-
Journal of Gastroenterology Apr 2021The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) revised the third edition of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease in 2020 and created an...
The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) revised the third edition of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease in 2020 and created an English version. The revised guidelines consist of nine items: epidemiology, hemorrhagic gastric and duodenal ulcers, Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy, non-eradication therapy, drug-induced ulcers, non-H. pylori, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ulcers, remnant gastric ulcers, surgical treatment, and conservative therapy for perforation and stenosis. Therapeutic algorithms for the treatment of peptic ulcers differ based on ulcer complications. In patients with NSAID-induced ulcers, NSAIDs are discontinued and anti-ulcer therapy is administered. If NSAIDs cannot be discontinued, the ulcer is treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Vonoprazan (VPZ) with antibiotics is recommended as the first-line treatment for H. pylori eradication, and PPIs or VPZ with antibiotics is recommended as a second-line therapy. Patients who do not use NSAIDs and are H. pylori negative are considered to have idiopathic peptic ulcers. Algorithms for the prevention of NSAID- and low-dose aspirin (LDA)-related ulcers are presented in this guideline. These algorithms differ based on the concomitant use of LDA or NSAIDs and ulcer history or hemorrhagic ulcer history. In patients with a history of ulcers receiving NSAID therapy, PPIs with or without celecoxib are recommended and the administration of VPZ is suggested for the prevention of ulcer recurrence. In patients with a history of ulcers receiving LDA therapy, PPIs or VPZ are recommended and the administration of a histamine 2-receptor antagonist is suggested for the prevention of ulcer recurrence.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Evidence-Based Practice; Japan; Peptic Ulcer; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 33620586
DOI: 10.1007/s00535-021-01769-0 -
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 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Oct 2022This study explored the link between duodenal eosinophils and mast cells in patients with functional dyspepsia (FD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
This study explored the link between duodenal eosinophils and mast cells in patients with functional dyspepsia (FD).
METHODS
MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase electronic databases were searched until June 2021 for case-control studies reporting duodenal eosinophils and mast cells in FD. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD), odds ratio, and 95% CIs of duodenal eosinophils and mast cells in FD patients and controls were calculated, using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Twenty-two case-control studies with 1108 FD patients and 893 controls were identified. Duodenal eosinophils (SMD, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.85-1.73; P = .0001) and mast cells (SMD, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.14-3.07; P = .0001) were increased in FD patients compared with controls. Substantial heterogeneity was found (I = 93.61, P = .0001; and I = 96.69, P = .0001, respectively) and visual inspection of funnel plots confirmed publication bias. Degranulation of duodenal eosinophils was significantly higher in FD patients compared with controls (odds ratio, 3.78; 95% CI, 6.76-4.48; P = .0001), without statistically significant heterogeneity. We conducted a sensitivity analysis for duodenal eosinophils, by including only high-quality studies, and the results remained unchanged (SMD, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.06-2.40; P = .0001), with substantial heterogeneity. Postinfectious FD patients had increased duodenal eosinophils compared with controls (SMD, 3.91; 95% CI, 1.32-6.51; P = .001) and FD patients without any history of infection (SMD, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-1.96; P = .001). Helicobacter pylori-negative FD patients had significantly higher duodenal eosinophils compared with controls (SMD, 3.98; 95% CI, 2.13-5.84; P = .0001), with substantial heterogeneity. No significant difference in duodenal eosinophils was seen according to FD subtypes.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis suggests a link between duodenal microinflammation and FD. However, the quality of evidence is very low, largely owing to the unexplained heterogeneity and serious risk of publication bias in all comparative analyses. Thus, causality remains uncertain and further studies are required.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Duodenum; Dyspepsia; Eosinophilia; Eosinophils; Humans; Mast Cells
PubMed: 35123088
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.01.014 -
Critical Care (London, England) Jan 2018Pharmacologic stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is recommended in critically ill patients with high risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, as to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pharmacologic stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is recommended in critically ill patients with high risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, as to patients receiving enteral feeding, the preventive effect of SUP is not well-known. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of pharmacologic SUP in enterally fed patients on stress-related GI bleeding and other clinical outcomes.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception through 30 Sep 2017. Eligible trials were RCTs comparing pharmacologic SUP to either placebo or no prophylaxis in enterally fed patients in the ICU. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias were explored.
