-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a class of medications that reduce acid secretion and are used for treating many conditions such as gastroesophageal reflux disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a class of medications that reduce acid secretion and are used for treating many conditions such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), dyspepsia, reflux esophagitis, peptic ulcer disease, and hypersecretory conditions (e.g. Zollinger-Ellison syndrome), and as part of the eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori bacteria. However, approximately 25% to 70% of people are prescribed a PPI inappropriately. Chronic PPI use without reassessment contributes to polypharmacy and puts people at risk of experiencing drug interactions and adverse events (e.g. Clostridium difficile infection, pneumonia, hypomagnesaemia, and fractures).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects (benefits and harms) associated with deprescribing long-term PPI therapy in adults, compared to chronic daily use (28 days or greater).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). The last date of search was November 2016. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant studies. We screened 2357 articles (2317 identified through search strategy, 40 through other resources). Of these articles, we assessed 89 for eligibility.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials comparing at least one deprescribing modality (e.g. stopping PPI or reducing PPI) with a control consisting of no change in continuous daily PPI use in adult chronic users. Outcomes of interest were: change in gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, drug burden/PPI use, cost/resource use, negative and positive drug withdrawal events, and participant satisfaction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed and extracted data and completed the risk of bias assessment. A third review author independently confirmed risk of bias assessment. We used Review Manager 5 software for data analysis. We contacted study authors if there was missing information.
MAIN RESULTS
The review included six trials (n = 1758). Trial participants were aged 48 to 57 years, except for one trial that had a mean age of 73 years. All participants were from the outpatient setting and had either nonerosive reflux disease or milder grades of esophagitis (LA grade A or B). Five trials investigated on-demand deprescribing and one trial examined abrupt discontinuation. There was low quality evidence that on-demand use of PPI may increase risk of 'lack of symptom control' compared with continuous PPI use (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31 to 2.21), thereby favoring continuous PPI use (five trials, n = 1653). There was a clinically significant reduction in 'drug burden', measured as PPI pill use per week with on-demand therapy (mean difference (MD) -3.79, 95% CI -4.73 to -2.84), favoring deprescribing based on moderate quality evidence (four trials, n = 1152). There was also low quality evidence that on-demand PPI use may be associated with reduced participant satisfaction compared with continuous PPI use. None of the included studies reported cost/resource use or positive drug withdrawal effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with mild GERD, on-demand deprescribing may lead to an increase in GI symptoms (e.g. dyspepsia, regurgitation) and probably a reduction in pill burden. There was a decline in participant satisfaction, although heterogeneity was high. There were insufficient data to make a conclusion regarding long-term benefits and harms of PPI discontinuation, although two trials (one on-demand trial and one abrupt discontinuation trial) reported endoscopic findings in their intervention groups at study end.
Topics: Aged; Deprescriptions; Esophagitis; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Inappropriate Prescribing; Middle Aged; Patient Satisfaction; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 28301676
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011969.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2011Oesophagitis arises when reflux of acid from the stomach into the oesophagus causes mucosal inflammation. It is a common problem and a systematic review on the optimum... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Oesophagitis arises when reflux of acid from the stomach into the oesophagus causes mucosal inflammation. It is a common problem and a systematic review on the optimum treatment would be useful.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), prokinetic therapy, sucralfate and placebo in healing oesophagitis or curing reflux symptoms or both. To compare adverse effects with the different treatments.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the National Research Register until December 2004 and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials assessing the healing of oesophagitis or reflux symptoms or both. Treatment involving PPIs, H2RAs, prokinetics, sucralfate and combinations either in comparison to another treatment regimen or to placebo for 2 and 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviews independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 134 trials involving 35,978 oesophagitis participants. Five RCTs evaluated standard dose of PPI versus placebo in 965 participants. There was a statistically significant benefit of taking standard dose PPI therapy compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Ten RCTs reported on the outcome for H2RA versus placebo evaluating 1241 participants. There was statistically significant benefit of taking H2RA compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.74,95% CI = 0.66 to 0.84). Three RCTs evaluated prokinetic therapy versus placebo in 198 participants. There was no statistically significant benefit of taking prokinetic therapy compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.10). Twenty six RCTs reported the outcome for PPI versus H2RA or H2RA plus prokinetics, evaluating 4032 participants. There was statistically significant benefit of taking PPI therapy compared to H2RA or H2RA plus prokinetics in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.59).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
PPI therapy is the most effective therapy in oesophagitis but H2RA therapy is also superior to placebo. There is a paucity of evidence on prokinetic therapy but no evidence that it is superior to placebo.
