-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of EoE requires a constellation of clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologic findings (at least 15 eosinophils/high-powered microscope field (eos/hpf)). Current guidelines no longer require the failure of response to proton pump inhibitor medications to establish a diagnosis of EoE, but continue to suggest the exclusion of other etiologies of esophageal eosinophilia. The treatment goals for EoE are improvement in clinical symptoms, resolution of esophageal eosinophilia and other histologic abnormalities, endoscopic improvement, improved quality of life, improved esophageal function, minimized adverse effects of treatment, and prevention of disease progression and subsequent complications. Currently, there is no cure for EoE, making long-term treatment necessary. Standard treatment modalities include dietary modifications, esophageal dilation, and pharmacologic therapy. Effective pharmacologic therapies include corticosteroids, rapidly emerging biological therapies, and proton pump inhibitor medications.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions for people with eosinophilic esophagitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP to 3 March 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any medical intervention or food elimination diet for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, either alone or in combination, to any other intervention (including placebo).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) and as the mean or standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were: clinical, histological, and endoscopic improvement, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: serious and total adverse events, and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 RCTs with 3253 participants. Eleven studies included pediatric patients while the rest recruited both children and adults. Four studies were in patients with inactive disease while the rest were in patients with active disease. We identified 19 intervention comparisons. In this abstract we present the results of the primary outcomes for the two main comparisons: corticosteroids versus placebo and biologics versus placebo, based on the prespecified outcomes defined of the primary studies. Fourteen studies compared corticosteroids to placebo for induction of remission and the risk of bias for these studies was mostly low. Corticosteroids may lead to slightly better clinical improvement (20% higher), measured dichotomously (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.80; 6 studies, 583 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 4; low certainty), and may lead to slightly better clinical improvement, measured continuously (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; 5 studies, 475 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids lead to a large histological improvement (63% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 11.94, 95% CI 6.56 to 21.75; 12 studies, 978 participants; NNTB = 3; high certainty), and may lead to histological improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.82; 5 studies, 449 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to little to no endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 2.60, 95% CI 0.82 to 8.19; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty), and may lead to endoscopic improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.33, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.08; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to slightly fewer withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96; 14 studies, 1032 participants; low certainty). Nine studies compared biologics to placebo for induction of remission. Biologics may result in little to no difference in clinical improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.52; 5 studies, 410 participants; low certainty), and may result in better clinical improvement, measured continuously (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78; 7 studies, 387 participants; moderate certainty). Biologics result in better histological improvement (55% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 6.73, 95% CI 2.58 to 17.52; 8 studies, 925 participants; NNTB = 2; moderate certainty). We could not draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.66; 6 studies, 370 participants; very low certainty). Biologics may result in little to no difference in endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (effect not estimable, low certainty). We cannot draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.22; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.74; 8 studies, 792 participants; low certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids (as compared to placebo) may lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported both as dichotomous and continuous outcomes, from the primary study definitions. Corticosteroids lead to a large increase in histological improvement (dichotomous outcome) and may increase histological improvement (continuous outcome) when compared to placebo. Corticosteroids may or may not increase endoscopic improvement (depending on whether the outcome is measured dichotomously or continuously). Withdrawals due to adverse events (dichotomous outcome) may occur less frequently when corticosteroids are compared to placebo. Biologics (as compared to placebo) may not lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome and may lead to an increase in clinical symptom improvement (as a continuous outcome), from the primary study definitions. Biologics lead to a large increase in histological improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome, but this is uncertain when reported as a continuous outcome, as compared to placebo. Biologics may not increase endoscopic improvement (dichotomous outcome), but this is uncertain when measured as a continuous outcome. Withdrawals due to adverse events as a dichotomous outcome may occur as frequently when biologics are compared to placebo.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Biological Products; Chronic Disease; Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Remission Induction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37470293
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004065.pub4 -
European Journal of Clinical... Sep 2023Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce acid secretion in the stomach and rank as one of the most widely used acid-suppressing medicines globally. While PPIs are safe in... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce acid secretion in the stomach and rank as one of the most widely used acid-suppressing medicines globally. While PPIs are safe in the short-term, emerging evidence shows risks associated with long-term use. Current evidence on global PPI use is scarce. This systematic review aims to evaluate global PPI use in the general population.
