-
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jan 2021Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a relapsing and remitting condition affecting between 5% and 10% of people. Efficacious therapies are available, but their relative efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a relapsing and remitting condition affecting between 5% and 10% of people. Efficacious therapies are available, but their relative efficacy is unknown.
AIM
To perform a systematic review with network meta-analysis to resolve this uncertainty.
METHODS
We searched the medical literature through July 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing efficacy of drugs for adults with FD, compared with each other, or placebo. Trials reported a dichotomous assessment of symptom status after completion of therapy. We pooled data using a random effects model. Efficacy was reported as a pooled relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to summarise efficacy of each comparison tested. Relative ranking was assessed with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities.
RESULTS
We identified 71 eligible RCTs (19 243 participants). Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were ranked second for efficacy (RR of remaining symptomatic = 0.71; 95% CI 0.58-0.87, SUCRA 0.87), and first when only low risk of bias trials were included. Most RCTs that used TCAs recruited patients who were refractory to other drugs included in the network. Although sulpiride or levosulpiride were ranked first for efficacy (RR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.36-0.69, SUCRA 0.99), trial quality was low and only 86 patients received active therapy. TCAs were more likely to cause adverse events than placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
TCAs, histamine- receptor antagonists, standard- and low-dose proton pump inhibitors, sulpiride or levosulpiride, itopride and acotiamide were all more efficacious than placebo for FD.
Topics: Adult; Dyspepsia; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 32936964
DOI: 10.1111/apt.16072 -
Obesity Reviews : An Official Journal... Jun 2022Clinical trials have investigated the weight loss effect of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) in adults with obesity without diabetes mellitus, but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effect of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on body weight in adults with obesity without diabetes mellitus-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials.
Clinical trials have investigated the weight loss effect of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) in adults with obesity without diabetes mellitus, but results for weight loss efficacy were varied. We aimed to provide an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis for overall weight loss effect of GLP-1 RA in adults with obesity and overweight without diabetes mellitus. We retrieved eligible randomized control trials that assessed the weight loss effect of GLP-1 RA in adults (≥18 years old) without type 1/type 2 diabetes up to September 30, 2021, using Pubmed and Embase. Of 36 clinical trials assessed for eligibility, 12 trials were included, with a combined total of 11,459 participants. Compared with control groups, a more significant weight loss was seen in GLP-1 RA groups with an overall mean difference of -7.1 kg (95% CI -9.2 to -5.0) (I = 99%). The overall analysis results showed that GLP-1 RA improved glycemic control without increasing the risk of hypoglycemic events. Better control of blood pressure and plasma levels of LDL, HDL, and triglycerides was seen with GLP-1 RA treatment. Subgroup analysis showed greater treatment effect of semaglutide than liraglutide. Vomiting, nausea, dyspepsia, diarrhea, constipation, and abdominal pain were GLP-1 RA-associated common adverse effects.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Obesity; Weight Loss
PubMed: 35194917
DOI: 10.1111/obr.13435 -
Obesity Reviews : An Official Journal... Mar 2021This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the association between consumption of ultraprocessed food and noncommunicable disease risk, morbidity and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the association between consumption of ultraprocessed food and noncommunicable disease risk, morbidity and mortality. Forty-three observational studies were included (N = 891,723): 21 cross-sectional, 19 prospective, two case-control and one conducted both a prospective and cross-sectional analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated consumption of ultraprocessed food was associated with increased risk of overweight (odds ratio: 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-1.51; P < 0.001), obesity (odds ratio: 1.51; 95% CI, 1.34-1.70; P < 0.001), abdominal obesity (odds ratio: 1.49; 95% CI, 1.34-1.66; P < 0.0001), all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.48; P = 0.001), metabolic syndrome (odds ratio: 1.81; 95% CI, 1.12-2.93; P = 0.015) and depression in adults (hazard ratio: 1.22; 95% CI, 1.16-1.28, P < 0.001) as well as wheezing (odds ratio: 1.40; 95% CI, 1.27-1.55; P < 0.001) but not asthma in adolescents (odds ratio: 1.20; 95% CI, 0.99-1.46; P = 0.065). In addition, consumption of ultraprocessed food was associated with cardiometabolic diseases, frailty, irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia and cancer (breast and overall) in adults while also being associated with metabolic syndrome in adolescents and dyslipidaemia in children. Although links between ultraprocessed food consumption and some intermediate risk factors in adults were also highlighted, further studies are required to more clearly define associations in children and adolescents. STUDY REGISTRATION: Prospero ID: CRD42020176752.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Food; Food Handling; Humans; Noncommunicable Diseases; Observational Studies as Topic; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 33167080
DOI: 10.1111/obr.13146 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Mar 2016To evaluate whether Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy benefits patients with functional dyspepsia (FD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To evaluate whether Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy benefits patients with functional dyspepsia (FD).