Topics: Anti-Ulcer Agents; Esophagitis, Peptic; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sucralfate
PubMed: 21328259
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003244.pub3 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Aug 2015Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most widely used classes of drugs. However, the quantum clinical benefit of newer and more expensive PPIs over the older... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most widely used classes of drugs. However, the quantum clinical benefit of newer and more expensive PPIs over the older generation PPIs remains uncertain. This meta-analysis sought to assess the clinical and safety profiles of esomeprazole versus omeprazole at pharmacologically equivalent doses in healing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcer disease and eradicating Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection.
METHODS
PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing esomeprazole with omeprazole at all doses up to February 2015. Trials were assessed by two reviewers for eligibility according to predefined study inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model, and heterogeneity in the estimated effects was investigated using meta-regression. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the findings.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fifteen trials were included and none of which compared esomeprazole with omeprazole in peptic ulcer disease. The included studies had not evaluated esomeprazole 20 mg versus omeprazole 40 mg. In GERD, esomeprazole 40 mg (relative risk (RR) = 1·07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·02 to 1·12) and 20 mg (RR=1·04; 95% CI 1·01 to 1·08) significantly improved esophagitis healing when compared with omeprazole 20 mg at week 8. The corresponding numbers needed to treat were 17 and 30, respectively. No significant difference was observed between esomeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 20 mg at week 4. In H. pylori eradication, there was no difference in the treatment effects between esomeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 20 mg (RR = 1·01;95% CI 0·96 to 1·05). Their safety profiles were comparable.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
Esomeprazole demonstrated better esophagitis healing rate in patients with GERD than omeprazole at week 8. However, this clinical advantage diminished when both drugs were given at the same doses at week 4. Superiority of esomeprazole was not observed in the H. pylori eradication rates.
Topics: Esomeprazole; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Omeprazole; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25893507
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.12277 -
Surgical Endoscopy May 2021Achalasia is a rare, chronic, and morbid condition with evolving treatment. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has gained considerable popularity, but its comparative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Achalasia is a rare, chronic, and morbid condition with evolving treatment. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has gained considerable popularity, but its comparative effectiveness is uncertain. We aim to evaluate the literature comparing POEM to Heller myotomy (HM) and pneumatic dilation (PD) for the treatment of achalasia.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of comparative studies between POEM and HM or PD. A priori outcomes pertained to efficacy, perioperative metrics, and safety. Internal validity of observational studies and randomized trials (RCTs) was judged using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, respectively.
RESULTS
From 1379 unique literature citations, we included 28 studies comparing POEM and HM (n = 21) or PD (n = 8), with only 1 RCT addressing each. Aside from two 4-year observational studies, POEM follow-up averaged ≤ 2 years. While POEM had similar efficacy to HM, POEM treated dysphagia better than PD both in an RCT (treatment "success" RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.34-2.17; 126 patients) and in observational studies (Eckardt score MD - 0.43, 95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.16; 5 studies; I 21%; 405 patients). POEM needed reintervention less than PD in an RCT (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08-0.47; 126 patients) and HM in an observational study (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16, 0.68; 98 patients). Though 6-12 months patient-reported reflux was worse than PD in 3 observational studies (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.02-7.00; I 0%; 164 patients), post-intervention reflux was inconsistently measured and not statistically different in measures ≥ 1 year. POEM had similar safety outcomes to both HM and PD, including treatment-related serious adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
POEM has similar outcomes to HM and greater efficacy than PD. Reflux remains a critical outcome with unknown long-term clinical significance due to insufficient data and inconsistent reporting.
Topics: Deglutition Disorders; Dilatation; Esophageal Achalasia; Esophageal Sphincter, Lower; Esophagitis, Peptic; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Heller Myotomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery; Observational Studies as Topic; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33655443
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08353-w -
Journal of Gastroenterology Sep 2011Epidemiological studies of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in Japan vary in design. This systematic review examines the prevalence of GERD in Japan,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epidemiological studies of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in Japan vary in design. This systematic review examines the prevalence of GERD in Japan, distinguishing between study methodologies, and reports on changes over time and factors potentially associated with GERD.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase searches identified studies reporting the prevalence of GERD in the general population, primary care patients, and individuals undergoing routine health checks.
