-
Digestive Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) 2021Chronic diarrhea is defined as more than 3 bowel movements per day, or loose stools, or stool weight >200 g/day for at least 4 weeks. Accompanying symptoms may include...
BACKGROUND
Chronic diarrhea is defined as more than 3 bowel movements per day, or loose stools, or stool weight >200 g/day for at least 4 weeks. Accompanying symptoms may include urgency, abdominal pain, or cramps.
SUMMARY
A number of causes have to be considered, including inflammatory, neoplastic, malabsorptive, infective, vascular, and functional gastrointestinal diseases. Other causes include food intolerances, side effects of drugs, or postsurgical conditions. Diarrhea may also be symptom of a systemic disease, like diabetes or hyperthyroidism. Special patient groups, like the very elderly and immunocompromised patients, pose special challenges. This review follows a question-answer style and addresses questions raised on the intersection of primary and secondary care. What do you mean by diarrhea? Why is it important to distinguish between acute or chronic diarrhea? How shall the patient with chronic diarrhea be approached? How can history and physical exam help? How can routine laboratory tests help in categorizing diarrhea? Which additional laboratory tests may be helpful? How to proceed in undiagnosed or intractable diarrhea? What are the treatment options in patients with chronic diarrhea? Key Messages: Acute diarrhea is usually of infectious origin with the main treatment goal of preventing water and electrolyte disturbances. Chronic diarrhea is usually not of infectious origin and may be the symptom of a large number of gastrointestinal and general diseases or drug side effects. In undiagnosed or intractable diarrhea, the question shall be raised whether the appropriate tests have been performed and interpreted correctly.
Topics: Aged; Chronic Disease; Defecation; Diarrhea; Feces; Gastroenterologists; Humans; Primary Health Care
PubMed: 33588424
DOI: 10.1159/000515219 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Jul 2021The ability to accurately predict early progression of dengue to severe disease is crucial for patient triage and clinical management. Previous systematic reviews and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The ability to accurately predict early progression of dengue to severe disease is crucial for patient triage and clinical management. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have found significant heterogeneity in predictors of severe disease due to large variation in these factors during the time course of the illness. We aimed to identify factors associated with progression to severe dengue disease that are detectable specifically in the febrile phase.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify predictors identifiable during the febrile phase associated with progression to severe disease defined according to WHO criteria. Eight medical databases were searched for studies published from Jan 1, 1997, to Jan 31, 2020. Original clinical studies in English assessing the association of factors detected during the febrile phase with progression to severe dengue were selected and assessed by three reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses were done using random-effects models to estimate pooled effect sizes. Only predictors reported in at least four studies were included in the meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane Q and I statistics, and publication bias was assessed by Egger's test. We did subgroup analyses of studies with children and adults. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018093363.
FINDINGS
Of 6643 studies identified, 150 articles were included in the systematic review, and 122 articles comprising 25 potential predictors were included in the meta-analyses. Female patients had a higher risk of severe dengue than male patients in the main analysis (2674 [16·2%] of 16 481 vs 3052 [10·5%] of 29 142; odds ratio [OR] 1·13 [95% CI 1·01-1·26) but not in the subgroup analysis of studies with children. Pre-existing comorbidities associated with severe disease were diabetes (135 [31·3%] of 431 with vs 868 [16·0%] of 5421 without; crude OR 4·38 [2·58-7·43]), hypertension (240 [35·0%] of 685 vs 763 [20·6%] of 3695; 2·19 [1·36-3·53]), renal disease (44 [45·8%] of 96 vs 271 [16·0%] of 1690; 4·67 [2·21-9·88]), and cardiovascular disease (nine [23·1%] of 39 vs 155 [8·6%] of 1793; 2·79 [1·04-7·50]). Clinical features during the febrile phase associated with progression to severe disease were vomiting (329 [13·5%] of 2432 with vs 258 [6·8%] of 3797 without; 2·25 [1·87-2·71]), abdominal pain and tenderness (321 [17·7%] of 1814 vs 435 [8·1%] of 5357; 1·92 [1·35-2·74]), spontaneous or mucosal bleeding (147 [17·9%] of 822 vs 676 [10·8%] of 6235; 1·57 [1·13-2·19]), and the presence of clinical fluid accumulation (40 [42·1%] of 95 vs 212 [14·9%] of 1425; 4·61 [2·29-9·26]). During the first 4 days of illness, platelet count was lower (standardised mean difference -0·34 [95% CI -0·54 to -0·15]), serum albumin was lower (-0·5 [-0·86 to -0·15]), and aminotransferase concentrations were higher (aspartate aminotransferase [AST] 1·06 [0·54 to 1·57] and alanine aminotransferase [ALT] 0·73 [0·36 to 1·09]) among individuals who progressed to severe disease. Dengue virus serotype 2 was associated with severe disease in children. Secondary infections (vs primary infections) were also associated with severe disease (1682 [11·8%] of 14 252 with vs 507 [5·2%] of 9660 without; OR 2·26 [95% CI 1·65-3·09]). Although the included studies had a moderate to high risk of bias in terms of study confounding, the risk of bias was low to moderate in other domains. Heterogeneity of the pooled results varied from low to high on different factors.