METHODS
Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts were systematically searched from inception to 31 March 2023 to identify observational studies on oral PPI use among individuals aged ≥ 18 years. PPI use was classified by demographics and medication factors (dose, duration, and PPI types). The absolute numbers of PPI users for each subcategory were summed and expressed as a percentage.
RESULTS
The search identified data from 28 million PPI users in 23 countries from 65 articles. This review indicated that nearly one-quarter of adults use a PPI. Of those using PPIs, 63% were less than 65 years. 56% of PPI users were female, and "White" ethnicities accounted for 75% of users. Nearly two-thirds of users were on high doses (≥ defined daily dose (DDD)), 25% of users continued PPIs for > 1 year, and 28% of these continued for > 3 years.
CONCLUSION
Given the widespread use PPIs and increasing concern regarding long-term use, this review provides a catalyst to support more rational use, particularly with unnecessary prolonged continuation. Clinicians should review PPI prescriptions regularly and deprescribe when there is no appropriate ongoing indication or evidence of benefit to reduce health harm and treatment cost.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Female; Male; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Upper Gastrointestinal Tract; Health Care Costs; Prescriptions
PubMed: 37420019
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-023-03534-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is characterised by the regurgitation of gastric contents into the oesophagus. GOR is a common presentation in infancy, both in primary... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is characterised by the regurgitation of gastric contents into the oesophagus. GOR is a common presentation in infancy, both in primary and secondary care, affecting approximately 50% of infants under three months old. The natural history of GOR in infancy is generally of a self-limiting condition that improves with age, but older children and children with co-existing medical conditions can have more protracted symptoms. The distinction between gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and GOR is debated. Current National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines define GORD as GOR causing symptoms severe enough to merit treatment. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for GOR in infants and children.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to 17 September 2022. We also searched for ongoing trials in clinical trials registries, contacted experts in the field, and searched the reference lists of trials and reviews for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any currently-available pharmacological treatment for GOR in children with placebo or another medication. We excluded studies assessing dietary management of GORD and studies of thickened feeds. We included studies in infants and children up to 16 years old.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 36 RCTs involving 2251 children and infants. We were able to extract summary data from 14 RCTs; the remaining trials had insufficient data for extraction. We were unable to pool results in a meta-analysis due to methodological differences in the included studies (including heterogeneous outcomes, study populations, and study design). We present the results in two groups by age: infants up to 12 months old, and children aged 12 months to 16 years old. Infants Omeprazole versus placebo: there is no clear effect on symptoms from omeprazole. One study (30 infants; very low-certainty evidence) showed cry/fuss time in infants aged three to 12 months had altered from 246 ± 105 minutes/day at baseline (mean +/- standard deviation (SD)) to 191 ± 120 minutes/day in the omeprazole group and from 287 ± 132 minutes/day to 201 ± 100 minutes/day in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) 10 minutes/day lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -89.1 to 69.1)). The reflux index changed in the omeprazole group from 9.9 ± 5.8% in 24 hours to 1.0 ± 1.3% and in the placebo group from 7.2 ± 6.0% to 5.3 ± 4.9% in 24 hours (MD 7% lower, 95% CI -4.7 to -9.3). Omeprazole versus ranitidine: one study (76 infants; very low-certainty evidence) showed omeprazole may or may not provide symptomatic benefit equivalent to ranitidine. Symptom scores in the omeprazole group changed from 51.9 ± 5.4 to 2.4 ± 1.2, and in the ranitidine group from 47 ± 5.6 to 2.5 ± 0.6 after two weeks: MD -4.97 (95% CI -7.33 to -2.61). Esomeprazole versus placebo: esomeprazole appeared to show no additional reduction in the number of GORD symptoms compared to placebo (1 study, 52 neonates; very low-certainty evidence): both the esomeprazole group (184.7 ± 78.5 to 156.7 ± 75.1) and placebo group (183.1 ± 77.5 to 158.3 ± 75.9) improved: MD -3.2 (95% CI -4.6 to -1.8). Children Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) at different doses may provide little to no symptomatic and endoscopic benefit. Rabeprazole given at different doses (0.5 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg) may provide similar symptom improvement (127 children in total; very low-certainty evidence). In the lower-dose group (0.5 mg/kg), symptom scores improved in both a