-
Acta Odontologica Latinoamericana : AOL Apr 2023Oral mucositis (OM) is a frequent complication in cancer patients who are undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy. It manifests as an inflammation of the oral mucosa,...
UNLABELLED
Oral mucositis (OM) is a frequent complication in cancer patients who are undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy. It manifests as an inflammation of the oral mucosa, sometimes provoking severe consequences such as eating limitations, difficulty in speaking, and possibly superinfection.
AIM
The aim of this review was to update the evidence published during the last five years on the treatment of oral mucositis induced by radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy in patients with cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
A search was conducted in Pubmed, Scielo and Scopus, using the search terms mucositis, stomatitis, therapy, treatment, oral cancer, oral squamous cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer and head and neck carcinoma, with Mesh terms and free terms, from 2017 to January 2023. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
A total 287 articles were retrieved, of which 86 were selected by title and abstract, and 18 were included after full-text analysis. The most frequently assessed variables were OM severity, pain intensity and healing time. Treatment types were diverse, and included drugs, mouthwashes, medicines based on plant extracts, cryotherapy and low-intensity laser therapies.
CONCLUSION
Dentoxol mouthwashes, Plantago major extract, thyme honey extract, zinc oxide paste, vitamin B complex combined with GeneTime, and the consumption of L-glutamine are effective in diminishing the severity of OM. Pain intensity was lower with doxepin mouthwashes and diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwashes.
Topics: Humans; Mucositis; Radiotherapy
PubMed: 37314054
DOI: 10.54589/aol.36/1/3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are non-healing, or poorly healing, partial, or full-thickness wounds below the ankle. These ulcers are common, expensive to manage... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are non-healing, or poorly healing, partial, or full-thickness wounds below the ankle. These ulcers are common, expensive to manage and cause significant morbidity and mortality. The presence of a wound has an impact on nutritional status because of the metabolic cost of repairing tissue damage, in addition to the nutrient losses via wound fluid. Nutritional interventions may improve wound healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of nutritional interventions on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.
SEARCH METHODS
In March 2020 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of nutritional interventions on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors, working independently, assessed included RCTs for their risk of bias and rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology, using pre-determined inclusion and quality criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified nine RCTs (629 participants). Studies explored oral nutritional interventions as follows: a protein (20 g protein per 200 mL bottle), 1 kcal/mL ready-to-drink, nutritional supplement with added vitamins, minerals and trace elements; arginine, glutamine and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate supplement; 220 mg zinc sulphate supplements; 250 mg magnesium oxide supplements; 1000 mg/day omega-3 fatty acid from flaxseed oil; 150,000 IU of vitamin D, versus 300,000 IU of vitamin D; 250 mg magnesium oxide plus 400 IU vitamin E and 50,000 IU vitamin D supplements. The comparator in eight studies was placebo, and in one study a different dose of vitamin D. Eight studies reported the primary outcome measure of ulcer healing; only two studies reported a measure of complete healing. Six further studies reported measures of change in ulcer dimension, these studies reported only individual parameters of ulcer dimensions (i.e. length, width and depth) and not change in ulcer volume. All of the evidence identified was very low certainty. We downgraded it for risks of bias, indirectness and imprecision. It is uncertain whether oral nutritional supplement with 20 g protein per 200 mL bottle, 1 kcal/mL, nutritional supplement with added vitamins, minerals and trace elements, increases the proportion of ulcers healed at six months more than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.53). It is also uncertain whether arginine, glutamine and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate supplement increases the proportion of ulcers healed at 16 weeks compared with placebo (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.40). It is uncertain whether the following interventions change parameters of ulcer dimensions over time when compared with placebo; 220 mg zinc sulphate supplement containing 50 mg elemental zinc, 250 mg magnesium oxide supplement, 1000 mg/day omega-3 fatty acid from flaxseed oil supplement, magnesium and vitamin E co-supplementation and vitamin D supplementation. It is also uncertain whether 150,000 IU of vitamin D, impacts ulcer dimensions when compared with 300,000 IU of vitamin D. Two studies explored some of the secondary outcomes of interest for this review. It is uncertain whether oral nutritional supplement with 20 g protein per 200 mL bottle, 1 kcal/mL, nutritional supplement with added vitamins, minerals and trace elements, reduces the number of deaths (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.60) or amputations (RR 4.82, 