RESULTS
Of the twenty eligible studies, half excluded individuals taking acid-suppressive medication, so these studies would have been likely to have underestimated the prevalence by 2-3%. Nine studies reported the prevalence of at least weekly reflux symptoms (the definition closest to the Montreal definition): in seven studies this was 6.5-9.5%, but in two studies that included individuals who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy the prevalence was 19.0 and 21.8%. Eight studies used symptom scores: prevalence estimates ranged from 10.2 to 29.0% in five studies using the Carlsson-Dent self-administered questionnaire (QUEST), and from 27.0 to 37.6% in three studies using the frequency scale for the symptoms of GERD. Prevalence estimates were 15.1-24.3% in three studies that reported the presence of reflux symptoms of undefined frequency. Six studies reported the prevalence of reflux esophagitis as 4.9-8.2%. Changes in prevalence over time and factors associated with reflux symptoms were inconsistent.
CONCLUSIONS
Few studies have reported the prevalence of GERD in Japan using standardized criteria. Thus, prevalence estimates vary substantially, reflecting differences in study populations and GERD definitions. However, seven studies reported that the prevalence of at least weekly symptoms was 6.5-9.5%, a finding which approaches that reported in Western populations (10-20%).
Topics: Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Epidemiologic Methods; Epidemiologic Research Design; Esophagitis, Peptic; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Japan; Prevalence; Time Factors
PubMed: 21695373
DOI: 10.1007/s00535-011-0429-3 -
PloS One 2020To investigate the role of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in the development of dental disorders.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the role of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in the development of dental disorders.
METHODS
The first outcome was review of the role of reflux in the development of dental disorders in adults. The second outcome was review of the potential pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the association between reflux and dental disorders. Three investigators screened publications for eligibility and exclusion based on predetermined criteria through a literature search conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
RESULTS
From 386 publications, 24 studies were kept for analysis. Objective approaches were used in 16 studies to confirm GERD diagnosis. Pharyngeal reflux episodes (LPR) were considered in 2 studies. No study considered nonacid reflux. The study results supported a higher prevalence of dental erosion and caries in reflux patients compared with healthy individuals. Patients with dental erosion have a higher prevalence of reflux than controls. The pathophysiological mechanisms would involve changes in the saliva physiology. No study investigated the microbiota modifications related to reflux although the findings are supporting the critical role of microbiota change in the development of dental disorders. There is an important heterogeneity between studies about diagnostic methods and clinical outcome evaluation.
CONCLUSION
The involvement of reflux in the development of dental disorders is not formally demonstrated and requires future investigations considering pharyngeal acid and nonacid reflux episodes and in particular their potential impact on oral microbiota.
Topics: Dental Caries; Esophagitis, Peptic; Humans; Laryngopharyngeal Reflux; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Saliva
PubMed: 32797062
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237581 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics May 2021Gastro-oesophageal reflux is considered the main risk factor for Barrett's oesophagus. The role of other potential risk factors for the development of Barrett's... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Gastro-oesophageal reflux is considered the main risk factor for Barrett's oesophagus. The role of other potential risk factors for the development of Barrett's oesophagus in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms is controversial.
AIMS
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis examining risk factors in development of Barrett's oesophagus.
METHODS
Medline, Embase and Embase Classic were searched (until December 2020) to identify cross-sectional studies reporting prevalence of Barrett's oesophagus based on presence of one or more proposed risk factors in individuals with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms. Prevalence of Barrett's oesophagus was compared according to presence or absence of each risk factor in individuals with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms.
RESULTS
Of 7164 citations evaluated, 13 studies reported prevalence of Barrett's oesophagus in 11 856 subjects. Pooled prevalence of histologically confirmed Barrett's oesophagus in individuals with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms in all studies was 7.0% (95% CI 4.8% to 9.6%). Prevalence was higher in subjects with hiatal hernia (OR 2.74; 95% CI 1.58 to 4.75) and in those who drank alcohol (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.95). Other features including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and/or aspirin use (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.42), smoking (OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.35) or obesity (OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.33) were not significantly associated with Barrett's oesophagus.
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of Barrett's oesophagus in individuals with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms was higher in those who drank alcohol, although this association was modest. The strongest association found was between hiatal hernia and Barrett's oesophagus. Other potential risk factors assessed in this study did not appear to be associated with presence of Barrett's oesophagus among individuals with gastro-oesophageal symptoms.