low-weight group of children (< 15 kg) (mean -10.6 ± SD 11.13) and a high-weight group of children (> 15 kg) (mean -13.6 ± 13.1). In the higher-dose groups (1 mg/kg), scores improved in the low-weight (-9 ± 11.2) and higher-weight groups (-8.3 ± 9.2). For the higher-weight group, symptom score mean difference between the two different dosing regimens was 2.3 (95% CI -2 to 6.6), and for the lower-weight group, symptom score MD was 4.6 (95% CI -2.9 to 12). Pantoprazole: pantoprazole may or may not improve symptom scores at 0.3 mg/kg, 0.6 mg/kg, and 1.2 mg/kg pantoprazole in children aged one to five years by week eight, with no difference between 0.3 mg/kg and 1.2 mg/kg dosing (0.3 mg/kg mean -2.4 ± 1.7; 1.2 mg/kg -1.7 ± 1.2: MD 0.7 (95% CI -0.4 to 1.8)) (one study, 60 children; very low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient summary data to assess other medications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low-certainty evidence about symptom improvements and changes in pH indices for infants. There are no summary data for endoscopic changes. Medications may or may not provide a benefit (based on very low-certainty evidence) for infants whose symptoms remain bothersome, despite nonmedical interventions or parental reassurance. If a medication is required, there is no clear evidence based on summary data for omeprazole, esomeprazole (in neonates), H₂antagonists, and alginates for symptom improvements (very low-certainty evidence). Further studies with longer follow-up are needed. In older children with GORD, in studies with summary data extracted, there is very low-certainty evidence that PPIs (rabeprazole and pantoprazole) may or may not improve GORD outcomes. No robust data exist for other medications. Further RCT evidence is required in all areas, including subgroups (preterm babies and children with neurodisabilities).
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Esomeprazole; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Omeprazole; Pantoprazole; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Rabeprazole; Ranitidine
PubMed: 37635269
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008550.pub3 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Aug 2023Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) can be treated by proton pump inhibitors, topical corticosteroids, or dietary measures. This study systematically assessed the efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) can be treated by proton pump inhibitors, topical corticosteroids, or dietary measures. This study systematically assessed the efficacy of 4 major dietary treatment regimens in EoE, updating the evidence presented in a meta-analysis from 2014.
METHODS
Electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, and other sources were searched up to September 2022 to identify studies on dietary treatment of EoE. Based on histologic remission criteria, the efficacy of these treatments was pooled and analyzed with respect to the type of dietary regimen: 6-food elimination diet (SFED), 4-food elimination diet (FFED), 1-food elimination diet (OFED), and a targeted elimination diet (TED). Clinical response rates, food sensitization, and efficacies for a pediatric subpopulation were calculated. Influencing variables on efficacies were estimated via meta-regression analyses.
RESULTS
Thirty-four studies with 1762 patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall rate of histologic remission was 53.8% (95% CI, 48.0%-59.6%), and in the individual dietary groups was 61.3% (95% CI, 53.0%-69.3%) for SFED, 49.4% (95% CI, 32.5%-66.3%) for FFED, 51.4% (95% CI, 42.6%-60.1%) for OFED, and 45.7% (95% CI, 32.0%-59.7%) for TED. Dietary regimen and patient age did not significantly affect rates of histologic remission. The overall rate of clinical response was 80.8% (95% CI, 72.3%-88.2%), with response rates of 92.8% (95% CI, 81.2%-99.6%) for SFED, 74.1% (95% CI, 49.8%-92.6%) for FFED, 87.1% (95% CI, 58.4%-99.9%) for OFED, and 69.0% (95% CI, 50.2%85.3%) for TED.
CONCLUSIONS
Dietary therapy is an effective treatment for EoE patients of any age. The current results could support a trend toward less-restrictive dietary regimens as a primary treatment option.
Topics: Child; Humans; Allergens; Diet; Elimination Diets; Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Food; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36731591
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.01.019 -
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 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Cancer is a major global health concern, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) offer a promising treatment option for cancer patients. However, the efficacy of ICIs...
INTRODUCTION
Cancer is a major global health concern, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) offer a promising treatment option for cancer patients. However, the efficacy of ICIs can be influenced by various factors, including the use of concomitant medications.
METHODS
We searched databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the impact of concomitant medications on ICIs efficacy, published from inception to January 1, 2023. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses, and re-synthesized data using a random-effects model and evidence stratification.
