-
Pharmacogenomics Aug 2021The effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) depend on metabolic enzyme that has different activity due to gene polymorphism. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) depend on metabolic enzyme that has different activity due to gene polymorphism. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to determine the potential effects of polymorphism on the efficiency of PPI-based treatment. The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, etc. were searched for relevant articles published in English or Chinese from inception to 31 May 2020. Finally, 26 randomized controlled trials and 15 cohort studies met the inclusion criteria and used for the meta-analysis via STATA version 15. Poor metabolizer (PM) genotype eradication rates were highest for Asian individuals receiving triple or quadruple first-line therapy based on PPIs (p < 0.05). polymorphism could influence eradication rate only in Mainland China and Japan (p < 0.05). PM genotype facilitates the elimination of in Asian populations. Rabeprazole-, esomeprazole- and pantoprazole-based eradication program was less affected by the polymorphism.
Topics: Asian People; Cohort Studies; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Polymorphism, Genetic; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34414773
DOI: 10.2217/pgs-2020-0127 -
Gut Pathogens Mar 2021Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is one of the most common infectious diseases in patients with cirrhosis and is associated with serious prognosis. A prevailing...
BACKGROUND
Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is one of the most common infectious diseases in patients with cirrhosis and is associated with serious prognosis. A prevailing dogma posits that SBP is exacerbated by the frequent use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).
AIMS
To re-assess the association between PPIs use and SBP incidence with larger and better-quality data.
METHOD
The studies were identified by searching Proquest, Medline, and Embase for English language articles published between January 2008 and March 2020 using the following keywords alone or in combination: anti-ulcer agent, antacid, proton pump inhibitor, proton pumps, PPI, omeprazole, rabeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, esomeprazole, peritonitis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, SBP, ascites, cirrhosis, ascitic and cirrhotic. Three authors critically reviewed all of the studies retrieved and selected those judged to be the most relevant. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was followed. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Sub-group analyses were done to decrease the heterogeneity.
RESULTS
A total of twenty-three studies: seven case-control, and sixteen cohorts, involving 10,386 patients were analyzed. The overall results showed a statistically significant association between SBP and PPIs use (pooled odds ratio (OR): 1.80, 95% CI of 1.41 to 2.31). Substantial heterogeneity was observed. On subgroup analysis involving cohort studies, the association was weaker (OR: 1.55 with 95% CI of 1.16 to 2.06 p < 0.00001) but still statistically significant and with high heterogeneity (Chip = 57.68; I = 74%). For case-control studies, the OR was 2.62 with a 95% CI of 1.94 to 3.54. The funnel plot was asymmetric and Egger's test confirmed asymmetry suggesting publication bias (intercept = - 0.05, SE = 0.27, P = 0.850 two-tailed).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis sheds light on the conflicting results raised by previous studies regarding the association of SBP with PPIs use. Our meta-analysis showed that there is a weak association, although statistically significant, between SBP and PPIs use. However, the magnitude of the possible association diminished when analysis focused on higher quality data that were more robust. Thus, this updated meta-analysis suggests judicious use of PPIs among cirrhotic patients with ascites.
PubMed: 33741033
DOI: 10.1186/s13099-021-00414-8 -
World Journal of Clinical Cases Oct 2019For a long time, laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) has been treated by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) with an uncertain success rate.
BACKGROUNG
For a long time, laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) has been treated by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) with an uncertain success rate.
AIM
To shed light the current therapeutic strategies used for LPRD in order to analysis the rationale in the LPRD treatment.
METHODS
Three authors conducted a PubMed search to identify papers published between January 1990 and February 2019 about the treatment of LPRD. Clinical prospective or retrospective studies had to explore the impact of medical treatment(s) on the clinical presentation of suspected or confirmed LPRD. The criteria for considering studies for the review were based on the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome framework.
RESULTS
The search identified 1355 relevant papers, of which 76 studies met the inclusion criteria, accounting for 6457 patients. A total of 64 studies consisted of empirical therapeutic trials and 12 were studies where authors formally identified LPRD with pH-monitoring or multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH). The main therapeutic scheme consisted of once or twice daily PPIs for a duration ranged from 4 to 24 wk. The most used PPIs were omeprazole, esomeprazole, rabeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole with a success rate ranging from 18% to 87%. Other composite treatments have been prescribed including PPIs, alginate, prokinetics, and H Receptor antagonists.
CONCLUSION
Regarding the development of MII-pH and the identification of LPRD subtypes (acid, nonacid, mixed), future studies are needed to improve the LPRD treatment considering all subtypes of reflux.
PubMed: 31624747
DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i19.2995 -
The International Journal of... Aug 2019A comprehensive systematic review on whether proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are associated with tuberculosis (TB) incidence is lacking. To conduct a systematic review to...