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy and safety of H. pylori eradication therapy for patients with functional dyspepsia published in English (up to May 2015) were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. Pooled estimates were measured using the fixed or random effect model. Overall effect was expressed as a pooled risk ratio (RR) or a standard mean difference (SMD). All data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0.
RESULTS
This systematic review included 25 RCTs with a total of 5555 patients with FD. Twenty-three of these studies were used to evaluate the benefits of H. pylori eradication therapy for symptom improvement; the pooled RR was 1.23 (95%CI: 1.12-1.36, P < 0.0001). H. pylori eradication therapy demonstrated symptom improvement during long-term follow-up at ≥ 1 year (RR = 1.24; 95%CI: 1.12-1.37, P < 0.0001) but not during short-term follow-up at < 1 year (RR = 1.26; 95%CI: 0.83-1.92, P = 0.27). Seven studies showed no benefit of H. pylori eradication therapy on quality of life with an SMD of -0.01 (95%CI: -0.11 to 0.08, P = 0.80). Six studies demonstrated that H. pylori eradication therapy reduced the development of peptic ulcer disease compared to no eradication therapy (RR = 0.35; 95%CI: 0.18-0.68, P = 0.002). Eight studies showed that H. pylori eradication therapy increased the likelihood of treatment-related side effects compared to no eradication therapy (RR = 2.02; 95%CI: 1.12-3.65, P = 0.02). Ten studies demonstrated that patients who received H. pylori eradication therapy were more likely to obtain histologic resolution of chronic gastritis compared to those who did not receive eradication therapy (RR = 7.13; 95%CI: 3.68-13.81, P < 0.00001).
CONCLUSION
The decision to eradicate H. pylori in patients with functional dyspepsia requires individual assessment.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chi-Square Distribution; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dyspepsia; Female; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Remission Induction; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27022230
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i12.3486 -
Nutrients Jan 2020Probiotic is little known for its benefits on upper gastrointestinal health. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy of probiotics in...
Probiotic is little known for its benefits on upper gastrointestinal health. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy of probiotics in alleviating the frequency and severity of symptoms in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the general adult population. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective studies on GERD, heartburn, regurgitation, and dyspepsia, without any limitation on sample size. The Jadad scale was used to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials. In total, 13 prospective studies that were published in 12 articles were included in the analysis and scored per the Jadad scale as high- (five studies), medium- (two), and low- (six) quality. One article reported on two probiotic groups; thus, 14 comparisons were included in the selected studies, of which 11 (79%) reported positive benefits of probiotics on symptoms of GERD. Five out of 11 positive outcomes (45%) noted benefits on reflux symptoms: three noted reduced regurgitation; improvements in reflux or heartburn were seen in one study; five (45%) saw improvements in dyspepsia symptoms; and nine (81%) saw improvements in other upper gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea (three studies), abdominal pain (five), and gas-related symptoms (four), such as belching, gurgling, and burping. In conclusion, probiotic use can be beneficial for GERD symptoms, such as regurgitation and heartburn. However, proper placebo-controlled, randomized, and double-blinded clinical trials with a sufficient number of participants are warranted to confirm its efficacy in alleviating these symptoms. Further, interventions with longer durations and an intermediate analysis of endpoints should be considered to determine the proper therapeutic window.
Topics: Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Probiotics
PubMed: 31906573
DOI: 10.3390/nu12010132 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Jul 2021Gastrointestinal side effects (SEs) are frequently observed in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) while taking antidepressants and may lead to treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Gastrointestinal side effects (SEs) are frequently observed in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) while taking antidepressants and may lead to treatment discontinuation. The aim of this meta-analysis is to provide quantitative measures on short-term rates of gastrointestinal SEs in MDD patients treated with second-generation antidepressants. An electronic search of the literature was conducted by using MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science - Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Library databases. Eligible studies had to focus on the use of at least one of 15 antidepressants commonly used in MDD (i.e., agomelatine, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine) and report data on treatment-emergent gastrointestinal SEs (i.e. nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, anorexia, increased appetite and dry mouth) within 12 weeks of treatment. Overall, 304 studies were included in the meta-analyses. All the considered antidepressants showed higher rates of gastrointestinal SEs than placebo. Escitalopram and sertraline were shown to be the least tolerated antidepressants on the gastrointestinal tract, being associated with all the considered SEs with the exception of constipation and increased appetite, while mirtazapine was shown to be the antidepressant with fewer side effects on the gut, being only associated with increased appetite. In conclusion, commonly used antidepressants showed different profiles of gastrointestinal SEs, possibly related to their mechanisms of action. The specific tolerability profile of each compound should be considered by clinicians when prescribing antidepressants in order to improve adherence to treatment and increase positive outcomes in patients with MDD.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Constipation; Depressive Disorder, Major; Diarrhea; Humans; Nausea; Vomiting
PubMed: 33549697
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2021.110266 -
Gut Jan 2022Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a chronic disorder that is difficult to treat. may contribute to its pathophysiology. A Cochrane review from 2006 suggested that...