95% CI 0.24 to 95.88) more than placebo. It is uncertain whether arginine, glutamine and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate supplement increases health-related quality of life at 16 weeks more than placebo (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.03). It is also uncertain whether arginine, glutamine and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate supplement reduces the numbers of new ulcers (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.51), or amputations (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.69) more than placebo. None of the included studies reported the secondary outcomes cost of intervention, acceptability of the intervention (or satisfaction) with respect to patient comfort, length of patient hospital stay, surgical interventions, or osteomyelitis incidence. One study exploring the impact of arginine, glutamine and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate supplement versus placebo did not report on any relevant outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence for the impact of nutritional interventions on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes compared with no nutritional supplementation, or compared with a different dose of nutritional supplementation, remains uncertain, with eight studies showing no clear benefit or harm. It is also uncertain whether there is a difference in rates of adverse events, amputation rate, development of new foot ulcers, or quality of life, between nutritional interventions and placebo. More research is needed to clarify the impact of nutritional interventions on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.
Topics: Arginine; Diabetic Foot; Dietary Proteins; Dietary Supplements; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Female; Glutamine; Humans; Magnesium; Magnesium Oxide; Male; Middle Aged; Minerals; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trace Elements; Valerates; Vitamins; Wound Healing; Zinc Sulfate
PubMed: 32677037
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011378.pub2 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jan 2023Due to increasing resistance rates of () to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and...
BACKGROUND
Due to increasing resistance rates of () to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and treatment algorithms for first-line and second-line therapy against infection are well-established, there is no clear recommendation for third-line and rescue therapy in refractory infection.
AIM
To perform a systematic review evaluating the efficacy and safety of rescue therapies against refractory infection.
METHODS
A systematic search of available rescue treatments for refractory infection was conducted on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed search platform based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the effectiveness of infection rescue therapies were included.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies were included in the analysis of mean eradication rates as rescue therapy, and 21 of these were selected for analysis of mean eradication rate as third-line treatment. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple-therapy as third-line treatment, mean eradication rates of 81.6% and 84.4%, 79.4% and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. For third-line quadruple therapy, mean eradication rates of 69.2% and 72.1% were found for bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT), 88.9% and 90.9% for bismuth quadruple therapy, three-in-one, Pylera (BQT-Pylera), and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT) in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple therapy as rescue therapy, mean eradication rates of 75.4% and 78.8%, 79.4 and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For quadruple therapy as rescue treatment, mean eradication rates of 76.7% and 79.2% for BQT, 84.9% and 87.8% for BQT-Pylera, and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For susceptibility-guided therapy, mean eradication rates as third-line and rescue treatment were 75.0% in ITT and 79.2% in PP analysis.
CONCLUSION
We recommend sitafloxacin-based triple therapy containing vonoprazan in regions with low macrolide resistance profile. In regions with known resistance to macrolides or unavailability of bismuth, rifabutin-based triple therapy is recommended.
Topics: Humans; Helicobacter Infections; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Metronidazole; Helicobacter pylori; Bismuth; Levofloxacin; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Macrolides; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Tetracycline; Rifabutin
PubMed: 36687120
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i2.390 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Apr 2024Cancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and treatment of OIC osmotic (e.g. polyethylene glycol) and stimulant (e.g. bisacodyl) laxatives are widely used. Newer drugs such as the peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) and naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone have become available for the management of OIC. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to give an overview of the scientific evidence on pharmacological strategies for the prevention and treatment of OIC in cancer patients.
METHODS
A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was completed from inception up to 22 October 2022. Randomized and non-randomized studies were systematically selected. Bowel function and adverse drug events were assessed.