RESULTS
Seven studies (n = 889 patients) were included. There was no statistically significant difference in GI bleeding (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.31, p = 0.37) between groups. This finding was confirmed by further subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis. In addition, SUP had no effect on overall mortality (RR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.56, p = 0.14), Clostridium difficile infection (RR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.25 to 3.19, p = 0.86), length of stay in the ICU (MD 0.04 days; 95% CI, -0.79 to 0.87, p = 0.92), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.38 days; 95% CI, -1.48 to 0.72, p = 0.50), but was associated with an increased risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (RR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.27; p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggested that in patients receiving enteral feeding, pharmacologic SUP is not beneficial and combined interventions may even increase the risk of nosocomial pneumonia.
Topics: Clostridium Infections; Critical Care; Duodenal Ulcer; Enteral Nutrition; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Peptic Ulcer; Respiration, Artificial; Risk Management; Time Factors
PubMed: 29374489
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-017-1937-1 -
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 -
Metabolic Effects of Endoscopic Duodenal Mucosal Resurfacing: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Obesity Surgery Mar 2021Duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) is an innovative endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapy (EBMT) emerging in recent years. It uses the duodenum to achieve better... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) is an innovative endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapy (EBMT) emerging in recent years. It uses the duodenum to achieve better glycemic and weight control. This study aimed to evaluate in a critical and systematic way the metabolic effects of this procedure. Electronic searches were performed evaluating the DMR procedure based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Changes in measured outcomes were evaluated using random-effects models by computing weighted mean differences (MD) and corresponding 95% CIs between pre-and post-procedure metabolic characteristics. Four studies were selected for qualitative and quantitative analysis. DMR demonstrated beneficial glycemic and hepatic metabolic effects among patients with non-insulin dependent type 2 diabetes (T2D) at 3 and 6 months post-procedure.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Duodenum; Humans; Intestinal Mucosa; Obesity, Morbid
PubMed: 33417100
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-020-05170-3 -
European Journal of Gastroenterology &... Apr 2021Duodenal varix is a rare condition that involves massive bleeding, diagnostic difficulties, and a high rate of rebleeding and mortality. The purpose of this study was to...
Duodenal varix is a rare condition that involves massive bleeding, diagnostic difficulties, and a high rate of rebleeding and mortality. The purpose of this study was to systematically review endoscopic treatment for duodenal variceal bleeding to evaluate its effectiveness and safety. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to 21 November 2019. Ninety-two studies containing 156 patients were finally included, and individual data from 101 patients (mean age: 52.67 ± 13.82 years, male: 64.4%) were collected and further analyzed. We used an analysis of variance and χ2 or Fisher's exact tests to analyze individual data from 101 patients. The cause of duodenal variceal bleeding was cirrhosis-related intrahepatic portal hypertension (IPH) in 76.2% of patients. The overall rates of initial hemostasis and treatment success of endoscopic treatment for duodenal variceal bleeding were 89.1 and 81.2%, respectively. The median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (1.0, 12.0) months. The overall rates of rebleeding and mortality were 8.9 and 13.9%, respectively. Among a variety of endoscopic treatments available, only the initial hemostasis rate was significantly different between the endoscopic injection sclerotherapy and endoscopic tissue adhesive (ETA) groups (72.7 vs. 94.7%, P = 0.023); differences in treatment success, rebleeding, mortality, and adverse events were not statistically significant among the four groups. Endoscopic intervention is a feasible, well tolerated, and effective modality for the treatment of duodenal variceal bleeding. Among the variety of endoscopic treatments available, ETA with cyanoacrylate may be preferable for duodenal variceal bleeding.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Hypertension, Portal; Male; Middle Aged; Sclerotherapy; Varicose Veins
PubMed: 32576766
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001819 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Feb 2024The role of systemic therapy in the management of ampullary (AA) and duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA) remains poorly understood. This study sought to synthesize current... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The role of systemic therapy in the management of ampullary (AA) and duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA) remains poorly understood. This study sought to synthesize current evidence supporting the use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in AA and DA.
