-
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Oct 2022Proton pump inhibitors, such as omeprazole and pantoprazole, are frequently prescribed for the treatment of acid reflux. However, those medications have been shown to... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Proton pump inhibitors, such as omeprazole and pantoprazole, are frequently prescribed for the treatment of acid reflux. However, those medications have been shown to affect a variety of physiologic processes, including bone homeostasis and the gastrointestinal microbiome. The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between proton pump inhibitors and attachment levels around teeth and dental implants. A scoping review was performed to assess the extent and quality of the relevant literature.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and searched four relevant biomedical literature databases in addition to the grey literature. Keywords in the title and abstract fields, and subject headings for proton pump inhibitors, teeth, and dental implants were included as search terms.
RESULTS
Overall search results identified 791 publications which, after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, yielded 27 publications that were further analyzed for relevance and quality of scientific evidence. The majority of eligible publications were retrospective cohort studies. Following critical analysis, 13 publications, including six abstracts, were used to assess the effect of proton pump inhibitors on tissue attachment around teeth and dental implants.
CONCLUSIONS
There are few high-quality studies describing the effect of proton pump inhibitors on tissue attachment around teeth and dental implants. Nevertheless, among the included papers with the fewest confounding factors, there was a positive relationship between proton pump inhibitors and soft tissue attachment levels around teeth, and a predominantly negative but variable effect of proton pump inhibitors on the bone level around dental implants. Additional well-controlled prospective studies are required to fully elucidate those relationships.
Topics: Dental Implants; Humans; Omeprazole; Pantoprazole; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35799099
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.616 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common reason for emergency hospital admission. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce gastric acid production and are used to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common reason for emergency hospital admission. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce gastric acid production and are used to manage upper GI bleeding. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of proton pump inhibitors initiated before endoscopy in people with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in people with acute upper GI bleeding.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings to October 2008, for the previous versions of this review, and in April 2018, October 2019, and 3 June 2021 for this update. We also contacted experts in the field and searched trial registries and references of trials for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with a PPI (oral or intravenous) versus control treatment with either placebo, histamine-2 receptor antagonist (HRA) or no treatment, prior to endoscopy in hospitalised people with uninvestigated upper GI bleeding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes assessed at 30 days were: mortality (our primary outcome), rebleeding, surgery, high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage (active bleeding, non-bleeding visible vessel or adherent clot) at index endoscopy, endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy, time to discharge, blood transfusion requirements and adverse effects. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs comprising 2223 participants. No new studies have been published after the literature search performed in 2008 for the previous version of this review. Of the included studies, we considered one to be at low risk of bias, two to be at unclear risk of bias, and three at high risk of bias. Our meta-analyses suggest that pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce mortality (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.70; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce rebleeding (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.06; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). In addition, pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce the need for surgery (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.26; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may not reduce the proportion of participants with high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pre-endoscopic PPI use likely reduces the need for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to determine the effect of pre-endoscopic PPI use on blood transfusions (2 studies; meta-analysis not possible; very low-certainty evidence) and time to discharge (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There was no substantial heterogeneity amongst trials in any analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy for upper GI bleeding likely reduces the requirement for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether pre-endoscopic PPI treatment increases, reduces or has no effect on other clinical outcomes, including mortality, rebleeding and need for surgery. Further well-designed RCTs that conform to current standards for endoscopic haemostatic treatment and appropriate co-interventions, and that ensure high-dose PPIs are only given to people who received endoscopic haemostatic treatment, regardless of initial randomisation, are warranted. However, as it may be unrealistic to achieve the optimal information size, pragmatic multicentre trials may provide valuable evidence on this topic.
Topics: Acute Disease; Endoscopy; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 34995368
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005415.pub4 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Nov 2021The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) is common worldwide, with reports suggesting that they may be overused. Several studies have found that PPI may affect colorectal...
BACKGROUND
The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) is common worldwide, with reports suggesting that they may be overused. Several studies have found that PPI may affect colorectal cancer (CRC) risk.
AIM
To summarize current knowledge on the relationship between PPI and CRC from basic research, epidemiological and clinical studies.
METHODS
This systematic review was based on the patients, interventions, comparisons, outcome models and performed according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception until May 17, 2021. The initial search returned 2591 articles, of which, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. The studies were categorized as basic research studies ( = 12), epidemiological studies ( = 11), and CRC treatment studies ( = 5). The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool depending on the study design.
