for esophageal cancer were selected. The clinical endpoints included anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, reflux esophagitis, pneumonia, delayed gastric emptying, and thoracic stomach syndrome.
RESULTS
A total of 6 articles (1571 patients) were included. Compared to the whole-stomach approach, the gastric-tube approach was associated with a lower incidence of reflux esophagitis (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16 to 0.81, p = 0.01) and thoracic stomach syndrome (95% CI: 0.17 to 0.55, p < 0.0001). The rates of anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, pneumonia, and delayed gastric emptying did not significantly differ between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The gastric-tube esophagectomy is superior to the whole-stomach approach, as it is associated with a lower incidence of postoperative reflux esophagitis and thoracic stomach syndrome. Our findings must be validated in large-scale randomized controlled trials.
Topics: Anastomotic Leak; Esophageal Neoplasms; Esophagectomy; Esophagitis, Peptic; Humans; Pneumonia; Publication Bias
PubMed: 28267808
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173416 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a class of medications that reduce acid secretion and are used for treating many conditions such as gastroesophageal reflux disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a class of medications that reduce acid secretion and are used for treating many conditions such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), dyspepsia, reflux esophagitis, peptic ulcer disease, and hypersecretory conditions (e.g. Zollinger-Ellison syndrome), and as part of the eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori bacteria. However, approximately 25% to 70% of people are prescribed a PPI inappropriately. Chronic PPI use without reassessment contributes to polypharmacy and puts people at risk of experiencing drug interactions and adverse events (e.g. Clostridium difficile infection, pneumonia, hypomagnesaemia, and fractures).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects (benefits and harms) associated with deprescribing long-term PPI therapy in adults, compared to chronic daily use (28 days or greater).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). The last date of search was November 2016. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant studies. We screened 2357 articles (2317 identified through search strategy, 40 through other resources). Of these articles, we assessed 89 for eligibility.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials comparing at least one deprescribing modality (e.g. stopping PPI or reducing PPI) with a control consisting of no change in continuous daily PPI use in adult chronic users. Outcomes of interest were: change in gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, drug burden/PPI use, cost/resource use, negative and positive drug withdrawal events, and participant satisfaction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed and extracted data and completed the risk of bias assessment. A third review author independently confirmed risk of bias assessment. We used Review Manager 5 software for data analysis. We contacted study authors if there was missing information.
MAIN RESULTS
The review included six trials (n = 1758). Trial participants were aged 48 to 57 years, except for one trial that had a mean age of 73 years. All participants were from the outpatient setting and had either nonerosive reflux disease or milder grades of esophagitis (LA grade A or B). Five trials investigated on-demand deprescribing and one trial examined abrupt discontinuation. There was low quality evidence that on-demand use of PPI may increase risk of 'lack of symptom control' compared with continuous PPI use (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31 to 2.21), thereby favoring continuous PPI use (five trials, n = 1653). There was a clinically significant reduction in 'drug burden', measured as PPI pill use per week with on-demand therapy (mean difference (MD) -3.79, 95% CI -4.73 to -2.84), favoring deprescribing based on moderate quality evidence (four trials, n = 1152). There was also low quality evidence that on-demand PPI use may be associated with reduced participant satisfaction compared with continuous PPI use. None of the included studies reported cost/resource use or positive drug withdrawal effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with mild GERD, on-demand deprescribing may lead to an increase in GI symptoms (e.g. dyspepsia, regurgitation) and probably a reduction in pill burden. There was a decline in participant satisfaction, although heterogeneity was high. There were insufficient data to make a conclusion regarding long-term benefits and harms of PPI discontinuation, although two trials (one on-demand trial and one abrupt discontinuation trial) reported endoscopic findings in their intervention groups at study end.
Topics: Aged; Deprescriptions; Esophagitis; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Inappropriate Prescribing; Middle Aged; Patient Satisfaction; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 28301676
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011969.pub2 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics May 2021Gastro-oesophageal reflux is considered the main risk factor for Barrett's oesophagus. The role of other potential risk factors for the development of Barrett's... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Gastro-oesophageal reflux is considered the main risk factor for Barrett's oesophagus. The role of other potential risk factors for the development of Barrett's oesophagus in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms is controversial.
AIMS
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis examining risk factors in development of Barrett's oesophagus.
METHODS
Medline, Embase and Embase Classic were searched (until December 2020) to identify cross-sectional studies reporting prevalence of Barrett's oesophagus based on presence of one or more proposed risk factors in individuals with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms. Prevalence of Barrett's oesophagus was compared according to presence or absence of each risk factor in individuals with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms.
