-
Clinics and Research in Hepatology and... Jun 2024To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan therapy as compared to conventional proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or no vonoprazan for non-erosive esophagitis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan therapy as compared to conventional proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or no vonoprazan for non-erosive esophagitis.
METHODS
A thorough search was conducted across databases. The primary outcome was to determine the mean variance in the gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) score after vonoprazan treatment. Secondary outcomes comprised alterations in the scores for epigastric pain and post-prandial distress, the proportion of patients displaying improvement, and the occurrence of adverse events. Pooled mean differences and relative risks were determined utilizing random effects models.
RESULTS
A total of 1,944 articles were screened and nine of them were included. As compared to PPI or no vonoprazan therapy, vonoprazan treatment led to a significant reduction in the GERD score [mean difference: -3.88 (95 % CI: -5.48, -2.28), p < 0.01, i=95 %]. As compared to PPI or no vonoprazan therapy, vonoprazan treatment led to a significant reduction in the epigastric pain score [mean difference: -3.02 (95 % CI: -5.41, -0.63), p = 0.01, i=75 %] and post-prandial distress score [mean difference: -2.82 (95 % CI: -3.51, -2.12), p < 0.01, i=0 %] (all moderate GRADE evidence). Vonoprazan therapy was found to be safe.
CONCLUSION
Treatment with vonoprazan could significantly improve symptoms in patients with non-erosive esophagitis or non-erosive GERD.
Topics: Sulfonamides; Humans; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Pyrroles; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38719148
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinre.2024.102373 -
Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy Jun 2024The benefits of statins for ischemic cardio-cerebrovascular diseases are well known. However, concerns around muscle adverse events still exist. We therefore aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
PURPOSE
The benefits of statins for ischemic cardio-cerebrovascular diseases are well known. However, concerns around muscle adverse events still exist. We therefore aimed to compare the muscle safety of individual statins in adults.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science were searched to include double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one statin with another or with control treatment. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were undertaken with Stata 14.0 software. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was adopted for each outcome.
RESULTS
A total of 83 RCTs were included. In the pairwise meta-analysis, statins were significantly associated with only a slight increase in muscle symptoms compared with control (RR=1.05; 95% CI=1.01-1.09). In the drug-level network meta-analyses, no statistically significant difference was found between individual statins in the incidence of muscle symptoms, myalgia, myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, creatine kinase (CK) >10 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) or discontinuation due to muscle adverse events. In the dose-level network meta-analyses, there were no statistically significant dose-dependent effects on any outcomes except that moderate-intensity statins had a higher incidence of muscle symptoms than control (RR=1.13; 95% CI=1.01-1.27). Moderate simvastatin (RR=6.57; 95% CI=1.26-34.41) and moderate pravastatin (RR=5.96; 95% CI=1.00-35.44) had a statistically significantly higher incidence of CK >10×ULN compared with moderate atorvastatin. Lipophilic statins and statins metabolized by liver cytochrome P450 3A4 were not associated with an increased risk of muscle adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Statins may be generally safe on muscle. Moderate atorvastatin may be superior to equivalent simvastatin and pravastatin in muscle tolerability.
Topics: Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Muscular Diseases; Network Meta-Analysis; Double-Blind Method; Atorvastatin; Muscle, Skeletal; Myalgia; Rhabdomyolysis
PubMed: 36447018
DOI: 10.1007/s10557-022-07405-0