-
Dysphagia Oct 2020Dysphagia is associated with increased risk of stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP). However, it is unclear what other factors contribute to that risk or which measures may... (Review)
Review
Dysphagia is associated with increased risk of stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP). However, it is unclear what other factors contribute to that risk or which measures may reduce it. This systematic review aimed to provide evidence on interventions and care processes associated with SAP in patients with dysphagia. Studies were screened for inclusion if they included dysphagia only patients, dysphagia and non-dysphagia patients or unselected patients that included dysphagic patients and evaluated factors associated with a recorded frequency of SAP. Electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2017. Eligible studies were critically appraised. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I. The primary outcome was SAP. Eleven studies were included. Sample sizes ranged from 60 to 1088 patients. There was heterogeneity in study design. Measures of immunodepression are associated with SAP in dysphagic patients. There is insufficient evidence to justify screening for aerobic Gram-negative bacteria. Prophylactic antibiotics did not prevent SAP and proton pump inhibitors may increase risk. Treatment with metoclopramide may reduce SAP risk. Evidence that nasogastric tube (NGT) placement increases risk of SAP is equivocal. A multidisciplinary team approach and instrumental assessment of swallowing may reduce risk of pneumonia. Patients with impaired mobility were associated with increased risk. Findings should be interpreted with caution given the number of studies, heterogeneity and descriptive analyses. Several medical interventions and care processes, which may reduce risk of SAP in patients with dysphagia, have been identified. Further research is needed to evaluate the role of these interventions and care processes in clinical practice.
Topics: Deglutition; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Pneumonia; Risk Factors; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation
PubMed: 31493069
DOI: 10.1007/s00455-019-10061-6 -
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 -
BMJ Open Feb 2020To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines to assess the effectiveness of four treatment approaches (manual therapy, probiotics, proton... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines to assess the effectiveness of four treatment approaches (manual therapy, probiotics, proton pump inhibitors and simethicone) on colic symptoms including infant crying time, sleep distress and adverse events.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Mantis for studies published between 2009 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews and guidelines that used evidence and expert panel opinion. Three reviewers independently selected articles by title, abstract and full paper review. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Selected studies were assessed for quality using modified standardised checklists by two authors. Meta-analysed data for our outcomes of interest were extracted and narrative conclusions were assessed.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were selected. High-level evidence showed that probiotics were most effective for reducing crying time in breastfed infants (range -25 min to -65 min over 24 hours). Manual therapies had moderate to low-quality evidence showing reduced crying time (range -33 min to -76 min per 24 hours). Simethicone had moderate to low evidence showing no benefit or negative effect. One meta-analysis did not support the use of proton pump inhibitors for reducing crying time and fussing. Three national guidelines unanimously recommended the use of education, parental reassurance, advice and guidance and clinical evaluation of mother and baby. Consensus on other advice and treatments did not exist.
CONCLUSIONS
The strongest evidence for the treatment of colic was probiotics for breastfed infants, followed by weaker but favourable evidence for manual therapy indicated by crying time. Both forms of treatment carried a low risk of serious adverse events. The guidance reviewed did not reflect these findings.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019139074.
Topics: Antifoaming Agents; Colic; Humans; Infant; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Probiotics; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Review Literature as Topic; Simethicone; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32102827
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035405 -
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Jun 2021Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used for acid suppression in the treatment and prevention of many conditions, including gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastric...
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used for acid suppression in the treatment and prevention of many conditions, including gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastric and duodenal ulcers, erosive esophagitis, Helicobacter pylori infection, and pathological hypersecretory conditions. Most PPIs are metabolized primarily by cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) into inactive metabolites, and CYP2C19 genotype has been linked to PPI exposure, efficacy, and adverse effects. We summarize the evidence from the literature and provide therapeutic recommendations for PPI prescribing based on CYP2C19 genotype (updates at www.cpicpgx.org). The potential benefits of using CYP2C19 genotype data to guide PPI therapy include (i) identifying patients with genotypes predictive of lower plasma exposure and prescribing them a higher dose that will increase the likelihood of efficacy, and (ii) identifying patients on chronic therapy with genotypes predictive of higher plasma exposure and prescribing them a decreased dose to minimize the risk of toxicity that is associated with long-term PPI use, particularly at higher plasma concentrations.