METHODS
The study searched PubMed, Cochrane Library (Wiley), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for observational or randomized studies published between 2002 and 2022 evaluating survival outcomes for patients with non-metastatic AA or DA who received systemic therapy and surgical resection. The data extracted included overall survival, progression-free survival, and pathologic response (PR) rate.
RESULTS
From the 347 abstracts identified in this study, 29 reports were reviewed in full, and 15 were included in the final review. The selected studies published from 2007 to 2022 were retrospective. Eight were single-center studies; five used the National Cancer Database (NCDB); and two were European multicenter/national studies. Overall, no studies identified survival differences between NAT and upfront surgery (with or without adjuvant therapy). Two NCDB studies reported longer survival with NAT/AT than with surgery. Five single-center studies reported a significant portion of NAT patients who achieved PR, and one study identified major PR as an independent predictor of survival. Other outcomes associated with NAT included conversion from unresectable to resectable disease, reduced lymph node positivity, and decreased local recurrence rate.
CONCLUSION
Evidence supporting the use of NAT in AA and DA is weak. No randomized studies exist, and observational data show mixed results. For patients with DA and AA, NAT appears safe, but better evidence is needed to understand the preferred multidisciplinary management of DA and AA periampullary malignancies.
Topics: Humans; Adenocarcinoma; Combined Modality Therapy; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37952021
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-14531-y -
Asian Journal of Surgery Jan 2020The purpose of this study is to assess the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors for survival of patients with duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) who... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of this study is to assess the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors for survival of patients with duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or local resection (LR). PubMed database was searched for relevant studies. A meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.3 software. Twenty-seven observational studies involving 1103 patients were included in the review. The overall morbidity and 30-day mortality was 27% and 0.5% respectively. The median (range) 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 87% (60-100%) and 71% (44-100%) respectively. In meta-analyses, factors associated with shorter DFS included male sex, mitotic index >5/50 high-power fields, high risk, tumor size >5 cm, and the PD procedure. Factors associated with shorter OS included mitotic index >5/50 high-power fields and tumor size >5 cm. Patients in PD group had a higher incidence of mitotic index >5/50 HPF, a higher incidence of high-risk classification, a higher incidence of tumors in the second portion of the duodenum, a larger tumor size, a longer duration of operation, more intraoperative blood loss, a greater blood transfusion requirement, a higher morbidity rate, a longer hospital stay, and an increased recurrence rate than those in LR group. In conclusion, the current literature review demonstrates that the postoperative prognosis of duodenal GIST is promising and mainly affected by tumor factors. The choice of the surgical approach should depend on the anatomical location and tumor size.
Topics: Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms; Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors; Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Prognosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30853211
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2019.02.006 -
Cancers Sep 2023Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of postoperative pancreatic insufficiency. The robotic platform is increasingly being used for these procedures. We sought to evaluate robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy and assess its complication profile and efficacy.
METHODS
This systematic review consisted of all studies on robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy (central pancreatectomy, duodenum-preserving partial pancreatic head resection, enucleation, and uncinate resection) published between January 2001 and December 2022 in PubMed and Embase.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies were included in this review ( = 788). Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy is being performed worldwide for benign or indolent pancreatic lesions. When compared to the open approach, robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomies led to a longer average operative time, shorter length of stay, and higher estimated intraoperative blood loss. Postoperative pancreatic fistula is common, but severe complications requiring intervention are exceedingly rare. Long-term complications such as endocrine and exocrine insufficiency are nearly nonexistent.
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy appears to have a higher risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula but is rarely associated with severe or long-term complications. Careful patient selection is required to maximize benefits and minimize morbidity.
PubMed: 37686648
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15174369