-
Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology :... 2020Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) is a benign, poorly understood disorder that is difficult to manage. Medical interventions such as sucralfate, sulfasalzine, human... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/AIM
Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) is a benign, poorly understood disorder that is difficult to manage. Medical interventions such as sucralfate, sulfasalzine, human fibrin, and a high fibre diet are reported as the first line of treatment. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of medical treatments for SRUS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were searched for randomised clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies that evaluated medical treatments for SRUS. Two authors independently performed selection of eligible studies based on eligiblity criteria. Data extraction from potentially eligible studies was carried out according to predefined data collection methods. Medical treatments, including sucralfate, sulfasalzine, human fibrin, a high fibre diet, and psyllium powder as a single or combination therapy were compared to placebo alone or combined with other treatments. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with ulcer remission; this was presented as pooled prevalence (PP) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The I value and Q statistic test were used to test for heterogeneity. In the presence of heterogeneity, a random-effects model was applied.
RESULTS
A total of 9 studies with 216 patients (males = 118, females = 98) diagnosed with SRUS were analysed in the final meta-analysis. The pooled effect estimate of treatment efficacy revealed that, of the patients receiving medical treatment, 57% had resolution of their ulcers (PP 0.57; 95% CI; 0.41 to 0.73). Statistically significant heterogeneity was observed (I = 63%; τ2 = 0.64, P= <0.01). The scarcity of RCTs comparing medical treatments with other interventions was a major limitation.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of patients receiving medical treatment for the management of SRUS experience resolution of their ulcers.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Case-Control Studies; Cathartics; Child; Disease Management; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fibrin Tissue Adhesive; Gastrointestinal Agents; Hemostatics; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Placebos; Prevalence; Psyllium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Diseases; Sucralfate; Sulfasalazine; Treatment Outcome; Ulcer; Young Adult
PubMed: 31898642
DOI: 10.4103/sjg.SJG_213_19 -
Oral Oncology Feb 2013This systematic review investigated, critically appraised, and rated the evidence on agents used to prevent oral mucositis in children. A comprehensive search of the... (Review)
Review
This systematic review investigated, critically appraised, and rated the evidence on agents used to prevent oral mucositis in children. A comprehensive search of the relevant literature was performed up to December 2011. Articles were included according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were critically appraised for validation and quality assessment using a checklist consisting of 18 categories. Each article was then rated for its strength of evidence. 16,471 articles were retrieved from 19 different databases and then reduced to 27 articles that fit the inclusion criteria. Five articles on oral care protocols supported their use to prevent oral mucositis in children. Seven articles on chlorhexidine mouthwash and three on laser therapy had conflicting evidence of its use. The preventative agents that were supported by one or two articles included: benzydamine mouthwash, iseganan mouthwash, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) mouthwash, oral/enteral glutamine, oral propantheline and cryotherapy, oral cryotherapy, oral sucralfate suspension, prostaglandin E2 tablets, and chewing gum. The reduction in the rates of occurrence of oral mucositis when using agents of fair (B) to good (A) evidence ranged from 22% to 52%. In conclusion, this review suggests the use of oral care protocols to prevent oral mucositis in children because of their strength of evidence (fair to good). The authors suggest avoiding agents with fair to good evidence against their use (oral sucralfate suspension, prostaglandin E2 tablets, and GM-CSF mouthwash). Agents with conflicting evidence (chlorhexidine mouthwash (used solely), laser therapy, and glutamine) should also be avoided until further research confirms their efficacy.
Topics: Child; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Neoplasms; Stomatitis
PubMed: 22959949
DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2012.08.008 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Nov 2013The aim of this project was to develop clinical practice guidelines on the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this project was to develop clinical practice guidelines on the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and management of oral mucositis (OM) in cancer patients.
METHODS
A systematic review of the available literature was conducted. The body of evidence for the use of each agent, in each setting, was assigned a level of evidence. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible.
RESULTS
A recommendation was developed in favor of patient-controlled analgesia with morphine in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients. Suggestions were developed in favor of transdermal fentanyl in standard dose chemotherapy and HSCT patients and morphine mouth rinse and doxepin rinse in head and neck radiation therapy (H&N RT) patients. Recommendations were developed against the use of topical antimicrobial agents for the prevention of mucositis. These included recommendations against the use of iseganan for mucositis prevention in HSCT and H&N RT and against the use of antimicrobial lozenges (polymyxin-tobramycin-amphotericin B lozenges/paste and bacitracin-clotrimazole-gentamicin lozenges) for mucositis prevention in H&N RT. Recommendations were developed against the use of the mucosal coating agent sucralfate for the prevention or treatment of chemotherapy-induced or radiation-induced OM. No guidelines were possible for any other agent due to insufficient and/or conflicting evidence.