RESULTS
Of 7164 citations evaluated, 13 studies reported prevalence of Barrett's oesophagus in 11 856 subjects. Pooled prevalence of histologically confirmed Barrett's oesophagus in individuals with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms in all studies was 7.0% (95% CI 4.8% to 9.6%). Prevalence was higher in subjects with hiatal hernia (OR 2.74; 95% CI 1.58 to 4.75) and in those who drank alcohol (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.95). Other features including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and/or aspirin use (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.42), smoking (OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.35) or obesity (OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.33) were not significantly associated with Barrett's oesophagus.
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of Barrett's oesophagus in individuals with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms was higher in those who drank alcohol, although this association was modest. The strongest association found was between hiatal hernia and Barrett's oesophagus. Other potential risk factors assessed in this study did not appear to be associated with presence of Barrett's oesophagus among individuals with gastro-oesophageal symptoms.
Topics: Barrett Esophagus; Cross-Sectional Studies; Esophagitis, Peptic; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33705573
DOI: 10.1111/apt.16321 -
Journal of Gastroenterology and... Aug 2022Gastro-esophageal reflux (GER) is the main predisposing factor for Barrett's esophagus (BE). A more precise estimate of the association of GER symptoms with the risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Gastro-esophageal reflux (GER) is the main predisposing factor for Barrett's esophagus (BE). A more precise estimate of the association of GER symptoms with the risk of BE would be important to prioritize endoscopic screening. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine this issue.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EMBASE Classic were searched to identify cross-sectional studies that reported the prevalence of BE based on presence of GER symptoms. The prevalence of BE was compared according to presence or absence of GER symptoms using an odds ratio (OR), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Specificity and sensitivity of GER symptoms for predicting BE was calculated.
RESULTS
Of 10,463 citations evaluated, 19 studies reported the prevalence of BE in 43,017 subjects. The pooled OR among individuals with weekly GER symptoms compared with those without was 1.67 (95% CI 1.30-2.15) for endoscopically suspected BE, and 2.42 (95% CI 1.59-3.68) for histologically confirmed BE. No significant association was found between weekly GER symptoms and the presence of short segment BE (OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.86-1.97), whereas a strong association was present with long segment BE, with an OR of 6.30 (95% CI 2.26-17.61).
CONCLUSIONS
Gastro-esophageal reflux symptoms are associated with an increased odds of BE, with a further increase when weekly symptoms are present. Overall, GER symptoms showed low sensitivity and specificity for predicting BE; however, a strong association was found between weekly GER symptoms and long segment BE, but not short segment BE, suggesting that it may be worth considering screening individuals with weekly GER symptoms to rule out long segment BE.
Topics: Barrett Esophagus; Cross-Sectional Studies; Esophagitis, Peptic; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Odds Ratio
PubMed: 35614860
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15902 -
PloS One 2017Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been used for treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE) for many years. However, the connection between PPIs and esophageal adenocarcinoma... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been used for treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE) for many years. However, the connection between PPIs and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in patients with BE has still been controversial. The current systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the association between PPIs and the risk of EAC or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in patients with BE.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of studies reporting the association between PPIs and the risk of EAC and/or HGD in patients with BE was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Next, literature was screened using previously established criteria and relevant data were extracted from included studies. Finally, the software program Review Manage 5.2 was applied to aggregate data and analyze the results.
RESULTS
Nine observational studies, comprising five cohort and four case-control studies (including a total of 5712 patients with BE), were identified. Upon meta-analysis, PPIs were found to have no association with the risk of EAC and/or HGD in patients with BE (unadjusted OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17-1.08). Analysis for duration response relationship revealed no significant trend toward protection against EAC or HGD with PPIs usage for >2~3 years (one study using 7-year cutoff) when compared to usage for shorter time periods (PPIs usage >2~3 years vs. <2~3 years: OR 0.91 (95% CI 0.25-3.31) vs. 0.91 (0.40-2.07)).There also was considerable heterogeneity between studies.
CONCLUSION
No dysplasia- or cancer-protective effects of PPIs usage in patients with BE were identified by our analysis. Therefore, we conclude that clinicians who discuss the potential chemopreventive effects of PPIs with their patients, should be aware that such an effect, if exists, has not been proven with statistical significance.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Barrett Esophagus; Disease Progression; Esophageal Neoplasms; Esophagitis, Peptic; Humans; Odds Ratio; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Risk
PubMed: 28072858
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169691