INTERPRETATION
This analysis supports monitoring of the warning signs described in the 2009 WHO guidelines on dengue. In addition, testing for infecting serotype and monitoring platelet count and serum albumin, AST, and ALT concentrations during the febrile phase of illness could improve the early prediction of severe dengue.
FUNDING
Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research, Collaborative Project to Increase Production of Rural Doctors, and Royal Thai Government.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Coinfection; Comorbidity; Disease Progression; Fever; Humans; Platelet Count; Risk Factors; Serum Albumin; Severe Dengue; Sex Factors; Vomiting
PubMed: 33640077
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30601-0 -
The Lancet. Gastroenterology &... Feb 2020Although novel therapies for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) continue to be developed, many doctors rely on more established, traditional therapies as first-line or...
BACKGROUND
Although novel therapies for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) continue to be developed, many doctors rely on more established, traditional therapies as first-line or second-line treatment options. These therapies include soluble fibre (eg, ispaghula husk), antispasmodic drugs, peppermint oil, and gut-brain neuromodulators (including tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or α-2-δ calcium channel subunit ligands). However, the relative efficacy of traditional treatments in patients with IBS is unclear because there have been few head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to compare and rank the efficacy of traditional therapies in patients with IBS to help inform clinical decisions.
METHODS
For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to week 2 of August 2019; ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished trials or supplementary data published up to Aug 18, 2019; and gastroenterology conference proceedings for study abstracts published between 2001 and Aug 18, 2019. We included RCTs that compared any of these treatments with each other (head-to-head trials) or with placebo, in which the efficacy of soluble fibre, antispasmodic drugs, peppermint oil, or gut-brain neuromodulators was assessed in adults (aged at least 18 years) with IBS of any subtype after 4-12 weeks of treatment. Only RCTs reporting a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy, in terms of either improvement in global IBS symptoms or improvement in abdominal pain, were included. The efficacy and safety of all treatments were reported as a pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested, and treatments were ranked according to their P-score.
FINDINGS
Our search identified 5863 references, of which 81 were screened for eligibility. 51 RCTs with data from 4644 patients were eligible for inclusion in our analysis, but only 13 of these trials were at low risk of bias. Based on an endpoint of failure to achieve improvement in global IBS symptoms at 4-12 weeks, peppermint oil capsules were ranked first for efficacy (RR 0·63, 95% CI 0·48-0·83, P-score 0·84) and tricyclic antidepressants were ranked second (0·66, 0·53-0·83, P-score 0·77). For failure to achieve an improvement in global IBS symptoms at 4-12 weeks, there were no significant differences between active treatments after direct or indirect comparisons. For failure to achieve improvement in abdominal pain at 4-12 weeks, tricyclic antidepressants were ranked first for efficacy (0·53, 0·34-0·83, P-score 0·87); however, this result was based on data from only four RCTs involving 92 patients. For failure to achieve an improvement in abdominal pain, none of the active treatments showed superior efficacy upon indirect comparison. Tricyclic antidepressants were more likely than placebo to lead to adverse events (1·59, 1·26-2·06, P-score 0·16).
INTERPRETATION
In this network meta-analysis of RCTs of soluble fibre, antispasmodic drugs, peppermint oil, and gut-brain neuromodulators for IBS, few of which were judged as being at a low risk of bias, peppermint oil was ranked first for efficacy when global symptoms were used as the outcome measure, and tricyclic antidepressants were ranked first for efficacy when abdominal pain was used as the outcome measure. However, because of the lack of methodological rigour of some RCTs analysed in our study, there is likely to be considerable uncertainty around these findings. In addition, because treatment duration in most included trials was 4-12 weeks, the long-term relative efficacy of these treatments is unknown.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Brain; Dietary Fiber; Humans; Intestinal Mucosa; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Network Meta-Analysis; Neurotransmitter Agents; Parasympatholytics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31859183
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30324-3 -
Surgery Dec 2023Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy has been proposed as an alternative strategy for treating appendicitis, but debate exists on its role compared with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy versus appendectomy or antibiotics in the modern approach to uncomplicated acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy has been proposed as an alternative strategy for treating appendicitis, but debate exists on its role compared with conventional treatment.