RESULTS
We included 23 publications, comprising 11 concomitant medications and 112 associations. Class II-IV evidence suggested that antibiotics have a negative impact on ICIs efficacy. However, ICIs efficacy against melanoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma was not affected, this effect was related to the exposure window (class IV). Class III evidence suggested that proton pump inhibitors have a negative impact on ICIs efficacy; nevertheless, the efficacy against melanoma and renal cell carcinoma was not affected, and the effect was related to exposure before the initiation of ICIs therapy (class II). Although class II/III evidence suggested that steroids have a negative impact, this effect was not observed when used for non-cancer indications and immune-related adverse events (class IV). Class IV evidence suggested that opioids reduce ICIs efficacy, whereas statins and probiotics may improve ICIs efficacy. ICIs efficacy was not affected by histamine 2 receptor antagonists, aspirin, metformin, β-blockers, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence suggests that the use of antibiotics, PPIs, steroids, and opioids has a negative impact on the efficacy of ICIs. However, this effect may vary depending on the type of tumor, the timing of exposure, and the intended application. Weak evidence suggests that statins and probiotics may enhance the efficacy of ICIs. Aspirin, metformin, β-blockers, and NSAIDs do not appear to affect the efficacy of ICIs. However, caution is advised in interpreting these results due to methodological limitations.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO,identifier, CRD42022328681.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Esophageal Neoplasms; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Kidney Neoplasms; Liver Neoplasms; Melanoma; Metformin; Steroids; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Meta-Analysis as Topic
PubMed: 37841249
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1218386 -
Cureus Aug 2023Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated condition characterized by inflammation and eosinophilic accumulation of the esophagus, resulting in... (Review)
Review
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated condition characterized by inflammation and eosinophilic accumulation of the esophagus, resulting in dysphagia and food impaction. While the exact etiology of EoE remains unclear, it is believed to be triggered by food allergens and dynamic environmental factors, resulting in various clinical manifestations, from inflammation to fibrosis. Although clinical presentation varies with age, the number of eosinophils in esophagogastroduodenal endoscopy remains the diagnostic gold standard. While diet elimination, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), topical corticosteroids, and biological therapy are promising treatment options for EoE, there are insufficient data to determine the optimal therapeutic treatment approach. Combination therapies - the use of dietary therapies in conjunction with other treatment modalities, such as PPIs, topical corticosteroids, or biologic agents - have also emerged as a potential management strategy for EoE. In this systematic review, we attempt to highlight the recent advances in EoE therapies and provide updated guidance to their management. From 2017 to 2022, we conducted a comprehensive electronic search of PubMed (MEDLINE) using specific keywords related to our objective and eventually included a total of 44 articles.
PubMed: 37692685
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.43221 -
Health Technology Assessment... Dec 2023A wide range of ablative and non-surgical therapies are available for treating small hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with very early or early-stage disease and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A wide range of ablative and non-surgical therapies are available for treating small hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with very early or early-stage disease and preserved liver function.
OBJECTIVE
To review and compare the effectiveness of all current ablative and non-surgical therapies for patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma (≤ 3 cm).
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Nine databases (March 2021), two trial registries (April 2021) and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews.
REVIEW METHODS
Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials of ablative and non-surgical therapies, versus any comparator, for small hepatocellular carcinoma. Randomised controlled trials were quality assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and mapped. The comparative effectiveness of therapies was assessed using network meta-analysis. A threshold analysis was used to identify which comparisons were sensitive to potential changes in the evidence. Where comparisons based on randomised controlled trial evidence were not robust or no randomised controlled trials were identified, a targeted systematic review of non-randomised, prospective comparative studies provided additional data for repeat network meta-analysis and threshold analysis. The feasibility of undertaking economic modelling was explored. A workshop with patients and clinicians was held to discuss the findings and identify key priorities for future research.