CONCLUSION
Additional well-designed research is needed on prevention and management approaches for OM.
Topics: Analgesics; Anesthetics; Anti-Infective Agents; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Chemoradiotherapy; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Stomatitis; Sucralfate
PubMed: 23832272
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-013-1871-y -
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy :... Mar 2020To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (OM) in adult cancer patients. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis in adult cancer patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (OM) in adult cancer patients.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central systematically for the randomised control trials (RCTs) of interventions for preventing OM. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from both direct and indirect evidence. The primary outcome was any grade of OM. Secondary outcomes were mild-moderate OM, severe OM and adverse events, such as taste disturbance and gastrointestinal adverse events. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016052489.
RESULTS
A total of 29 RCTs with 2348 patients (median age, 56.1 years; 57.5% male) were included. Cryotherapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of OM than control (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.68), and zinc sulphate (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.97), but not significantly lower than sucralfate and palifermin. No significant differences were observed between cryotherapy and control for taste disturbance and gastrointestinal adverse events. Palifermin was associated with the highest risk of taste disturbance.
CONCLUSIONS
This NMA suggests that cryotherapy was the most effective intervention for preventing chemotherapy-induced OM with a safety profile similar to control, but not significantly lower than sucralfate and palifermin. Large RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Cryotherapy; Female; Humans; Male; Mouth Mucosa; Mucositis; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32133137
DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2018-001649 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Feb 2020Post-operative pain following excisional haemorrhoidectomy poses a particular challenge for patient recovery, as well as a burden on hospital resources. There appears to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Post-operative pain following excisional haemorrhoidectomy poses a particular challenge for patient recovery, as well as a burden on hospital resources. There appears to be an increasing role for topical agents to improve this pain, but their efficacy and safety have not been fully assessed. This systematic review aims to assess all topical agents used for pain following excisional haemorrhoidectomy.
METHODS
The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two authors independently assessed MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases to 27 June 2019. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in English that investigated topical agents following excisional haemorrhoidectomy were included. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager, version 5.3.
RESULTS
A total of 3639 records were identified. A final 32 RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis. Meta-analysis was performed on 9 RCTs that investigated glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) (5 for diltiazem, 2 for metronidazole and 2 for sucralfate). There were mixed significant changes in pain for GTN compared with placebo. Diltiazem resulted in significant reduction of pain on post-operative days 1, 2, 3 and 7 (p < 0.00001). Metronidazole resulted in significant reduction of pain on days 1 (p = 0.009), 7 (p = 0.002) and 14 (p < 0.00001). Sucralfate resulted in signification reduction of pain on days 7 and 14 (both p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSION
Topical diltiazem, metronidazole and sucralfate appear to significantly reduce pain at various timepoints following excisional haemorrhoidectomy. GTN had mixed evidence. Several single trials identified other promising topical analgesics.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Analgesics; Hemorrhoidectomy; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31897645
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-019-03497-7 -
Systematic Reviews Aug 2023Chronic radiation proctitis (CRP) is a long-term complication of pelvic radiotherapy that manifests as rectal bleeding, diarrhoea, fistula formation and obstruction.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic radiation proctitis (CRP) is a long-term complication of pelvic radiotherapy that manifests as rectal bleeding, diarrhoea, fistula formation and obstruction. Treatments such as endoscopic argon plasma coagulation, hyperbaric oxygen therapy and rectal topical formalin have imposed a significant medical burden on CRP patients. In contrast, oral therapies offer a more accessible and acceptable option for managing CRP. Here, we conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of oral treatments for CRP to assess their potential as an effective and convenient treatment option for this condition.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Chinese VIP in February 2021. We included post-radiotherapy participants with CRP that compared oral medicine alone or in combination with other treatments versus control treatments. The primary outcomes were bleeding, diarrhoea and symptom score. Heterogeneity between studies was checked using Cochrane Q test statistics and I test statistics. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies.
RESULTS
We included 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 retrospective study with 898 participants. Three placebo-controlled trials evaluated the effects of oral sucralfate on CRP, with meta-analysis showing no significant different with placebo arm. Four trials on TCM demonstrated significant improvement of symptoms, especially for the 3 trials on oral TCM drinks. Retinyl palmitate and high-fibre diet were found to reduce rectal bleeding. The combination of oral pentoxifylline and tocopherol did not significantly change the process of CRP.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study implies that oral TCM drinks, retinyl palmitate and a high-fiber diet showed significant improvement in CRP symptoms, but not with the combination of oral pentoxifylline and tocopherol. Further multicentre, larger-scale RCTs are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of these treatments and optimize treatment strategies, ultimately improving the quality of life for patients with CRP.
Topics: Humans; Pentoxifylline; Tocopherols; Diarrhea; Proctitis
PubMed: 37608385
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02294-2 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Mar 2017The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological topical controls in the prevention of radiation dermatitis. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological topical controls in the prevention of radiation dermatitis.
