-
Clinical Therapeutics Mar 2020Acid-suppressive medications are widely used in non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) patients for stress ulcer (SU) prophylaxis. However, SU prophylaxis in this population... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Acid-suppressive medications are widely used in non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) patients for stress ulcer (SU) prophylaxis. However, SU prophylaxis in this population is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of these agents for SU prophylaxis in non-ICU patients.
METHODS
Electronic databases including Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, Ovid-Medline, Embase, Chinese CNKI, and Wanfang Data were systematically searched on July 10, 2019, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated acid-suppressive medications in non-ICU patients. Network meta-analysis and pairwise meta-analysis were performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. A random-effects model was used for generating pooled estimates. The primary outcome was occurrence of SU bleeding, and the adverse drug events (ADEs) were described as the secondary outcome.
FINDINGS
A total of 17 RCTs involving 1985 patients were eligible. Meta-analysis results indicated that the occurrence of SU bleeding was significantly decreased with all acid-suppressive medications compared with placebos (gastric mucosa protectants, OR = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.14-0.61]; H2-receptor antagonists, OR = 0.3 [95% CI, 0.18-0.50]; proton pump inhibitors [PPIs]: OR = 0.08 [95% CI, 0.04-0.16]). The occurrence of SU bleeding was significantly decreased with PPIs compared with gastric mucosa protectants (OR = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12-0.72) and H2-receptor antagonists (OR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16-0.48). There was no significant difference between any 2 classes of PPIs on SU bleeding or any 2 acid-suppressive medications on ADEs.
IMPLICATIONS
PPIs could significantly decrease SU bleeding risk without increasing ADEs than other acid-suppressive medications for SU prophylaxis in non-ICU patients. However, RCTs of high quality were required to confirm the findings of this investigation.
Topics: Antacids; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Ulcer
PubMed: 32046894
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.01.008 -
Gut and Liver Jan 2020Although acid suppressants are widely used for the prevention or treatment of drug-induced upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), evidence regarding the prevention of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Although acid suppressants are widely used for the prevention or treatment of drug-induced upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), evidence regarding the prevention of anticoagulant-related GIB is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the protective effect of acid suppressants against anticoagulant-related GIB. A systematic review was conducted of studies that evaluated the protective effect of acid suppressants against anticoagulant-related GIB found in PubMed, the Cochrane library, Embase, and KoreaMed from the date of database inception to April 2018. Random effect model meta-analyses with sensitivity analyses were conducted. The methodological quality of each included publication was evaluated using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies. Publication bias was assessed. In total, six nested case-control or cohort studies were identified and analyzed. Proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) had a protective effect against upper GIB in patients on dicumarinics (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.83; , 0%); however, the histamine-2 receptor antagonist did not have the same effect (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.81; , 0%). Acid suppressants did not have a protective effect against GIB in patients on dabigatran (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.37; , 81.8%). The protective effect of PPIs against dicumarinics-related upper GIB was clear, while there was no evidence supporting the protective effect of acid suppressants against dabigatran-related GIB. However, in the absence of randomized trials demonstrating a lack of bias, solid conclusions cannot be drawn.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Antacids; Anticoagulants; Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Coumarins; Dabigatran; Female; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30974930
DOI: 10.5009/gnl19009 -
Current Reviews in Clinical and... 2024infects at least 50% of the world's human population. The current study aimed to assess and compare the efficacy of triple versus quadruple therapy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
infects at least 50% of the world's human population. The current study aimed to assess and compare the efficacy of triple versus quadruple therapy.
METHODS
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) consisting of triple and quadruple therapy were identified through electronic and manual searches in the national and international online databases (IsI, Magiran, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus). The random-effects model was applied to pool analysis. Funnel plots and the Egger test were used to examine publication bias.
RESULTS
After a detailed review of the selected articles, 80 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis; it was based on using triple and quadruple therapy as the first and second-line treatment. The results showed that quadruple therapy in the first-line treatment had a higher eradication rate than triple therapy. Overall, the eradication rate with triple therapy was 74% (95% CI, 71%-77%) for intention-totreat (ITT) analysis and 80% (95% CI, 77%-82%) for per-protocol (PP) analysis. Generally, the eradication rate with quadruple therapy was 82% (95% CI, 78.0%-86.0%) for ITT analysis and 85% (95% CI, 82.0%-89.0%) for PP analysis. The analysis also revealed that quadruple therapy was more effective for 7 or 10 days.
CONCLUSION
The current study results demonstrated that quadruple therapy has better effectiveness than triple therapy as the first-line treatment; however, in the second-line treatment, the effectiveness of quadruple and triple regimens is almost similar. The effectiveness of quadruple therapy in the Asian population was found to be slightly higher than that of triple therapy, while this difference was considerably higher in the European population.
Topics: Humans; Bismuth; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36683319
DOI: 10.2174/2772432818666230120111237 -
European Journal of Gastroenterology &... Dec 2021Cure rate following standard first-line regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication is decreasing so several patients require two or more treatments. Antibiotic...