OBJECTIVE
Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a chronic disorder that is difficult to treat. may contribute to its pathophysiology. A Cochrane review from 2006 suggested that eradication therapy was beneficial, but there have been numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since. We evaluated impact of eradication therapy on both cure and improvement of FD, as well as whether any benefit was likely to arise from eradication of .
DESIGN
We searched the medical literature through October 2021 to identify RCTs examining efficacy of eradication therapy in -positive adults with FD. The control arm received antisecretory therapy or prokinetics, with or without placebo antibiotics, or placebo alone. Follow-up was for ≥3 months. We pooled dichotomous data to obtain a relative risk (RR) of symptoms not being cured or symptoms not improving with a 95% CI. We estimated the number needed to treat (NNT).
RESULTS
Twenty-nine RCTs recruited 6781 . -positive patients with FD. Eradication therapy was superior to control for symptom cure (RR of symptoms not being cured=0.91; 95% CI 0.88 to 0.94, NNT=14; 95% CI 11 to 21) and improvement (RR of symptoms not improving=0.84; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91, NNT=9; 95% CI 7 to 17). There was no significant correlation between eradication rate and RR of FD improving or being cured (Pearson correlation coefficient=-0.23, p=0.907), but the effect was larger in patients with successful eradication of than with unsuccessful eradication (RR=0.65; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.82, NNT=4.5, 95% CI 3 to 9). Adverse events (RR=2.19; 95% 1.10 to 4.37) and adverse events leading to withdrawal (RR=2.60; 95% CI 1.47 to 4.58) were more common with eradication therapy.
CONCLUSION
There is high quality evidence to suggest that eradication therapy leads to both cure and improvement in FD symptoms, although the benefit is modest.
PubMed: 35022266
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326583 -
Contemporary Clinical Trials... Aug 2022Semaglutide is a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) indicated for glycaemic management in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Oral... (Review)
Review
The efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide for glycaemic management in adults with type 2 diabetes compared to subcutaneous semaglutide, placebo, and other GLP-1 RA comparators: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
AIM
Semaglutide is a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) indicated for glycaemic management in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Oral semaglutide administration can help decrease glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight in people with uncontrolled T2D. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide compared to that of subcutaneous semaglutide, placebo, and other GLP-1 RAs in the treatment of T2D.
METHODS
Randomised controlled trials of subcutaneous and oral semaglutide for glycaemic control in adults with T2D were selected from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed. Mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to synthesise the results, and oral and subcutaneous semaglutide formulations were indirectly compared using mixed treatment comparisons.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were included in this review (6840 participants). Oral semaglutide (14.0 mg) significantly reduced HbA1c (MD, -1.30% [95%CI: -1.44, -1.16], P < 0.05) and body weight (MD, -3.17 kg [95%CI: -3.89, -2.45], P < 0.05) compared to placebo (MD, HbA1c: -0.32% [95%CI: -0.49, -0.15], P < 0.05; MD body weight: -2.56 kg [95%CI: -3.41, -1.71], P < 0.05), liraglutide (1.2 mg), exenatide ER (2.0 mg), and dulaglutide (1.5 mg). Oral semaglutide was slightly less effective than subcutaneous semaglutide in reducing HbA1c levels (MD: -0.26% [95%CI: -0.44, -0.07], P < 0.05) and body weight (MD: -1.08 kg [95%CI: -2.04, -0.12], P < 0.05). Oral semaglutide increased the incidence of adverse events (nausea, diarrhoea, dyspepsia, and vomiting) compared to placebo, liraglutide (1.2 mg), exenatide (ER, 2.0 mg), and dulaglutide 1.5 mg but not compared to subcutaneous semaglutide.
CONCLUSION
Oral semaglutide was non-inferior to subcutaneous semaglutide and superior to placebo and another GLP-1 RA in reducing HbA1c and body weight. It was superior to subcutaneous semaglutide and inferior to other GLP-1 RA comparators and placebo in terms of the incidence of adverse events. Thus, oral semaglutide provides a convenient administration route for patients who prefer oral treatments over injectable therapies.