Topics: Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Genotype; Humans; Pharmacogenetics; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 32770672
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.2015 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are usually prescribed to prevent gastrointestinal (GI) complications in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). This...
Efficacy and safety of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors with aspirin-clopidogrel dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are usually prescribed to prevent gastrointestinal (GI) complications in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of the concomitant use of PPIs with aspirin-clopidogrel DAPT in patients with Coronary heart disease (CHD). The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to August 2022 for eligible studies. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to different PPI subtypes, populations, follow-up times and study types. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022332195). A total of 173,508 patients from 18 studies [2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 3 analyses of RCTs, and 13 cohort studies] were included in this study. Pooled data revealed that coadministration of PPIs significantly increased the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.06-1.26, = .001) and reduced the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) complications (HR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.30-0.64, .0001). Subgroup analysis results showed that the esomeprazole users and patients with coronary stenting in the PPI group were associated with an increased risk of MACEs compared with the non-PPI group. The occurrence of MACEs in PPI users was more common than that in non-PPI users in long-term follow-up (≥12 months) studies and in the observational studies. There was no significant differences in the incidences of net clinical adverse events (NACEs), all-cause mortality, or cardiac death between the two groups. In patients with CHD, the concomitant use of PPIs with aspirin and clopidogrel was associated with a reduced risk of GI complications but could increase the rates of MACEs (particularly in patients receiving esomeprazole or with coronary stenting). There was no clear evidence of an association between PPI use and NACEs, all-cause mortality, or cardiac death. The results could have been affected by the follow-up time and study type. Further large-scale RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.
PubMed: 36703730
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1021584 -
The American Journal of Medicine Oct 2022The role of antisecretory drugs for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients using anticoagulants is unclear. We investigated this question in a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The role of antisecretory drugs for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients using anticoagulants is unclear. We investigated this question in a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov thru April 2021 for controlled randomized trials and observational studies evaluating the association of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or H2-receptor antagonists with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients using anticoagulants. Independent duplicate review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed. Observational studies were included only if they provided results controlled for at least 2 variables. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models.
RESULTS
Six observational studies and 1 randomized trial were included. All but 1 study had low risk of bias. None of the studies excluded patients with concomitant aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. For PPIs, the pooled relative risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding was 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.61, 0.74) with low statistical heterogeneity (I = 15%). Individual studies showed greater treatment effect in patients with higher risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or aspirin use, elevated bleeding risk score). A single observational study evaluating the association of H2-receptor antagonists with upper gastrointestinal bleeding found a relative risk of 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.24-2.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence drawn mostly from observational studies with low risk of bias demonstrate that PPIs reduce upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients prescribed oral anticoagulants. The benefit appears to be most clearcut and substantial in patients with elevated risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Gastrointestinal Agents; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 35679879
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2022.05.031 -
Journal of Gastroenterology and... Aug 2019Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disease caused by reflux of gastric contents to the esophagus. Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are recommended as a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disease caused by reflux of gastric contents to the esophagus. Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are recommended as a first-line therapy to treat GERD. Recently, a new potassium-competitive acid blocker, vonoprazan, was launched in Japan. We aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of vonoprazan and other PPIs in healing GERD.
METHODS
We used MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to search the literature. Double-blind randomized controlled trials for PPIs and/or vonoprazan that were published in English or Japanese and assessed healing effects in adult GERD patients were included. To estimate the comparative efficacy of treatments, we performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to assess the consistency assumption.
RESULTS
Of 4001 articles identified in the database, 42 studies were eligible. One study was hand-searched and added to the analysis. For the main analysis of healing effects at 8 weeks, odds ratios (ORs) of vonoprazan (20 mg daily) to esomeprazole (20 mg), rabeprazole (20 mg), lansoprazole (30 mg), and omeprazole (20 mg) were 2.29 (95% credible interval, 0.79-7.06), 3.94 (1.15-14.03), 2.40 (0.90-6.77), and 2.71 (0.98-7.90), respectively. Subgroup analysis for patients with severe esophagitis at baseline showed significantly higher ORs for vonoprazan versus most of the comparator PPIs.