METHODS
This systematic review was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. The last search was in April of 2023. The risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval was calculated for dichotomous variables, and the mean difference with a 95% confidence interval for continuous variables. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (randomized controlled trials) and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Intervention tool (non-randomized controlled trials).
RESULTS
Six studies met the eligibility criteria. Four studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 236 patients) and appendectomy (n = 339) and found no differences in technical success during index admission (risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.92,1.02]). Appendectomy showed superior outcomes for recurrence at 1-year follow-up (risk ratio 11.28, 95% confidence interval [2.61,48.73]). Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy required shorter procedural time (mean difference -14.38, 95% confidence interval [-20.17, -8.59]) and length of hospital stay (mean difference -1.19, 95% confidence interval [-2.37, -0.01]), with lower post-intervention abdominal pain (risk ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval [0.14,0.32]). Two studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 269) and antibiotic treatment (n = 280). Technical success during admission (risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval [0.91,1.35]) and appendicitis recurrence (risk ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval [0.08,14.87]) did not differ, but endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy decreased the length of hospitalization (mean difference -1.91, 95% confidence interval [-3.18, -0.64]).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis did not identify significant differences between endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy and appendectomy or antibiotics regarding technical success during index admission and treatment efficacy at 1-year follow-up. However, a high risk of imprecision limits these results. The advantages of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy in terms of reduced procedural times and shorter lengths of stay must be balanced against the increased risk of having an appendicitis recurrence at one year.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Hospitalization; Length of Stay; Abdominal Pain; Acute Disease
PubMed: 37806859
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.08.029 -
Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal Feb 2020Treatments that target alterations in gut microbiota may be beneficial for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). A systematic review and meta-analysis was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Treatments that target alterations in gut microbiota may be beneficial for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics. Factors considered in the analysis included global IBS symptoms and/or abdominal pain, secondary symptoms and the frequency of adverse events. A total of 33 RCTs involving 4,321 patients were identified. Overall, probiotics significantly improved global IBS symptoms compared to placebos (standardised mean difference = -0.32, 95% confidence interval: -0.48 to -0.15; <0.001), with significant heterogeneity between studies ( = 72%; <0.001). This remained apparent in both single- and multi-strain probiotic interventions as well as synbiotic formulations. However, evidence regarding prebiotics was scarce. There were no significant inter-group differences in terms of the frequency of adverse events. Future RCTs should address methodological limitations, including short follow-up periods and patient adherence.
Topics: Adult; Female; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Male; Middle Aged; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Synbiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32190365
DOI: 10.18295/squmj.2020.20.01.003 -
PloS One 2020The objective of our systematic review is to identify prognostic factors that may be used in decision-making related to the care of patients infected with COVID-19.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The objective of our systematic review is to identify prognostic factors that may be used in decision-making related to the care of patients infected with COVID-19.
DATA SOURCES
We conducted highly sensitive searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Embase. The searches covered the period from the inception date of each database until April 28, 2020. No study design, publication status or language restriction were applied.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
We included studies that assessed patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infectious disease and examined one or more prognostic factors for mortality or disease severity. Reviewers working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each prognostic factor and outcome.
RESULTS
We included 207 studies and found high or moderate certainty that the following 49 variables provide valuable prognostic information on mortality and/or severe disease in patients with COVID-19 infectious disease: Demographic factors (age, male sex, smoking), patient history factors (comorbidities, cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, cardiac arrhythmia, arterial hypertension, diabetes, dementia, cancer and dyslipidemia), physical examination factors (respiratory failure, low blood pressure, hypoxemia, tachycardia, dyspnea, anorexia, tachypnea, haemoptysis, abdominal pain, fatigue, fever and myalgia or arthralgia), laboratory factors (high blood procalcitonin, myocardial injury markers, high blood White Blood Cell count (WBC), high blood lactate, low blood platelet count, plasma creatinine increase, high blood D-dimer, high blood lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), high blood C-reactive protein (CRP), decrease in lymphocyte count, high blood aspartate aminotransferase (AST), decrease in blood albumin, high blood interleukin-6 (IL-6), high blood neutrophil count, high blood B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), high blood urea nitrogen (BUN), high blood creatine kinase (CK), high blood bilirubin and high erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)), radiological factors (consolidative infiltrate and pleural effusion) and high SOFA score (sequential organ failure assessment score).