A comprehensive systematic review on whether proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are associated with tuberculosis (TB) incidence is lacking. To conduct a systematic review to elucidate if there is an association between PPI use and TB risk. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception through 14 February 2018. Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomised Studies (ROBANS) was used to estimate the quality of each study. We could not undertake a meta-analysis because of the small number of studies and the diversity of outcome measures. All results of included studies are described narratively. Five studies were identified. In three case-control studies, compared with non-PPI use, PPI use was associated significantly with TB incidence, a 1.2-to-1.7-fold increased risk (adjusted OR 1.29; 95%CI 1.29-1.30, OR 1.31; 95%CI 1.22-1.41, adjusted hazard ratio 1.71; 95%CI 1.17-2.50). A cohort study reported that ≥3 months of PPI treatment was not associated significantly with TB incidence compared PPI treatment of <3 months. One cohort study reported that lansoprazole use decreased TB development significantly when compared with omeprazole/pantoprazole use. Compared with non-PPI use, PPI use was associated significantly with TB risk but the studies were heterogeneous.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Research Design; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Tuberculosis
PubMed: 31533885
DOI: 10.5588/ijtld.18.0585 -
Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde May 2019Rationale When patients are using carbasalate calcium or acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), it is recommended to prescribe a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in order to prevent...
Rationale When patients are using carbasalate calcium or acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), it is recommended to prescribe a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in order to prevent gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Should this recommendation also be followed for patients who are using clopidogrel in monotherapy, which is increasingly the case in practice? Method In a systematic literature review of the occurrence of GI bleeding when using clopidogrel versus ASA, we included 9 studies that compared the risk of GI bleeding when using ASA with clopidogrel monotherapy. Results These 9 studies on clopidogrel and ASA show that the risk of GI bleeding is also elevated when using clopidogrel monotherapy and that it is comparable with the risk of GI bleeding when using ASA. Conclusion Based on the current literature, we recommend prescribing pantoprazole to patients who are using clopidogrel monotherapy and have additional risk factors for GI bleeding, in accordance with the procedure for low-dose ASA. The risk of GI bleeding must be weighed against the disadvantages of using PPIs.
Topics: Aspirin; Clopidogrel; Drug Interactions; Female; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Male; Peptic Ulcer; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Risk Factors
PubMed: 31166094
DOI: No ID Found -
The Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology... May 2019This study aims at evaluating the mean eradication rate by a systematic compilation of the studies which involved the standard triple therapy (STT) in first-line... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/AIMS
This study aims at evaluating the mean eradication rate by a systematic compilation of the studies which involved the standard triple therapy (STT) in first-line Helicobacter pylori (Hp) eradication in Turkey over a period of 10 years between 2004 and 2013 using the meta-analysis method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The systematic compilation and meta-analysis were carried out according to the PRISMA standards defined in the Cochrane handbook. The results of full-text studies published in national and international journals in English and Turkish languages on Turkish population in a period of 10 years, from 2004 to 2013, are included in this study. The studies include open-label trials, controlled trials, treatment arms, and case series that included a triple therapy regimen consisting of standard doses of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI; omeprazole 20 mg BID, lansoprazole 30 mg BID, pantoprazole 40 mg BID, esomeprazole 40 mg BID, or rabeprazole 20 mg BID) along with clarithromycin 500 mg BID and amoxicillin 1 g BID for 7-14 days. They were scanned electronically via the search engines Google Scholar, PubMed, and the Turkish Medicine Index using specific keywords. The related keywords used were Turkey, Helicobacter pylori, infection, standard triple treatment, first-line therapy, eradication, omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, esomeprazole, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin. Studies carried out with adults were included in the evaluation. The publication year of the studies and the included number of patients, their age, gender, treatment duration (7, 10, and 14 days), and PPIs used were evaluated by two separate gastroenterologists and biostatisticians. Studies that used at least one reliable method (histology, urea breath test (UBT), or Helicobacter pylori stool antigen (HpSA) test) four weeks after completing the treatment for the control of Hp eradication were included. Only naive patients were accepted, and patients who had previously received eradication treatment were excluded. The effectiveness of the Hp eradication was analyzed using an intention-to-treat (ITT) or per-protocol (PP) analysis.