RESULTS
Data from basic research indicates that PPI do not stimulate CRC development the trophic effect of gastrin but instead may paradoxically inhibit it. These studies also suggest that PPI may have properties beneficial for CRC treatment. PPI appear to have anti-tumor properties (omeprazole, pantoprazole), and are potential T lymphokine-activated killer cell-originated protein kinase inhibitors (pantoprazole, ilaprazole), and chemosensitizing agents (pantoprazole). However, these mechanisms have not been confirmed in human trials. Current epidemiological studies suggest that there is no causal association between PPI use and increased CRC risk. Treatment studies show that concomitant PPI and capecitabine use may reduce the efficacy of chemotherapy resulting in poorer oncological outcomes, while also suggesting that pantoprazole may have a chemosensitizing effect with the fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) regimen.
CONCLUSION
An unexpected inhibitory effect of PPI on CRC carcinogenesis by way of several potential mechanisms is noted. This review identifies that different PPI agents may have differential effects on CRC treatment, with practical implications. Prospective studies are warranted to delineate this relationship and assess the role of individual PPI agents.
Topics: Capecitabine; Colorectal Neoplasms; Fluorouracil; Humans; Leucovorin; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 34908809
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i44.7716 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Sep 2021To date, guidelines on the impact and value of atropine combined with omeprazole in the treatment of acute gastritis have not been well established or well defined. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To date, guidelines on the impact and value of atropine combined with omeprazole in the treatment of acute gastritis have not been well established or well defined. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy and safety of combined atropine and omeprazole therapy for the management of patients with acute gastritis.
METHODS
Through searching the electronic database, the related literature of the combination of atropine with omeprazole in the treatment of acute gastritis were reviewed. A meta-analysis was performed after literature selection according to inclusion criteria. The treatment efficiency and the incidence of adverse reactions were used as the main outcome indicators. The odds ratios (ORs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the two treatment regimens were analyzed.
RESULTS
This study analyzed 11 articles from the literature with a total of 1,053 subjects. The combination of atropine and omeprazole significantly improved the clinical outcomes of patients with acute gastritis compared to patients treated with combined anisodamine and omeprazole (control group). The effective rate of combined atropine and omeprazole treatment was 1.21 times higher than that observed with the control group, and the incidence of adverse reactions was 0.41 times that of the control group. Atropine combined with omeprazole significantly alleviated the clinical symptoms of the patients. The total treatment time was shortened by 0.57 days, duration of abdominal pain was shortened by 2.82 days, duration of diarrhea was reduced by 1.99 days, and the duration of nausea and vomiting was shortened by 2.68 days compared to the control group.
DISCUSSION
The combination of atropine with omeprazole in the treatment of acute gastritis demonstrated a high effective rate with few adverse reactions than. It was effective at alleviating the clinical symptoms associated with acute gastritis. The results of this study provide support for the clinical implementation of combined atropine and omeprazole in the treatment of patients with acute gastritis.
Topics: Atropine; Gastritis; Humans; Omeprazole; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34628879
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-1868 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021Administration of aspirin has the potential for significant side effects of gastrointestinal (GI) injury mainly caused by gastric acid stimulation, especially in...
Administration of aspirin has the potential for significant side effects of gastrointestinal (GI) injury mainly caused by gastric acid stimulation, especially in long-term users or users with original gastrointestinal diseases. The debate on the optimal treatment of aspirin-induced gastrointestinal injury is ongoing. We aimed to compare and rank the different treatments for aspirin-induced gastrointestinal injury based on current evidence. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Chinese databases for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different treatments for aspirin-induced gastrointestinal injury from inception to 1 May 2021. All of the direct and indirect evidence included was rated by network meta-analysis under a Bayesian framework. A total of 10 RCTs, which comprised 503 participants, were included in the analysis. The overall quality of evidence was rated as moderate to high. Eleven different treatments, including omeprazole, lansoprazole, rabeprazole, famotidine, geranylgeranylacetone, misoprostol, ranitidine bismuth citrate, chili, phosphatidylcholine complex, omeprazole plus rebamipide, and placebo, were evaluated in terms of preventing gastrointestinal injury. It was suggested that omeprazole plus rebamipide outperformed other treatments, whereas geranylgeranylacetone and placebo were among the least treatments. This is the first systematic review and network meta-analysis of different treatments for aspirin-induced gastrointestinal injury. Our study suggested that omeprazole plus rebamipide might be considered the best option to treat aspirin-induced gastrointestinal injury. More multicenter, high quality, large sample size randomized controlled trials will confirm the advantages of these medicines in the treatment of aspirin-induced gastrointestinal injury in the future.