CONCLUSION
Identified prognostic factors can help clinicians and policy makers in tailoring management strategies for patients with COVID-19 infectious disease while researchers can utilise our findings to develop multivariable prognostic models that could eventually facilitate decision-making and improve patient important outcomes.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
Prospero registration number: CRD42020178802. Protocol available at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20056598v1.
Topics: Aged; Aging; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Comorbidity; Coronavirus Infections; Data Management; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Prognosis; Risk Factors; SARS-CoV-2; Socioeconomic Factors
PubMed: 33201896
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241955 -
Efficacy of drugs in chronic idiopathic constipation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.The Lancet. Gastroenterology &... Nov 2019There are several drugs available for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation, but their relative efficacy is unclear because there have been no head-to-head... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are several drugs available for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation, but their relative efficacy is unclear because there have been no head-to-head randomised controlled trials. We did a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of these therapies in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Embase, Embase Classic, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials published from inception to week 3 June, 2019, to identify randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of drugs (osmotic or stimulant laxatives, elobixibat, linaclotide, lubiprostone, mizagliflozin, naronapride, plecanatide, prucalopride, tegaserod, tenapanor, or velusetrag) in adults with chronic idiopathic constipation. Participants had to be treated for a minimum of 4 weeks, and we extracted data for all endpoints preferentially at 4 weeks, 12 weeks, or both. Trials included in the analysis reported a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy (response or no response to therapy). We pooled the data using a random effects model, and reported efficacy and safety of all treatments as a pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested. To rank treatments, we used P-scores, which measure the extent of certainty that a treatment is better than another treatment, averaged over all competing treatments.
FINDINGS
We identified 33 eligible randomised controlled trials of drugs, comprising 17 214 patients. Based on an endpoint of failure to achieve three or more complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) per week, the stimulant diphenyl methane laxatives bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate, at a dose of 10 mg once daily, were ranked first at 4 weeks (RR 0·55, 95% CI 0·48-0·63, P-score 0·99), and prucalopride 2 mg once daily ranked first at 12 weeks (0·82, 0·78-0·86, P-score 0·96). When response to therapy was defined as falilure to achieve an increase of one or more CSBM per week from baseline, diphenyl methane laxatives at a dose of 10 mg once daily ranked first at 4 weeks (0·44, 0·37-0·54, P-score 0·99), with prucalopride 4 mg once daily ranked first at 12 weeks (0·74, 0·66-0·83, P-score 0·79), although linaclotide 290 μg once daily and prucalopride 2 mg once daily had similar efficacy (P-scores of 0·76 and 0·71, respectively). Bisacodyl ranked last in terms of safety for total number of adverse events and abdominal pain (P-score 0·08).
INTERPRETATION
Almost all drugs studied were superior to placebo, according to either failure to achieve three or more CSBMs per week or or failure to achieve an increase of one or more CSBM per week over baseline. Although diphenyl methane laxatives ranked first at 4 weeks, patients with milder symptoms might have been included in these trials. Prucalopride ranked first at 12 weeks, and many of the included trials recruited patients who previously did not respond to laxatives, suggesting that this drug is likely to be the most efficacious for patients with chronic idiopathic constipation. However, because treatment duration in most trials was 4-12 weeks, the long-term relative efficacy of these drugs is unknown.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Constipation; Humans; Laxatives; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31474542
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30246-8 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jan 2024To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy, safety, patient symptoms, and quality-of-life (QoL) of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat as treatment for chronic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative profiles of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat for chronic constipation: a systematic literature review with meta-analysis and number needed to treat/harm.
OBJECTIVE
To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy, safety, patient symptoms, and quality-of-life (QoL) of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat as treatment for chronic constipation (CC).
DESIGN
Systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis (MA). Literature searches were conducted on PubMed and Embase using the Ovid platform.