RESULTS
The STT regime of 45 studies complying with the inclusion criteria was evaluated. A total of 3715 patients were included in the study. Of the 3010 patients whose gender information was available, 55% were women and 45% were men; the weighted age average given explicitly in the studies was 42.14±0.67. The treatment lasted for 14 days in 42 studies, for 7 days in six studies, and for 10 days in 1 study. The eradication rates evaluated according to the ITT and PP analyses were 60% (95% CI: 56%-63%) and 57% (95% CI: 51%-62%), respectively. The rates for 7 days of treatment were 57% (95% CI: 46%-68%) and 60% (95% CI: 51%-67%) and for 14 days of treatment were 60% (95% CI: 56%-63%) and 56% (95% CI: 50%-62%), respectively. The ITT eradication rate of the only 10-day study was 78% (95% CI: 66%-86%). In the meta-regression analysis, the treatment duration, PPI, age, and gender ratio (women/men) used for the ITT analysis had no effect. The gender ratio and age were not considered in this analysis because they were not clearly stated in studies using the PP analysis. The duration of treatment and the PPI used had no effect.
CONCLUSION
A systematic meta-analysis of studies conducted during the period 2004-2013 in Turkey revealed that the rate of first-line Hp eradication using STT was unacceptably low, and the duration of treatment and PPI used made no difference.
Topics: Adult; Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Breath Tests; Clarithromycin; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Male; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome; Turkey
PubMed: 31060997
DOI: 10.5152/tjg.2019.18693 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2018Short-term use of standard-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is the first-line initial non-eradication treatment for duodenal ulcer (DU), but the choice on individual...
Standard-Dose Proton Pump Inhibitors in the Initial Non-eradication Treatment of Duodenal Ulcer: Systematic Review, Network Meta-Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Short-term use of standard-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is the first-line initial non-eradication treatment for duodenal ulcer (DU), but the choice on individual PPI drug is still controversial. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of standard-dose PPI medications in the initial non-eradication treatment of DU. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, and the Wanfang database from their earliest records to September 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating omeprazole (20 mg/day), pantoprazole (40 mg/day), lansoprazole (30 mg/day), rabeprazole (20 mg/day), ilaprazole (10 mg/day), ranitidine (300 mg/day), famotidine (40 mg/day), or placebo for DU were included. The outcomes were 4-week ulcer healing rate (4-UHR) and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). A network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Bayesian random effects model was conducted, and a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision tree was performed from the payer's perspective over 1 year. A total of 62 RCTs involving 10,339 participants (eight interventions) were included. The NMA showed that all the PPIs significantly increased the 4-UHR compared to H receptor antagonists (HRA) and placebo, while there was no significant difference for 4-UHR among PPIs. As to the incidence of AEs, no significant difference was observed among PPIs, HRA, and placebo during 4-week follow-up. Based on the costs of both PPIs and management of AEs in China, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year (in US dollars) for pantoprazole, lansoprazole, rabeprazole, and ilaprazole compared to omeprazole corresponded to $5134.67, $17801.67, $25488.31, and $44572.22, respectively. Although the efficacy and tolerance of different PPIs are similar in the initial non-eradication treatment of DU, pantoprazole (40 mg/day) seems to be the most cost-effective option in China.
PubMed: 30666204
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2018.01512 -
International Archives of Allergy and... 2019Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can trigger immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Three main patterns of cross-reactivity have been identified: reactions to a...
BACKGROUND
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can trigger immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Three main patterns of cross-reactivity have been identified: reactions to a single PPI, selective cross-reactions, and cross-reactions with all PPIs. Several hypotheses have been advanced, but no consensus has been reached.
OBJECTIVE
We sought to identify immediate-type hypersensitivity cross-reactions to PPIs using real-world data about hypersensitivity testing from French pharmacovigilance cases.
METHODS
Potentially relevant immediate-type HSRs reported from January 1985 to February 2015 were extracted from the French pharmacovigilance database using a standardized MedDRA query (SMQ). Cases describing skin tests or oral provocation tests (OPTs) performed with several PPIs that yielded at least one positive result were included.
RESULTS
The SMQ extracted 2,119 cases, 38 of which were included in our study. Data collected from skin tests and OPTs indicated cross-reactions with all PPIs (n = 1), reactions to a single PPI (n = 14), or selective cross-reactions (n = 23). Esomeprazole, omeprazole, and pantoprazole concerned 78% of all selective cross-reactions. In more than half of the cases (55.3%), only 2 PPIs were tested.
CONCLUSION
To the best of our knowledge, this PPI cross-reactivity study is the largest to date in terms of population size, describing 38 immediate-type HSRs to PPIs explored by skin tests or OPTs. This paucity of data belies the lack of standardized procedures for PPI hypersensitivity testing. It is likely that PPI HSR workups in everyday clinical practice are often incomplete. Further research to gain insight into selective cross-reactions between PPIs is needed. In the meantime, thorough workups should be completed when a PPI is suspected to have triggered an HSR, instead of routine contraindication to all PPIs.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Cross Reactions; Drug Hypersensitivity; Female; France; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Male; Middle Aged; Pharmacovigilance; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 30485850
DOI: 10.1159/000493581 -
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology Dec 2018Chronic idiopathic nausea (CIN) and functional dyspepsia (FD) cause considerable strain on many children's lives and their families. Areas covered: This study aims to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
INTRODUCTION
Chronic idiopathic nausea (CIN) and functional dyspepsia (FD) cause considerable strain on many children's lives and their families. Areas covered: This study aims to systematically assess the evidence on efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for CIN or FD in children. CENTRAL, EMBASE, and Medline were searched for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacological treatments of CIN and FD in children (4-18 years). Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess methodological quality of the included articles. Expert commentary: Three RCTs (256 children with FD, 2-16 years) were included. No studies were found for CIN. All studies showed considerable risk of bias, therefore results should be interpreted with caution. Compared with baseline, successful relief of dyspeptic symptoms was found for omeprazole (53.8%), famotidine (44.4%), ranitidine (43.2%) and cimetidine (21.6%) (p = 0.024). Compared with placebo, famotidine showed benefit in global symptom improvement (OR 11.0; 95% CI 1.6-75.5; p = 0.02). Compared with baseline, mosapride versus pantoprazole reduced global symptoms (p = 0.011; p = 0.009). One study reported no occurrence of adverse events. This systematic review found no evidence to support the use of pharmacological drugs to treat CIN or FD in children. More high-quality clinical trials are needed.
ABBREVIATIONS
AP-FGID: Abdominal Pain Related Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders; BART: Biofeedback-Assisted Relaxation Training; CIN: Chronic Idiopathic Nausea; COS: Core Outcomes Sets; EPS: Epigastric Pain Syndrome; ESPGHAN: European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition; FAP: Functional Abdominal Pain; FD: Functional Dyspepsia; GERD: Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease; GES: Gastric Electrical Stimulation; HRAs: H2 Receptor Antagonists; IBS: irritable bowel syndrome; NASPGHAN: North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition; PDS: Postprandial Distress Syndrome; PPIs: Proton Pump Inhibitor; PROMs: Patient Reported Outcome Measures; RCTs: Randomized Controlled Trials; SSRIs: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; TCAs: tricyclic antidepressants.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Chronic Disease; Dyspepsia; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Nausea; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30360666
DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2018.1540298 -
Drugs & Aging May 2018Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are at high risk of hospitalization. Medications are a potentially modifiable risk factor for hospitalizations. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are at high risk of hospitalization. Medications are a potentially modifiable risk factor for hospitalizations.
OBJECTIVE
Our objective was to systematically review the association between medications or prescribing patterns and hospitalizations from LTCFs.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) from inception to August 2017 for longitudinal studies reporting associations between medications or prescribing patterns and hospitalizations. Two independent investigators completed the study selection, data extraction and quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools.
RESULTS
Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 22 cohort studies, five case-control studies, one case-time-control study and one case-crossover study, investigating 13 different medication classes and two prescribing patterns were included. An RCT demonstrated that high-dose influenza vaccination reduced all-cause hospitalization compared with standard-dose vaccination (risk ratio [RR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.98). Another RCT found no difference in hospitalization rates between oseltamivir as influenza treatment and oseltamivir as treatment plus prophylaxis (treatment = 4.7%, treatment and prophylaxis = 3.5%; p = 0.7). The third RCT found no difference between multivitamin/mineral supplementation and hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 0.94; 95% CI 0.74-1.20) or emergency department visits (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.76-1.47). Two cohort studies demonstrated influenza vaccination reduced hospitalization. Four studies suggested polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) increased all-cause hospitalization. However, associations between polypharmacy (two studies), PIMs (one study) and fall-related hospitalizations were inconsistent. Inconsistent associations were found between psychotropic medications with all-cause and cause-specific hospitalizations (11 studies). Warfarin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pantoprazole and vinpocetine but not long-term acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin), statins, trimetazidine, digoxin or β-blockers were associated with all-cause or cause-specific hospitalizations in single studies of specific resident populations. Most cohort studies assessed prevalent rather than incident medication exposure, and no studies considered time-varying medication use.
CONCLUSION
High-quality evidence suggests influenza vaccination reduces hospitalization. Polypharmacy and PIMs are consistently associated with increased all-cause hospitalization.
Topics: Age Factors; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Cross-Over Studies; Drug Prescriptions; Emergency Service, Hospital; Hospitalization; Humans; Inappropriate Prescribing; Long-Term Care; Nursing Homes; Polypharmacy
PubMed: 29582403
DOI: 10.1007/s40266-018-0537-3