Cure rate following standard first-line regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication is decreasing so several patients require two or more treatments. Antibiotic susceptibility-based therapy, advised in current guidelines, is largely impracticable in clinical practice. Some 'standard' regimens (triple therapies based on either levofloxacin or rifabutin, bismuth-based quadruple therapies, sequential, concomitant and hybrid therapies) were empirically used as rescue therapies. We performed a systematic review on recent studies carried out in European countries dealing with these regimens. A total of 24 studies, with 3804 patients, were identified. As second-line therapy, Pylera (89.2%) and sequential therapy (92.5%) achieved significantly higher cure rates as compared to all the other regimens. As third-line therapy, levofloxacin-based therapy (84.1%) and Pylera (83.6%) achieved similarly high cure rates, whereas standard, bismuth-based quadruple therapy (64.1%) achieved the lowest. As a rescue therapy, the success rate was close to 75% following all therapies used, with data on rifabutin-based regimen consolidated in the larger sample size. Overall, levofloxacin-amoxicillin triple therapy achieved higher eradication rates when the 14- rather than 10-day regimen was used (87.1 vs. 72.2%; P = 0.003). Among bismuth-based therapies, Pylera achieved a significantly higher eradication rate than standard quadruple therapy (88 vs. 67%; P < 0.0001). These data suggest that a wise 'therapeutic package' following first-line therapy could be Pylera, levofloxacin- and rifabutin-based therapy, as long as Pylera therapy was not used as a first-line regimen and levofloxacin-based regimen was administered for 14 days.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bismuth; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Levofloxacin; Metronidazole; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Rifabutin; Tetracycline; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 33741798
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000002100 -
BMJ Open Gastroenterology Sep 2020Current guidelines recommend bismuth-containing quadruple therapy (BQT) and quinolone-containing therapy after failure of first-line eradication therapy. However, the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Current guidelines recommend bismuth-containing quadruple therapy (BQT) and quinolone-containing therapy after failure of first-line eradication therapy. However, the optimum regimen of second-line eradication therapy remains elusive. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the relative efficacy of 16 second-line eradication regimens.
METHODS
Three major bibliographic databases were reviewed to enrol relevant randomised controlled trials between January 2000 and September 2018. Network meta-analysis was conducted by STATA software and we performed subgroup analysis in countries with high clarithromycin resistance and high levofloxacin resistance, and in patients with documented failure of first-line triple therapy.
RESULTS
Fifty-four studies totalling 8752 participants who received 16 regimens were eligible for analysis. Compared with a 7-day BQT, use of probiotic add-on therapy during, before, and after second-line antibiotic regimens, quinolone-based sequential therapy for 10-14 days, quinolone-based bismuth quadruple therapy for 10-14 days, bismuth quadruple therapy for 10-14 days, and quinolone-based triple therapy for 10-14 days were significantly superior to the other regimens. Subgroup analysis of countries with high clarithromycin resistance and high levofloxacin resistance revealed that the ranking of second-line eradication regimens was distributed similarly in each group, as well as in patients with failure of first-line triple therapy.
CONCLUSION
We conducted a detailed comparison of second-line regimens according to different antibiotic resistance rates and the results suggest alternative treatment choices with potential benefits beyond those that could be achieved using salvage therapies recommended by guidelines.
Topics: Adult; Antacids; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bismuth; Clarithromycin; Drug Resistance, Multiple; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Levofloxacin; Male; Metronidazole; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tetracycline
PubMed: 32883715
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2020-000472 -
The Journal of Antimicrobial... Apr 2024Managing drug-food interactions may help to achieve the optimal action and safety profile of β-lactam antibiotics. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Managing drug-food interactions may help to achieve the optimal action and safety profile of β-lactam antibiotics.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review with meta-analyses in adherence to PRISMA guidelines for 32 β-lactams. We included 166 studies assessing the impact of food, beverages, antacids or mineral supplements on the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters or PK/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) indices.
RESULTS
Eighteen of 25 β-lactams for which data on food impact were available had clinically important interactions. We observed the highest negative influence of food (AUC or Cmax decreased by >40%) for ampicillin, cefaclor (immediate-release formulations), cefroxadine, cefradine, cloxacillin, oxacillin, penicillin V (liquid formulations and tablets) and sultamicillin, whereas the highest positive influence (AUC or Cmax increased by >45%) for cefditoren pivoxil, cefuroxime and tebipenem pivoxil (extended-release tablets). Significantly lower bioavailability in the presence of antacids or mineral supplements occurred for 4 of 13 analysed β-lactams, with the highest negative impact for cefdinir (with iron salts) and moderate for cefpodoxime proxetil (with antacids). Data on beverage impact were limited to 11 antibiotics. With milk, the extent of absorption was decreased by >40% for cefalexin, cefradine, penicillin G and penicillin V, whereas it was moderately increased for cefuroxime. No significant interaction occurred with cranberry juice for two tested drugs (amoxicillin and cefaclor).
CONCLUSIONS
Factors such as physicochemical features of antibiotics, drug formulation, type of intervention, and patient's health state may influence interactions. Due to the poor actuality and diverse methodology of included studies and unproportionate data availability for individual drugs, we judged the quality of evidence as low.
Topics: Humans; Cefaclor; beta Lactam Antibiotics; Cefuroxime; Penicillin V; Cephradine; Biological Availability; Antacids; Streptococcus pneumoniae; Anti-Bacterial Agents; beta-Lactams; Monobactams; Minerals; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 38334389
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkae028