-
Acta Bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis Dec 2018Upper-GI diseases are one of the most relevant issue in primary care. Nowadays they are still responsible for about 100 million ambulatory care visits only in the US....
Upper-GI diseases are one of the most relevant issue in primary care. Nowadays they are still responsible for about 100 million ambulatory care visits only in the US. The diagnosis of almost every upper-GI condition is still deputed to invasive tests such as upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, gastroesophageal manometry or radiography. The possibility of analysing serum markers like Pepsinogens I and II, produced by gastric mucosa, in order to assess the functional characteristics of the upper GI tract has spread itself since the 80's especially in the diagnosis of peptic ulcer. The discovery of Helicobacter pylori by Marshall and Warren in 1983 and the scientific consecration of its role in the pathogenesis of gastric cancer and peptic ulcer (crystallized in Peleo Correa's Cascade, 1992), led to an increase importance of non-invasive tests, raising the attention towards the assessment of both immunoglobulins anti-H.p. and Gastrin hormone produced by antral G cells, as an implementation of the panel of gastric markers. This narrative review aims to analyze the huge landscape of non-invasive tests for diagnosis of GI diseases, studying the literature of the recent years.
Topics: Antibodies, Bacterial; Biomarkers; Diagnostic Techniques, Digestive System; Dyspepsia; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Esophageal Diseases; Gastrins; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Pepsinogens; Stomach Diseases
PubMed: 30561417
DOI: 10.23750/abm.v89i8-S.7917 -
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2018Peptic ulcer is a basic term for ulcers on the lower oesophagus, stomach, or jejunum. The specific term for ulcer in the stomach is gastric ulcer. The extensive use of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peptic ulcer is a basic term for ulcers on the lower oesophagus, stomach, or jejunum. The specific term for ulcer in the stomach is gastric ulcer. The extensive use of honey around the globe helps researchers to study the usefulness of honey. Many studies had already been conducted and proved the effectiveness of honey in treating gastric ulcer.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify relevant studies on honey used as an alternative treatment of gastric ulcer cause by NSAIDs. A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, SCOPUS, and Ebscohost. The main criteria used were articles published in English and using NSAIDs-induced gastric ulcer in rat's model and those reporting the effectiveness of honey.
RESULTS
Articles published between 2001 and 2014 were identified to be relevant in studies related to the inclusion criteria. The literature search found 30 potential and closely related articles in this review, but only 5 articles were taken which meet the criteria needed to be fulfilled.
CONCLUSIONS
All studies in this review reported the efficacy of honey for gastric ulcer based on its antioxidant and cytoprotective activities. Most of the studies conducted used different types of honey at various doses on rats. Future studies should be conducted to identify the appropriate dose for humans to achieve similar gastroprotective effects.
PubMed: 30105063
DOI: 10.1155/2018/7515692 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding due to stress ulcers contributes to increased morbidity and mortality in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Stress... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding due to stress ulcers contributes to increased morbidity and mortality in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Stress ulceration refers to GI mucosal injury related to the stress of being critically ill. ICU patients with major bleeding as a result of stress ulceration might have mortality rates approaching 48.5% to 65%. However, the incidence of stress-induced GI bleeding in ICUs has decreased, and not all critically ill patients need prophylaxis. Stress ulcer prophylaxis can result in adverse events such as ventilator-associated pneumonia; therefore, it is necessary to evaluate strategies that safely decrease the incidence of GI bleeding.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect and risk-benefit profile of interventions for preventing upper GI bleeding in people admitted to ICUs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 23 August 2017, using relevant search terms: MEDLINE; Embase; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature; and the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Disease Group Specialised Register, as published in the Cochrane Library (2017, Issue 8). We searched the reference lists of all included studies and those from relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses to identify additional studies. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal and contacted individual researchers working in this field, as well as organisations and pharmaceutical companies, to identify unpublished and ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with participants of any age and gender admitted to ICUs for longer than 48 hours. We excluded studies in which participants were admitted to ICUs primarily for the management of GI bleeding and studies that compared different doses, routes, and regimens of one drug in the same class because we were not interested in intraclass effects of drugs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 2292 unique records.We included 129 records reporting on 121 studies, including 12 ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification.We judged the overall risk of bias of two studies as low. Selection bias was the most relevant risk of bias domain across the included studies, with 78 studies not clearly reporting the method used for random sequence generation. Reporting bias was the domain with least risk of bias, with 12 studies not reporting all outcomes that researchers intended to investigate.Any intervention versus placebo or no prophylaxisIn comparison with placebo, any intervention seems to have a beneficial effect on the occurrence of upper GI bleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.57; moderate certainty of evidence). The use of any intervention reduced the risk of upper GI bleeding by 10% (95% CI -12.0% to -7%). The effect estimate of any intervention versus placebo or no prophylaxis with respect to the occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU, duration of ICU stay, duration of intubation (all with low certainty of evidence), the number of participants requiring blood transfusions (moderate certainty of evidence), and the units of blood transfused was consistent with benefits and harms. None of the included studies explicitly reported on serious adverse events.Individual interventions versus placebo or no prophylaxisIn comparison with placebo or no prophylaxis, antacids, H2 receptor antagonists, and sucralfate were effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients. Researchers found that with H2 receptor antagonists compared with placebo or no prophylaxis, 11% less developed upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.16 to -0.06; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.70; 24 studies; 2149 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). Of ICU patients taking antacids versus placebo or no prophylaxis, 9% less developed upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.17 to -0.00; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.99; eight studies; 774 participants; low certainty of evidence). Among ICU patients taking sucralfate versus placebo or no prophylaxis, 5% less had upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.88; seven studies; 598 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). The remaining interventions including proton pump inhibitors did not show a significant effect in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients when compared with placebo or no prophylaxis.Regarding the occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia, the effects of H2 receptor antagonists (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.48; eight studies; 945 participants; low certainty of evidence) and of sucralfate (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.04; four studies; 450 participants; low certainty of evidence) were consistent with benefits and harms when compared with placebo or no prophylaxis. None of the studies comparing antacids versus placebo or no prophylaxis provided data regarding nosocomial pneumonia.H2 receptor antagonists versus proton pump inhibitorsH2 receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors are most commonly used in practice to prevent upper GI bleeding in ICU patients. Proton pump inhibitors significantly more often prevented upper GI bleeding in ICU patients compared with H2 receptor antagonists (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.83 to 4.58; 18 studies; 1636 participants; low certainty of evidence). When taking H2 receptor antagonists, 4.8% more patients might experience upper GI bleeding (95% CI 2.1% to 9%). Nosocomial pneumonia occurred in similar proportions of participants taking H2 receptor antagonists and participants taking proton pump inhibitors (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.35; 10 studies; 1256 participants; low certainty of evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review shows that antacids, sucralfate, and H2 receptor antagonists might be more effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients compared with placebo or no prophylaxis. The effect estimates of any treatment versus no prophylaxis on nosocomial pneumonia were consistent with benefits and harms. Evidence of low certainty suggests that proton pump inhibitors might be more effective than H2 receptor antagonists. Therefore, patient-relevant benefits and especially harms of H2 receptor antagonists compared with proton pump inhibitors need to be assessed by larger, high-quality RCTs to confirm the results of previously conducted, smaller, and older studies.
Topics: Anti-Ulcer Agents; Blood Transfusion; Cause of Death; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Pneumonia; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selection Bias; Stress, Psychological; Sucralfate
PubMed: 29862492
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008687.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) infection has been implicated in a number of malignancies and non-malignant conditions including peptic ulcers, non-ulcer dyspepsia,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) infection has been implicated in a number of malignancies and non-malignant conditions including peptic ulcers, non-ulcer dyspepsia, recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding, unexplained iron deficiency anaemia, idiopathic thrombocytopaenia purpura, and colorectal adenomas. The confirmatory diagnosis of H pylori is by endoscopic biopsy, followed by histopathological examination using haemotoxylin and eosin (H & E) stain or special stains such as Giemsa stain and Warthin-Starry stain. Special stains are more accurate than H & E stain. There is significant uncertainty about the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests for diagnosis of H pylori.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the diagnostic accuracy of urea breath test, serology, and stool antigen test, used alone or in combination, for diagnosis of H pylori infection in symptomatic and asymptomatic people, so that eradication therapy for H pylori can be started.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Science Citation Index and the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Database on 4 March 2016. We screened references in the included studies to identify additional studies. We also conducted citation searches of relevant studies, most recently on 4 December 2016. We did not restrict studies by language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated at least one of the index tests (urea breath test using isotopes such as C or C, serology and stool antigen test) against the reference standard (histopathological examination using H & E stain, special stains or immunohistochemical stain) in people suspected of having H pylori infection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the references to identify relevant studies and independently extracted data. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed meta-analysis by using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model to estimate and compare SROC curves. Where appropriate, we used bivariate or univariate logistic regression models to estimate summary sensitivities and specificities.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 101 studies involving 11,003 participants, of which 5839 participants (53.1%) had H pylori infection. The prevalence of H pylori infection in the studies ranged from 15.2% to 94.7%, with a median prevalence of 53.7% (interquartile range 42.0% to 66.5%). Most of the studies (57%) included participants with dyspepsia and 53 studies excluded participants who recently had proton pump inhibitors or antibiotics.There was at least an unclear risk of bias or unclear applicability concern for each study.Of the 101 studies, 15 compared the accuracy of two index tests and two studies compared the accuracy of three index tests. Thirty-four studies (4242 participants) evaluated serology; 29 studies (2988 participants) evaluated stool antigen test; 34 studies (3139 participants) evaluated urea breath test-C; 21 studies (1810 participants) evaluated urea breath test-C; and two studies (127 participants) evaluated urea breath test but did not report the isotope used. The thresholds used to define test positivity and the staining techniques used for histopathological examination (reference standard) varied between studies. Due to sparse data for each threshold reported, it was not possible to identify the best threshold for each test.Using data from 99 studies in an indirect test comparison, there was statistical evidence of a difference in diagnostic accuracy between urea breath test-C, urea breath test-C, serology and stool antigen test (P = 0.024). The diagnostic odds ratios for urea breath test-C, urea breath test-C, serology, and stool antigen test were 153 (95% confidence interval (CI) 73.7 to 316), 105 (95% CI 74.0 to 150), 47.4 (95% CI 25.5 to 88.1) and 45.1 (95% CI 24.2 to 84.1). The sensitivity (95% CI) estimated at a fixed specificity of 0.90 (median from studies across the four tests), was 0.94 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.97) for urea breath test-C, 0.92 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.94) for urea breath test-C, 0.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.91) for serology, and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.90) for stool antigen test. This implies that on average, given a specificity of 0.90 and prevalence of 53.7% (median specificity and prevalence in the studies), out of 1000 people tested for H pylori infection, there will be 46 false positives (people without H pylori infection who will be diagnosed as having H pylori infection). In this hypothetical cohort, urea breath test-C, urea breath test-C, serology, and stool antigen test will give 30 (95% CI 15 to 58), 42 (95% CI 30 to 58), 86 (95% CI 50 to 140), and 89 (95% CI 52 to 146) false negatives respectively (people with H pylori infection for whom the diagnosis of H pylori will be missed).Direct comparisons were based on few head-to-head studies. The ratios of diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were 0.68 (95% CI 0.12 to 3.70; P = 0.56) for urea breath test-C versus serology (seven studies), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.14 to 5.56; P = 0.84) for urea breath test-C versus stool antigen test (seven studies). The 95% CIs of these estimates overlap with those of the ratios of DORs from the indirect comparison. Data were limited or unavailable for meta-analysis of other direct comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people without a history of gastrectomy and those who have not recently had antibiotics or proton ,pump inhibitors, urea breath tests had high diagnostic accuracy while serology and stool antigen tests were less accurate for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection.This is based on an indirect test comparison (with potential for bias due to confounding), as evidence from direct comparisons was limited or unavailable. The thresholds used for these tests were highly variable and we were unable to identify specific thresholds that might be useful in clinical practice.We need further comparative studies of high methodological quality to obtain more reliable evidence of relative accuracy between the tests. Such studies should be conducted prospectively in a representative spectrum of participants and clearly reported to ensure low risk of bias. Most importantly, studies should prespecify and clearly report thresholds used, and should avoid inappropriate exclusions.