RESULTS
Twenty trials (prevention: five RCTs and three cohort studies; treatment: ten RCTs and two comparative cohort studies) were included in the review. Regarding the prevention of OIC, three RCTs compared laxatives with other laxatives, finding no clear differences in effectivity of the laxatives used. One cohort study showed a significant benefit of magnesium oxide compared with no laxative. One RCT found a significant benefit for the PAMORA naldemedine compared with magnesium oxide. Preventive use of oxycodone/naloxone did not show a significant difference in two out of three other studies compared to oxycodone or fentanyl. A meta-analysis was not possible. Regarding the treatment of OIC, two RCTs compared laxatives, of which one RCT found that polyethylene glycol was significantly more effective than sennosides. Seven studies compared an opioid antagonist (naloxone, methylnaltrexone or naldemedine) with placebo and three studies compared different dosages of opioid antagonists. These studies with opioid antagonists were used for the meta-analysis. Oxycodone/naloxone showed a significant improvement in Bowel Function Index compared to oxycodone with laxatives (MD -13.68; 95 % CI -18.38 to -8.98; I = 58 %). Adverse drug event rates were similar amongst both groups, except for nausea in favour of oxycodone/naloxone (RR 0.51; 95 % CI 0.31-0.83; I = 0 %). Naldemedine (NAL) and methylnaltrexone (MNTX) demonstrated significantly higher response rates compared to placebo (NAL: RR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.64-2.61, I = 0 %; MNTX: RR 3.83, 95 % CI 2.81-5.22, I = 0 %). With regard to adverse events, abdominal pain was more present in treatment with methylnaltrexone and diarrhea was significantly more present in treatment with naldemedine. Different dosages of methylnaltrexone were not significantly different with regard to both efficacy and adverse drug event rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Magnesium oxide and naldemedine are most likely effective for prevention of OIC in cancer patients. Naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone, naldemedine and methylnaltrexone effectively treat OIC in cancer patients with acceptable adverse events. However, their effect has not been compared to standard (osmotic and stimulant) laxatives. More studies comparing standard laxatives with each other and with opioid antagonists are necessary before recommendations for clinical practice can be made.
Topics: Humans; Laxatives; Analgesics, Opioid; Narcotic Antagonists; Constipation; Oxycodone; Opioid-Induced Constipation; Magnesium Oxide; Cohort Studies; Naloxone; Polyethylene Glycols; Neoplasms; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Naltrexone
PubMed: 38452708
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102704 -
Cancers Mar 2022(1) Background: In recent years, immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), representing a therapeutic breakthrough... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: In recent years, immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), representing a therapeutic breakthrough in this field. Antacid agents such as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) are commonly prescribed for extended periods in NSCLC patients, and these drugs have the potential to modify the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). (2) Materials and Methods: Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impact of PPIs and H2RAs on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among patients receiving immunotherapy for metastatic NSCLC. Effect measures for OS were Hazard Ratios (HRs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs), which were extracted from available studies. Forest plots were used to assess HRs to describe the relationship between treatment and OS in the specified cohorts of patients. (3) Results: Six studies were included in the analysis, involving 2267 patients. The pooled HRs for OS and PFS were 1.4 (95% CI, 1.25-1.58) and 1.29 (95% CI, 1.17-1.43), respectively, suggesting that PPIs and H2RAs administration was negatively associated with PFS and OS. (4) Conclusion: Concomitant antacid use could modify the activity of ICIs in NSCLC patients.
PubMed: 35326555
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14061404 -
Cureus Mar 2024As the global incidence of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is on the rise, there is a need for better diagnostic criteria, better treatment options, early and... (Review)
Review
As the global incidence of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is on the rise, there is a need for better diagnostic criteria, better treatment options, early and appropriate diagnosis, adequate care, and a multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients. This systematic review explores the role of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in IPF and answers the question, "Does proton pump inhibitor improve only the prognosis of gastroesophageal associated idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or for other types of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis too?" We used PubMed (PMC) and Google Scholar for data collection for this systematic review and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for conducting this review. After in-depth literature screening and quality appraisal, 12 articles were selected for this systematic review. On the one hand, the efficacy of PPI therapy is supported by research such as the CAPACITY and ASCEND trials, a pilot randomized control trial (RCT) investigating the role of omeprazole in IPF and a bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study, respectively. On the other hand, a systematic review and meta-analysis on antacid and antireflux surgery in IPF negate these results and show no statistical significance. Questions regarding the efficacy of PPI therapy must be dealt with in an adequately powered multicenter and double-blinded randomized control trial. The anti-inflammatory properties of antacids can serve as the cornerstone for future trials. In the following systematic review, antacid, antireflux therapy, omeprazole, and proton pump therapy are synonymous with stomach acid suppression therapy.
PubMed: 38606271
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.55980 -
The Journal of International Medical... Oct 2023We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether the addition of probiotics to the bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT) for would improve the incidence of eradication and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether the addition of probiotics to the bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT) for would improve the incidence of eradication and reduce that of side effects.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials matching the inclusion criteria were collected from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the incidences of eradication rate, side effects as a whole, diarrhea, and other side effects.
RESULTS
Ten studies were selected for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The pooled RRs for the eradication rates in intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses of the probiotic group . the control group were 1.07 (95% CI: 1.02-1.11) and 1.04 (95% CI: 1.00-1.07), respectively. Probiotic supplementation reduced the incidences of side effects (RR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37-0.91), diarrhea (RR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.25-0.67), and bitter taste (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.40-0.99).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this meta-analysis support the use of probiotics in combination with BQT in the clinical management of patients with infection.
Topics: Humans; Helicobacter Infections; Bismuth; Helicobacter pylori; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dietary Supplements; Probiotics; Diarrhea; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37848344
DOI: 10.1177/03000605231203841 -
Gut Pathogens Mar 2021Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is one of the most common infectious diseases in patients with cirrhosis and is associated with serious prognosis. A prevailing...
BACKGROUND
Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is one of the most common infectious diseases in patients with cirrhosis and is associated with serious prognosis. A prevailing dogma posits that SBP is exacerbated by the frequent use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).
AIMS
To re-assess the association between PPIs use and SBP incidence with larger and better-quality data.
METHOD
The studies were identified by searching Proquest, Medline, and Embase for English language articles published between January 2008 and March 2020 using the following keywords alone or in combination: anti-ulcer agent, antacid, proton pump inhibitor, proton pumps, PPI, omeprazole, rabeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, esomeprazole, peritonitis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, SBP, ascites, cirrhosis, ascitic and cirrhotic. Three authors critically reviewed all of the studies retrieved and selected those judged to be the most relevant. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was followed. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Sub-group analyses were done to decrease the heterogeneity.
RESULTS
A total of twenty-three studies: seven case-control, and sixteen cohorts, involving 10,386 patients were analyzed. The overall results showed a statistically significant association between SBP and PPIs use (pooled odds ratio (OR): 1.80, 95% CI of 1.41 to 2.31). Substantial heterogeneity was observed. On subgroup analysis involving cohort studies, the association was weaker (OR: 1.55 with 95% CI of 1.16 to 2.06 p < 0.00001) but still statistically significant and with high heterogeneity (Chip = 57.68; I = 74%). For case-control studies, the OR was 2.62 with a 95% CI of 1.94 to 3.54. The funnel plot was asymmetric and Egger's test confirmed asymmetry suggesting publication bias (intercept = - 0.05, SE = 0.27, P = 0.850 two-tailed).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis sheds light on the conflicting results raised by previous studies regarding the association of SBP with PPIs use. Our meta-analysis showed that there is a weak association, although statistically significant, between SBP and PPIs use. However, the magnitude of the possible association diminished when analysis focused on higher quality data that were more robust. Thus, this updated meta-analysis suggests judicious use of PPIs among cirrhotic patients with ascites.
PubMed: 33741033
DOI: 10.1186/s13099-021-00414-8 -
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Jul 2021A large number of studies have evaluated the pharmacology, safety, and/or efficacy of bismuth subsalicylate for the relief of common gastrointestinal symptoms, diarrhea... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A large number of studies have evaluated the pharmacology, safety, and/or efficacy of bismuth subsalicylate for the relief of common gastrointestinal symptoms, diarrhea and vomiting due to acute gastroenteritis. In addition, short-term (48 h) medication with bismuth subsalicylate is known to be effective against infectious gastroenteritis such as travelers' diarrhea.