RESULTS
Thirty-seven randomised controlled trials (with over 3700 relevant patients) were included in the review. The majority were conducted in China or Japan and most had a high risk of bias or some risk of bias concerns. The results of the network meta-analysis were uncertain for most comparisons. There was evidence that percutaneous ethanol injection is inferior to radiofrequency ablation for overall survival (hazard ratio 1.45, 95% credible interval 1.16 to 1.82), progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.36, 95% credible interval 1.11 to 1.67), overall recurrence (relative risk 1.19, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 1.39) and local recurrence (relative risk 1.80, 95% credible interval 1.19 to 2.71). Percutaneous acid injection was also inferior to radiofrequency ablation for progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.63, 95% credible interval 1.05 to 2.51). Threshold analysis showed that further evidence could plausibly change the result for some comparisons. Fourteen eligible non-randomised studies were identified ( ≥ 2316); twelve had a high risk of bias so were not included in updated network meta-analyses. Additional non-randomised data, made available by a clinical advisor, were also included ( = 303). There remained a high level of uncertainty in treatment rankings after the network meta-analyses were updated. However, the updated analyses suggested that microwave ablation and resection are superior to percutaneous ethanol injection and percutaneous acid injection for some outcomes. Further research on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy was recommended at the workshop, although it is only appropriate for certain patient subgroups, limiting opportunities for adequately powered trials.
LIMITATIONS
Many studies were small and of poor quality. No comparative studies were found for some therapies.
CONCLUSIONS
The existing evidence base has limitations; the uptake of specific ablative therapies in the United Kingdom appears to be based more on technological advancements and ease of use than strong evidence of clinical effectiveness. However, there is evidence that percutaneous ethanol injection and percutaneous acid injection are inferior to radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation and resection.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020221357.
FUNDING
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131224) and is published in full in ; Vol. 27, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Ethanol; Liver Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ablation Techniques
PubMed: 38149643
DOI: 10.3310/GK5221 -
Cureus Oct 2023Our comprehensive systematic review aimed to examine gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a disorder that occurs when stomach contents flow back into the esophagus.... (Review)
Review
Our comprehensive systematic review aimed to examine gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a disorder that occurs when stomach contents flow back into the esophagus. It may manifest as either non-erosive reflux disease or erosive esophagitis. The activity depicts the assessment and medical management of GERD and emphasizes the interprofessional team's involvement to enhance care for people with this ailment. Data sources were PubMed/Medline and Embase. Our review investigated English-language articles (from 2014 to 2023) according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Overall, there were seven articles. Surveys and analyses of national databases were the most widely used methods (n=7). The search identified 3,730 studies, and seven were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Further understanding of GERD and treatment protocols may help improve evaluation and management in the future. Millions of individuals worldwide suffer from GERD, a common clinical condition. Patients can be identified by symptoms that are both common and uncommon. For many GERD patients, acid suppression treatment reduces symptoms and avoids clinical complications. Our capacity to recognize and treat disease consequences has improved with the advancement of diagnostic and treatment methods. Here, we go into the etiology and consequences of GERD and offer details on the treatment strategy for this prevalent illness.
PubMed: 38022211
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47420 -
Nutrients Sep 2023The benefits of zinc in treating certain gastrointestinal (GI) diseases have been recognized for over two decades. This review aims to explore zinc deficiency (ZD) and... (Review)
Review
The benefits of zinc in treating certain gastrointestinal (GI) diseases have been recognized for over two decades. This review aims to explore zinc deficiency (ZD) and the potential therapeutic value and safety of zinc supplementation in pediatric GI diseases. A systematic review of published articles on ZD and zinc as adjuvant treatments for GI diseases was conducted using various databases. Children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), celiac disease, and those receiving long-term proton pump inhibitor treatments are particularly susceptible to ZD. ZD in children with celiac disease and IBD is attributed to insufficient intake, reduced absorption, and increased intestinal loss as a result of the inflammatory process. Zinc plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the gastric mucosa and exerts a gastroprotective action against gastric lesions. Although considerable evidence supports the use of zinc as adjuvant therapy for certain GI diseases in adults, its use is unspecified in children except for infectious diarrhea. Current evidence suggests that zinc supplementation with well-documented dosages helps reduce the duration of diarrhea in children with acute or persistent diarrhea, while there are no specific guidelines for zinc supplementation in children with IBD and celiac disease. Zinc supplementation appears to be beneficial in peptic ulcer disease or gastroesophageal reflux disease. The available evidence highlights the need for intervention programs to enhance zinc status and reduce the morbidity of certain GI diseases in children.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Zinc; Celiac Disease; Diarrhea; Dietary Supplements; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
PubMed: 37836377
DOI: 10.3390/nu15194093