PubMed: 35812819
DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100944 -
Gut Jul 2015Many cross-sectional surveys have reported the prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia, but there has been no recent systematic review of data from all studies to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Many cross-sectional surveys have reported the prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia, but there has been no recent systematic review of data from all studies to determine its global prevalence and risk factors.
DESIGN
MEDLINE, EMBASE and EMBASE Classic were searched (until January 2014) to identify population-based studies that reported the prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia in adults (≥ 15 years old); dyspepsia was defined using symptom-based criteria or questionnaires. The prevalence of dyspepsia was extracted for all studies and according to the criteria used to define it. Pooled prevalence, according to study location and certain other characteristics, ORs and 95% CIs were calculated.
RESULTS
Of the 306 citations evaluated, 103 reported the prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia in 100 separate study populations, containing 312,415 subjects. Overall pooled prevalence in all studies was 20.8% (95% CI 17.8% to 23.9%). The prevalence varied according to country (from 1.8% to 57.0%) and criteria used to define dyspepsia. The greatest prevalence values were found when a broad definition of dyspepsia (29.5%; 95% CI 25.3% to 33.8%) or upper abdominal or epigastric pain or discomfort (20.4%; 95% CI 16.3% to 24.8%) were used. The prevalence was higher in women (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.36), smokers (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.40), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) users (OR 1.59; 95% CI 1.27 to 1.99) and Helicobacter pylori-positive individuals (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.33).
CONCLUSIONS
The overall pooled prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia was 21%, but varied among countries and according to the criteria used to define its presence. Prevalence is significantly higher in women, smokers, NSAID users and H. pylori-positive individuals, although these associations were modest.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dyspepsia; Female; Global Health; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Intestines; Male; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Sex Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 25147201
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307843 -
The Lancet. Gastroenterology &... Jul 2023Rome criteria differentiate distinct types of disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI); also known as functional gastrointestinal disorders. Overlap of symptom... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Rome criteria differentiate distinct types of disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI); also known as functional gastrointestinal disorders. Overlap of symptom categories frequently occurs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to define the prevalence of DGBI overlap and compare overlap in population-based, primary care or tertiary care health settings. Furthermore, we aimed to compare symptom severity of psychological comorbidities in DGBI with and without overlap.
METHODS
For this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase electronic databases from inception until March 1, 2022, for original articles and conference abstracts of observational cross-sectional, case-controlled, or cohort design studies that reported the prevalence of DGBI overlap in adult participants (aged ≥18 years). We included only those studies where the diagnosis of DGBI was based on clinical assessment, questionnaire data, or specific symptom-based criteria. Studies were excluded if reporting on mixed populations of DGBI and organic diseases. Aggregate patient data were extracted from eligible published studies. The prevalence of DGBI overlap in all studies was pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model, and further analysis stratified by subgroups (care setting, diagnostic criteria, geographic region, and gross domestic product per capita). We also assessed the relationship between DGBI overlap with anxiety, depression, and quality of life symptom scores. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022311101).
FINDINGS
46 of 1268 screened studies, reporting on 75 682 adult DGBI participants, were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Overall, 24 424 (pooled prevalence 36·5% [95% CI 30·7 to 42·6]) participants had a DGBI overlap, with considerable between-study heterogeneity (I=99·51, p=0·0001). In the tertiary health-care setting, overlap among participants with DGBI was more prevalent (8373 of 22 617, pooled prevalence 47·3% [95% CI 33·2 to 61·7]) compared with population-based cohorts (11 332 of 39 749, pooled prevalence 26·5% [95% CI 20·5 to 33·4]; odds ratio 2·50 [95% CI 1·28 to 4·87]; p=0·0084). Quality of life physical component scores were significantly lower in participants with DGBI overlap compared with participants without overlap (standardised mean difference -0·47 [95% CI -0·80 to -0·14]; p=0·025). Participants with DGBI overlap had both increased symptom scores for anxiety (0·39 [95% CI 0·24 to 0·54]; p=0·0001) and depression (0·41 [0·30 to 0·51]; p=0·0001).
INTERPRETATION
Overlap of DGBI subtypes is frequent, and is more prevalent in tertiary care settings and associated with more severe symptom manifestations or psychological comorbidities. Despite the large sample size, the comparative analyses revealed substantial heterogeneity, and the results should be interpreted with caution.
FUNDING
National Health and Medical Research Council and Centre for Research Excellence.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Cross-Sectional Studies; Quality of Life; Anxiety; Comorbidity; Brain; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37211024
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(23)00102-4