AIMS
Previous studies have documented the bacteriostatic/bactericidal effects of bismuth subsalicylate against a variety of pathogenic gastrointestinal bacteria. However, meta-analyses of the clinical efficacy of bismuth subsalicylate for both prevention and treatment of travelers' diarrhea have not yet been published.
METHODS
A total of 14 clinical studies (from 1970s to 2007) comprised the core data used in this assessment of efficacy of bismuth subsalicylate against infectious (including travelers') diarrhea. These studies allowed for statistical meta-analyses regarding prevention (three travelers' diarrhea studies) and treatment of infectious diarrhea (11 studies [five travelers' diarrhea]).
RESULTS
The results show that subjects treated with bismuth subsalicylate for up to 21 days have 3.5 times greater odds of preventing travelers' diarrhea compared with placebo (95% CI 2.1, 5.9; p < 0.001). In addition, subjects with infectious diarrhea treated with bismuth subsalicylate had 3.7 times greater odds of diarrhea relief (recorded on diaries as subjective symptomatic improvement) compared to those receiving placebo (95% CI 2.1, 6.3; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that bismuth subsalicylate can be beneficial for those at risk or affected by food and waterborne diarrheal disease such as traveler's (infectious) diarrhea, and may decrease the risk of inappropriate antibiotic utilization.
Topics: Bismuth; Communicable Diseases; Diarrhea; Humans; Organometallic Compounds; Salicylates; Travel
PubMed: 32772204
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-020-06509-7 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Apr 2020Several review articles have been published discussing gastric acid-related drug-drug interactions (DDIs) mediated by coadministration of antacids, histamine H receptor...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Several review articles have been published discussing gastric acid-related drug-drug interactions (DDIs) mediated by coadministration of antacids, histamine H receptor antagonists, or proton pump inhibitors, but are not sufficiently comprehensive in capturing all documented DDIs with acid-reducing agents (ARAs) and tend to focus on gastric pH-dependent DDIs and/or basic drugs. Subsequently, several new drugs have been approved, and new information is available in the literature. The objective of this systematic review is to comprehensively identify oral medications that have clinically meaningful DDIs, including loss of efficacy or adverse effects, with gastric ARAs, and categorize these medications according to mechanism of interaction.
METHODS
An indepth search of clinical data in the PDR3D: Reed Tech Navigator™ for Drug Labels, University of Washington Drug-Drug Interaction Database, DailyMed, [email protected], and UpToDate/Lexicomp Drug and Drug Interaction screening tool was conducted from 1 June to 1 August 2018. The PDR3D, University of Washington Drug-Drug Interaction Database, and DailyMed were searched with terms associated with gastric acid and ARAs. Conflicting findings were further investigated using the UpToDate/Lexicomp screening tool. Clinical relevance was assessed on whether an intervention was needed, and prescribing information and/or literature supporting the DDI.
RESULTS
Through the search strategy, 121 medications were found to clinically meaningfully interact with ARAs. For 38 medications the mechanism of interaction with ARAs was identified as gastric pH dependent, and for 83 medications the interaction was found to be not gastric pH mediated, with mechanisms involving metabolic enzymes, transporters, chelation, and urine alkalization. Additionally, 109 medications were studied and did not have a clinically meaningful interaction with ARAs.
CONCLUSION
This review may provide a resource to healthcare professionals in aiding the care of patients by increasing awareness of interactions with ARAs and may also identify and potentially aid in avoiding clinically relevant DDIs and preventing risk of treatment failure and/or adverse effects. Advances in non-clinical predictions of gastric pH-mediated DDIs may guide the need for a future clinical evaluation.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Allied Health Personnel; Awareness; Databases, Factual; Drug Interactions; Gastric Acid; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Reducing Agents; Safety; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31788764
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-019-00844-3