Topics: Barrett Esophagus; Cross-Sectional Studies; Esophagitis, Peptic; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33705573
DOI: 10.1111/apt.16321 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2007Oesophagitis arises when reflux of acid from the stomach into the oesophagus causes mucosal inflammation. It is a common problem and a systematic review on the optimum... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Oesophagitis arises when reflux of acid from the stomach into the oesophagus causes mucosal inflammation. It is a common problem and a systematic review on the optimum treatment would be useful.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), prokinetic therapy, sucralfate and placebo in healing oesophagitis or curing reflux symptoms or both. To compare adverse effects with the different treatments.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the National Research Register until December 2004 and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials assessing the healing of oesophagitis or reflux symptoms or both. Treatment involving PPIs, H2RAs, prokinetics, sucralfate and combinations either in comparison to another treatment regimen or to placebo for 2 and 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviews independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 134 trials involving 35,978 oesophagitis participants. Five RCTs evaluated standard dose of PPI versus placebo in 965 participants. There was a statistically significant benefit of taking standard dose PPI therapy compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Ten RCTs reported on the outcome for H2RA versus placebo evaluating 1241 participants. There was statistically significant benefit of taking H2RA compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.74,95% CI = 0.66 to 0.84). Three RCTs evaluated prokinetic therapy versus placebo in 198 participants. There was no statistically significant benefit of taking prokinetic therapy compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.10). Twenty six RCTs reported the outcome for PPI versus H2RA or H2RA plus prokinetics, evaluating 4032 participants. There was statistically significant benefit of taking PPI therapy compared to H2RA or H2RA plus prokinetics in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.59).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
PPI therapy is the most effective therapy in oesophagitis but H2RA therapy is also superior to placebo. There is a paucity of evidence on prokinetic therapy but no evidence that it is superior to placebo.
Topics: Anti-Ulcer Agents; Esophagitis, Peptic; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sucralfate
PubMed: 17443524
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003244.pub2 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Oct 2010Evolving definitions of dyspepsia may lead to differences in the prevalence of clinically significant findings encountered at upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Evolving definitions of dyspepsia may lead to differences in the prevalence of clinically significant findings encountered at upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in sufferers. However, few studies report the prevalence of endoscopic findings in individuals with dyspepsia. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis examining this.
METHODS
MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through April 2010 to identify relevant articles (23,457 citations). Eligible studies recruited adults from the community, workplace, blood donation or screening clinics, family physician offices, or internal medicine clinics. Studies were required to report prevalence of dyspepsia and perform upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a proportion of, or all, participants. Prevalence of clinically significant endoscopic findings in subjects with and without dyspepsia was pooled for all studies, and compared using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
Of 240 papers evaluated, 151 reported prevalence of dyspepsia. Nine reported prevalence of endoscopic findings among 5389 participants. Erosive esophagitis was the most common abnormality encountered (pooled prevalence 13.4%) followed by peptic ulcer (pooled prevalence 8.0%). The only finding encountered more frequently in individuals with dyspepsia, compared with those without, was peptic ulcer (odds ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.82). Prevalence of erosive esophagitis was lower when the Rome criteria were used to define dyspepsia compared with a broad definition (6% vs 20%).
CONCLUSIONS
Erosive esophagitis was the most common finding encountered at endoscopy for dyspepsia, though prevalence was lower when the Rome criteria were used to define dyspepsia. Only peptic ulcer was more common in individuals with dyspepsia.
Topics: Adult; Dyspepsia; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Prevalence
PubMed: 20541625
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.05.031 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Jan 2007There is a perception that the prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is increasing, but few studies have directly tackled this issue. By using a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
There is a perception that the prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is increasing, but few studies have directly tackled this issue. By using a systematic approach, this review aimed to assess objectively whether the prevalence of GERD is changing with time. First, population-based studies that reported the prevalence of at least weekly heartburn and/or acid regurgitation were subjected to a time-trend analysis with a Poisson regression model. Second, population-based studies reporting the prevalence of GERD symptoms at 2 time points in the same source population were reviewed. Third, longitudinal studies that charted the prevalence of GERD symptoms and esophagitis in primary and secondary care were examined. The Poisson model revealed a significant (P < .0001) trend for an increase in the prevalence of reflux symptoms in the general population over time. Separately, significant increases with time were found for North America (P = .0005) and Europe (P < .0001) but not Asia (P = .49). Studies of the same source population over time indicated an increase in the prevalence of GERD in the U.S., Singapore, and China but not Sweden. An increase in the prevalence of GERD or esophagitis was found in the majority of longitudinal studies. There is evidence that the prevalence of GERD has increased during the past 2 decades. If this trend continues, it could contribute to the rapidly increasing incidence of more serious complications associated with GERD, such as esophageal adenocarcinoma, as well as costs to healthcare systems and employers.
Topics: Esophagitis, Peptic; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Global Health; Heartburn; Humans; Poisson Distribution; Prevalence; Research Design
PubMed: 17142109
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2006.09.016