CONCLUSIONS
This analysis shows that the GERD healing effect of vonoprazan is higher than that of rabeprazole (20 mg) but not higher than other PPIs. Subgroup analysis indicated that vonoprazan is more effective than most PPIs for patients with severe erosive esophagitis.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Esophagitis, Peptic; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Patient Selection; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Pyrroles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Severity of Illness Index; Sulfonamides; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 30883868
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.14664 -
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 -
Digestion 2023Vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, has a strong acid suppression effect and potent efficacy in acid-associated diseases, including Helicobacter... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, has a strong acid suppression effect and potent efficacy in acid-associated diseases, including Helicobacter pylori eradication. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy for H. pylori eradication.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search through PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to June 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy and triple therapies for H. pylori eradication. Primary outcomes were cure rates and relative efficacy. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, dropout rate, and subgroup analysis.
RESULTS
Five studies with 1,852 patients were included in the analysis. The cure rates of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy were 85.6% with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 79.7-91.5% and 88.5% (95% CI: 83.2-93.8%) in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. The efficacy of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy was not inferior to that of triple therapy with pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.03 (95% CI: 0.97-1.10) and 1.02 (95% CI: 0.98-1.08) in intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses; while it was significantly superior to the omeprazole or lansoprazole-based triple therapy (RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.05-1.25, p = 0.001). For clarithromycin-resistant strains, vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy showed superiority to vonoprazan-based triple therapy (86.7% vs. 71.4%, RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.39, p = 0.02); however, vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy was significant inferior to vonoprazan-based triple therapy for clarithromycin-sensitive strains (83.0% vs. 92.8%, RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.85-0.95, p = 0.0002). The adverse effects of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy were lower than those of triple therapy (21.2% vs. 26.5%, RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.73-1.01, p = 0.06), especially the incidence of diarrhea (p = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy is noninferior to vonoprazan-based triple therapy but superior to the omeprazole or lansoprazole-based triple therapy and has less side effects. Patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains are particularly expected to benefit from vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy.
Topics: Humans; Amoxicillin; Clarithromycin; Helicobacter pylori; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Helicobacter Infections; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Pyrroles; Lansoprazole; Omeprazole; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37015201
DOI: 10.1159/000529622 -
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk... 2023Levothyroxine is a common prescribed drug. Many medications and food, however, can interfere with its bioavailability. The aim of this review was to summarize the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Levothyroxine is a common prescribed drug. Many medications and food, however, can interfere with its bioavailability. The aim of this review was to summarize the medications, food and beverages that interact with levothyroxine and to assess their effects, mechanisms and treatments.
METHODS
A systematic review on interfering substances that interact with levothyroxine was performed. Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane library, grey literature from other sources and the lists of references were searched for human studies comparing the levothyroxine efficacy with and without interfering substances. The patient characteristics, drug classes, effects and mechanism were extracted. The NHLBI study quality assessment tools and the JBI critical appraisal checklist were used to assess the quality of included studies.
RESULTS
A total of 107 articles with 128 studies were included. Drugs interactions were revealed in calcium and iron supplements, proton pump inhibitors, bile acid sequestrants, phosphate binders, sex hormones, anticonvulsants and other drugs. Some food and beverage could also induce malabsorption. Proposed mechanisms included direct complexing, alkalization, alteration of serum thyroxine-binding globulin levels and acceleration of levothyroxine catabolism via deiodination. Dose adjustment, administration separation and discontinuation of interfering substances can eliminate the interactions. Liquid solutions and soft-gel capsules could eliminate the malabsorption due to chelation and alkalization. The qualities of most included studies were moderate.
CONCLUSION
Lots of medications and food can impair the bioavailability of levothyroxine. Clinicians, patients and pharmaceutical companies should be aware of the possible interactions. Further well-designed studies are needed to provide more solid evidence on treatment and mechanisms.
PubMed: 37384019
DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S414460