METHODS
SLR including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies was conducted to identify the overall efficacy and safety of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat. Thereafter, MA was performed using only RCTs. The number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) analyses were additionally conducted.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcome was efficacy regarding change in spontaneous bowel movements. Secondary outcomes included safety, constipation-related symptoms, and QoL.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria for the SLR: 17 RCTs, 4 observational studies, and 3 single-arm trials. Feasibility assessment for the MA resulted in 14 studies available for safety data analysis, and 8 available for efficacy analysis, respectively. Three drugs showed similar efficacy in the MA and NNT analysis. However, the NNH analysis revealed distinct safety profiles: lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat were linked to the highest risk of nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The current study provides an updated overview of the efficacy, safety, patient symptoms, and QoL of the three drugs with different mechanisms of action for CC treatment.The findings could help physicians adopt an individualized approach for treating patients with CC in clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Constipation; Lubiprostone; Peptides; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38166671
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-03104-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Functional Abdominal Pain Disorders (FAPDs) present a considerable burden to paediatric patients, impacting quality of life, school attendance and causing higher rates... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Functional Abdominal Pain Disorders (FAPDs) present a considerable burden to paediatric patients, impacting quality of life, school attendance and causing higher rates of anxiety and depression disorders. There are no international guidelines for the management of this condition. A previous Cochrane Review in 2011 found no evidence to support the use of antidepressants in this context.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for FAPDs in children and adolescents.
SEARCH METHODS
In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and two clinical trial registers from inception until 03 February 2020. We also updated our search of databases of ongoing research, reference lists and 'grey literature' from inception to 03 February 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antidepressants to placebo, to no treatment or to any other intervention, in children aged 4 to 18 years with a FAPD diagnosis as per the Rome or any other defined criteria (as defined by the authors). The primary outcomes of interest included treatment success (as defined by the authors), pain severity, pain frequency and withdrawal due to adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors checked all citations independently, resolving disagreement with a third-party arbiter. We reviewed all potential studies in full text, and once again made independent decisions, with disagreements resolved by consensus. We conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments independently, following Cochrane methods. Where homogeneous data were available, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We conducted GRADE analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We found one new study in this updated search, making a total of three trials (223 participants) eligible for inclusion: two using amitriptyline (AMI) and one using citalopram. For the primary outcome of treatment success, two studies used reports of success on a symptom-based Likert scale, with either a two-point reduction or the two lowest levels defined as success. The third study defined success as a 15% improvement in quality of life (QOL) ratings scales. Therefore, meta-analysis did not include this final study due to the heterogeneity of the outcome measure. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference when antidepressants are compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.56; 2 studies, 205 participants; I = 0%). We downgraded the evidence for significant imprecision due to extremely sparse data (see Summary of findings table 1). The third study reported that participants receiving antidepressants were significantly more likely than those receiving placebo to experience at least a 15% improvement in overall QOL score at 10 and 13 weeks (P = 0.007 and P = 0.002, respectively (absolute figures were not given)). The analysis found no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between antidepressants and placebo: RR 3.17 (95% CI 0.65 to 15.33), with very low certainty due to high risk of bias in studies and imprecision due to low event and participant numbers. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effect model and analysing just for AMI found no change in this result. Due to heterogeneous and limited reporting, no further meta-analysis was possible.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There may be no difference between antidepressants and placebo for treatment success of FAPDs in childhood. There may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events, but this is also of low certainty. There is currently no evidence to support clinical decision making regarding the use of these medications. Further studies must consider sample size, homogenous and relevant outcome measures and longer follow up.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adolescent; Amitriptyline; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Child; Citalopram; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33560523
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008013.pub3 -
Pancreatology : Official Journal of the... Oct 2021Pain is the most common symptom in chronic pancreatitis (CP) with a major impact on quality of life. Few validated questionnaires to assess pain in CP exist, and the...
Pain is the most common symptom in chronic pancreatitis (CP) with a major impact on quality of life. Few validated questionnaires to assess pain in CP exist, and the lack of consensus negatively impacts clinical management, research and meta-analysis. This guideline aims to review generic pain questionnaires for their usability in CP, to outline how pain assessment can be modified by confounding factors and pain types, to assess the value of additional measures such as quality of life, mental health and quantitative sensory testing, and finally to review pain assessment questionnaires used specifically in CP. A systematic review was done to answer 27 questions that followed the PICO (Population; Intervention; Comparator; Outcome) template. Quality of evidence of the statements was judged by Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The manuscript was sent for review to 36 experts from various disciplines and continents in a multi-stage Delphi process, and finally reviewed by patient representatives. Main findings were that generic pain instruments are valid in most settings, but aspects of pain are specific for CP (including in children), and instruments have to account for the wide phenotypic variability and development of sensitization of the central nervous system. Side effects to treatment and placebo effects shall also be considered. Some multidimensional questionnaires are validated for CP and are recommended together with assessment of quality of life and psychiatric co-morbidities. This guideline will result in more homogeneous and comprehensive pain assessment to potentially improve management of painful CP.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Chronic Pain; Consensus; Humans; Pain Measurement; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Quality of Life; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 34391675
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2021.07.004