Topics: Adult; Antigens, Bacterial; Biomarkers; Breath Tests; Child; Feces; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Prevalence; Urea
PubMed: 29543326
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012080.pub2 -
Journal of Research in Medical Sciences... 2018Peptic ulcer is a prevalent problem and symptoms include epigastria pain and heartburn. This study aimed at investigating the prevalence and causes of peptic ulcers in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peptic ulcer is a prevalent problem and symptoms include epigastria pain and heartburn. This study aimed at investigating the prevalence and causes of peptic ulcers in Iran using systematic review and meta-analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Eleven Iranian papers published from 2002 to 2016 are selected using valid keywords in the SID, Goggle scholar, PubMed and Elsevier databases. Results of studies pooled using random effects model in meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of the sample was checked using Q test and index.
RESULTS
Total sample size in this study consist of 1335 individuals with peptic ulcer (121 samples per article). The prevalence of peptic ulcers was estimated 34% (95% CI= 0.25 - 0.43). The prevalence of peptic ulcers was 30% and 60% in woman and man respectively. The highest environmental factor (cigarette) has been addressed in 30% (95% CI= 0.23-0.37) of patients. The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori was estimated in 62% (95% CI= 0.49-0.75) of patients.
CONCLUSION
The results of this study show that prevalence of peptic ulcers in Iran (34%) is higher that worldwide rate (6% to 15%). There was an increasing trend in the prevalence of peptic ulcer over a decade from 2002 to 2016.
PubMed: 29456565
DOI: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_1035_16 -
The Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology... Jan 2018Present meta-analysis aims to evaluate studies of low- versus high-dose proton pump Inhibitors (PPI) post-endoscopic hemostasis, including the newly published randomized... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Present meta-analysis aims to evaluate studies of low- versus high-dose proton pump Inhibitors (PPI) post-endoscopic hemostasis, including the newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to conclude whether low-dose PPI can generate the comparable results as high-dose PPI.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
To identify suitable trials, the electronic databases PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, and the Embase were used. All RCTs concerning low- versus high-dose PPI administration post-endoscopic hemostasis published until December 2016 were identified. Primary outcomes were rebleeding rates, need for surgical intervention, and mortality.
RESULTS
Studies included a total of 1.651 participants. There were significantly less cases of rebleeding in the low-dose PPI treatment arm (p=0.003). All but one study provided data concerning need for Surgical Intervention and Mortality. The respective effect sizes were [odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.35, 0.72-2.53] and [OR, 95% CI: 1.20, 0.70-2.05]. Both treatment arms were comparable considering the aforementioned outcomes (p=0.35 and p=0.51, respectively). Meta-regression analysis likewise unveiled comparable outcomes between studies using pantoprazole versus lansoprazole concerning all three outcomes [rebleeding (p=0.944), surgical intervention (p=0.884), and mortality (p=0.961)].
CONCLUSION
A low-dose PPI treatment is equally effective as a high-dose PPI treatment following endoscopic arresting of bleeding. However, we anticipate the completion of more high-quality RCTs that will embrace distinct ethnicities, standardized endoscopic diagnosis and management, double-blind strategies, and appraisal of results working specific standards over clear-cut follow-up periods.
Topics: 2-Pyridinylmethylsulfinylbenzimidazoles; Aged; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Female; Hemostasis, Endoscopic; Humans; Lansoprazole; Male; Middle Aged; Pantoprazole; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29391304
DOI: 10.5152/tjg.2018.17143 -
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 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver... Dec 2017Aspirin is one of the most widely used medication for its analgesic and anti-platelet properties and thus a major cause for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. This study... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Aspirin is one of the most widely used medication for its analgesic and anti-platelet properties and thus a major cause for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. This study compared the preventive effect of histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) against chronic low-dose aspirin (LDA)-related GI bleeding and ulcer formation.