METHODS
Relevant clinical trials were identified through electronic searching databases CINAHL, CENTRAL, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Handsearching and gray literature searches were also performed to find additional references. Primary outcomes of interest were the development of radiation dermatitis and the time of occurrence of radiation dermatitis.
RESULTS
Thirteen randomized clinical trials were included in this review. The trials were published in Chinese, English, or French, from 1980 to 2015. Pharmacological interventions used in the trials were trolamine, aloe vera, allantoin, Lianbai liquid, sucralfate, Na-sucrose octasulfate, olive oil, hialuronic acid, and dexpanthenol. Non-pharmacological topical controls were usual care/institution routine, aqueous cream, mild soap, water thermal gel, placebo, and no intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
There was no strong evidence that indicates differences between topical pharmacological interventions or non-pharmacological topical controls in the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis among patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Dermatologic Agents; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Radiodermatitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Care
PubMed: 27957620
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-016-3521-7 -
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 Critical Care Aug 2017To determine the impact of using sucralfate versus H2RAs for SUP on patient important outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Sucralfate versus histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials.
PURPOSE
To determine the impact of using sucralfate versus H2RAs for SUP on patient important outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, clinical trials registries, and conference proceedings through June 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sucralfate to H2RAs for SUP in adult critically ill patients.
RESULTS
21 RCTs enrolling 3121 patients met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference between sucralfate compared to H2RAs in the risk of clinically important GI bleeding (risk ratio [RR] 1.19; 95% CI [confidence interval] 0.79, 1.80; P=0.42; I=0%; low quality evidence). However, there was a statistically significant lower risk of ICU acquired pneumonia with sucralfate compared to H2RAs (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72, 0.98; P=0.03; I=0%; moderate quality evidence). Sucralfate did not significantly affect the risk of death (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82, 1.10; P=0.51; I=0%; high quality evidence), or duration of ICU stay in days (mean difference-0.39; 95% CI [-1.12, 0.34]; P=0.29; I=0%; moderate quality evidence). Trial sequential analysis adjusted estimates were consistent with conventional estimates.
CONCLUSION
Moderate quality evidence suggests that sucralfate reduced ICU acquired pneumonia compared to H2RAs in adult critically ill patients, with no significant impact on GI bleeding or death.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Critical Illness; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Ulcer; Sucralfate
PubMed: 28315586
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.03.005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2011The commonest cause of upper gastrointestinal symptoms is non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD) and yet the pathophysiology of this condition has been poorly characterised and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The commonest cause of upper gastrointestinal symptoms is non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD) and yet the pathophysiology of this condition has been poorly characterised and the optimum treatment is uncertain. It is estimated that £450 million is spent on dyspepsia drugs in the UK each year.
OBJECTIVES
This review aims to determine the effectiveness of six classes of drugs (antacids, histamine H2 antagonists, proton pump inhibitors, prokinetics, mucosal protecting agents and antimuscarinics) in the improvement of either the individual or global dyspepsia symptom scores and also quality of life scores patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2006), EMBASE (1988 to January 2006), CINAHL (1982 to January 2006), SIGLE, and reference lists of articles. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies. Trials were located through electronic searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and SIGLE, using appropriate subject headings and text words, searching bibliographies of retrieved articles, and through contacts with experts in the fields of dyspepsia and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing drugs of any of the six groups with each other or with placebo for non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 73 trials: prokinetics (19 trials with dichotomous outcomes evaluating 3178 participants; relative risk reduction (RRR) 33%; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 18% to 45%), H(2)RAs (12 trials evaluating 2,183 participants; RRR 23%; 95% CI 8% to 35%) and PPIs (10 trials evaluating 3,347 participants; RRR 13%; 95% CI 4% to 20%) were significantly more effective than placebo. Bismuth salts (six trials evaluating 311 participants; RRR 40%; 95% CI -3 to 65%) were superior to placebo but this was of marginal statistical significance. Antacids (one trial evaluating 109 participants; RRR -2%; 95% CI -36% to 24%) and sucralfate (two trials evaluating 246 participants; RRR 29%; 95% CI -40% to 64%) were not statistically significantly superior to placebo. A funnel plot suggested that the prokinetic results could be due to publication bias or other small study effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence that anti-secretory therapy may be effective in NUD. The trials evaluating prokinetic therapy are difficult to interpret as the meta-analysis result could have been due to publication bias. The effect of these drugs is likely to be small and many patients will need to take them on a long-term basis so economic analyses would be helpful and ideally the therapies assessed need to be inexpensive and well tolerated.
Topics: Antacids; Dyspepsia; Gastrointestinal Agents; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 21328253
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001960.pub4