METHODS
Electronic databases of Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for human observations (randomised controlled trials and observational studies) comparing the long term effects of PPIs and H2RAs treatment in the prevention of GI bleeding or ulcer formation in patients on chronic LDA treatment listed up till September 30, 2016. Two independent authors searched databases using PICO questions (aspirin, H2RA, PPI, GI bleeding or ulcer), and reviewed abstracts and articles for comprehensive studies keeping adequate study quality. Data of weighted odds ratios were statistically evaluated using Comprehensive Metaanalysis (Biostat, Inc., Engelwood, MJ, USA), potential bias was checked.
RESULTS
Nine studies for GI bleeding and eight studies for ulcer formation were found meeting inclusion criteria, altogether 1,879 patients were included into review. The H2RAs prevented less effectively LDA-related GI bleeding (OR= 2.102, 95% CI: 1.008-4.385, p<0.048) and ulcer formation (OR= 2.257, 95% CI: 1.277-3.989, p<0.005) than PPIs.
CONCLUSION
The meta-analysis showed that H2RAs were less effective in the prevention of LDA-related GI bleeding and ulcer formation suggesting the preferable usage of PPIs in case of tolerance.
Topics: Aspirin; Drug Administration Schedule; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Peptic Ulcer; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 29253055
DOI: 10.15403/jgld.2014.1121.264.hra -
Clinical Therapeutics Nov 2017While corticosteroids are relatively inexpensive and commonly used as treatment for a variety of conditions, long-term use is known to be associated with certain... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
While corticosteroids are relatively inexpensive and commonly used as treatment for a variety of conditions, long-term use is known to be associated with certain toxicities. Prior systematic reviews have revealed an increased risk for costly adverse events (AEs), including bone fracture, infection, and gastrointestinal bleeding. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review of recent publications on the burden of long-term corticosteroid exposure, specifically, to summarize the AEs and economic impact of long-term corticosteroid use and to reveal data gaps for additional research.
METHODS
The Ovid search platform was used to access scientific literature databases. The search strategy targeted the use of corticosteroids and economic outcomes research. Articles were restricted to those published between 2007 and 2016 to cover publications since prior reviews; conference abstracts and articles assessing pediatrics were excluded. Titles and abstracts resulting from inclusion criteria were screened, and reviewers independently extracted relevant information from the relevant full-text articles.
FINDINGS
The literature review included 32 articles, with 75% focusing on autoimmune diseases, asthma, or lung diseases. Included articles were 14 database analyses, 6 simulations, 6 clinical trials, 3 systematic literature reviews, 2 patient surveys, and 1 chart review. Commonly-cited AEs associated with long-term corticosteroid exposure included hypertension (prevalence >30%); bone fracture (21%-30%); cataract (1%-3%); nausea, vomiting, and other gastrointestinal conditions (1%-5%); and metabolic issues (eg, weight gain, hyperglycemia, and type 2 diabetes; cases had 4-fold the risk of controls). Association of dose and duration with increased AE risk is not well-quantified. AEs like peptic ulcer and myocardial infarction are particularly costly to payers (1-year cost of $21,825 and $26,472, respectively, in year-2009 USD). The few articles assessing the economic impact of corticosteroid use have found dose-related increases in health care resource utilization and costs, with per-annum incremental costs relative to nonusers ranging from $5700 in low-dose users (<7.5 mg/d) to $29,000 in high-dose users (>15 mg/d). Adherence to treatment guidelines on avoiding AEs (eg, prescribing of oral bisphosphonates, calcium, and vitamin D) remains low.
IMPLICATIONS
Although doses of long-term corticosteroids have fallen over the past several decades in response to AEs, dose reduction may not be a sufficient solution. Numerous AEs, some very costly, persist among long-term corticosteroid users, suggesting a need for further research to fill current data gaps, as well as a potential need for alternative treatment options.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Asthma; Costs and Cost Analysis; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Time Factors
PubMed: 29055500
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.09.011 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Celecoxib; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Ulcer; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28597983
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012095.pub2