PubMed: 34475825
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.730681 -
International Journal of General... 2021Aspirin appeared as a medicine to deal with aches and inflammation, but due to its antiplatelet properties, it has evolved into a drug mainly used to avert... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Aspirin appeared as a medicine to deal with aches and inflammation, but due to its antiplatelet properties, it has evolved into a drug mainly used to avert cardiovascular disease. Regardless of its therapeutic uses, the limiting aspect for aspirin use has been its affiliation with gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, classifying from acute mucosal damage to GI problems and death.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review is to address the question regarding the ECA effect on the gastric mucosa.
METHODS
A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the PubMed electronic databases from April 10th to April 23rd, 2020. Eligibility has been set, and based on those criteria, initially a total of 637 results were obtained, from these 58 of them were not written in English. Then, 168 articles which were free from duplication were screened and all the included articles were RCTs published after 2000. Based on these, final number of articles included on this review was 6.
RESULTS
Data were obtained from 6 published articles which reported on 15,621 participants. The reports were from 3 different countries. Most of the studies revealed that enteric-coated aspirin (ECA) treatment was not an effective mechanism against GI protection. ECA administration with omeprazole can hugely reduce the incidence of endoscopic GI damage compared to the impact of ECA used alone. Even short-term administration of a low dose of ECA was significantly associated with an apparent small bowel injury.
CONCLUSION
ECA treatment is not an effective mechanism against GI protection, and it is highly associated with small bowel injury. So the coating does not reduce risk of GI complications.
PubMed: 34466020
DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S326929 -
Iranian Journal of Public Health Dec 2020We investigated the efficacy of esomeprazole for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in a meta-analysis of clinical trials results. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
We investigated the efficacy of esomeprazole for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in a meta-analysis of clinical trials results.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for suitable studies, and double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were involved. A meta-analysis of RCTs was performed to analyze the efficacy of esomeprazole on clinical outcomes that associated with the severity of GERD.
RESULTS
A total of 8 clinical trials were selected in our meta-analysis (N=4495, patients with GERD). Esomeprazole treatment yielded a significant improvement in clinical signs and symptoms of GERD compared to placebo group. Funnel plot and Egger test showed there was no significant bias in the publication. Cochrane collaboration tool and Jadad scale were used to indicate that all 8 RCTs were of high quality. The results of Galbraith radial plot showed that no study was the major source of heterogeneity. Esomeprazole treatment significantly decreased the relapse rates more than that of placebo group (RR = 0.729; 95% CI: 0.670 to 0.794; <0.001). It seems to be lower rates of heartburn (RR = 0.747; 95%CI: 0.665-0.839; <0.001) and epigastric pain (RR = 0.795; 95%CI: 0.679-0.932; =0.005) in esomeprazole-treated group compared with the placebo group. Moreover, serious adverse events was less likely to happen after esomeprazole therapy (RR = 1.406, 95% CI: 1.030-1.918; =0.032).
CONCLUSION
Compared with the control group, esomeprazole is a promising therapeutic agent that improves the management of patients with GERD.
PubMed: 34178733
DOI: 10.18502/ijph.v49i12.4807 -
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 -
Arquivos de Gastroenterologia 2020Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a premalignant condition that raises controversy among general practitioners and specialists, especially regarding its diagnosis, treatment,...
BACKGROUND
Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a premalignant condition that raises controversy among general practitioners and specialists, especially regarding its diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up protocols.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aims to present the particularities and to clarify controversies related to the diagnosis, treatment and surveillance of BE.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, and SciELO based on articles published in the last 10 years. PRISMA guidelines were followed and the search was made using MeSH and non-MeSH terms "Barrett" and "diagnosis or treatment or therapy or surveillance". We searched for complete randomized controlled clinical trials or Phase IV studies, carried out with individuals over 18 years old.
RESULTS
A total of 42 randomized controlled trials were selected after applying all inclusion and exclusion criteria. A growing trend of alternative and safer techniques to traditional upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were identified, which could improve the detection of BE and patient acceptance. The use of chromoendoscopy-guided biopsy protocols significantly reduced the number of biopsies required to maintain similar BE detection rates. Furthermore, the value of BE chemoprophylaxis with esomeprazole and acetylsalicylic acid was relevant, as well as the establishment of protocols for the follow-up and endoscopic surveillance of patients with BE based predominantly on the presence and degree of dysplasia, as well as on the length of the follow-up affected by BE.
CONCLUSION
Although further studies regarding the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of BE are warranted, in light of the best evidence presented in the last decade, there is a trend towards electronic chromoendoscopy-guided biopsies for the diagnosis of BE, while treatment should encompass endoscopic techniques such as radiofrequency ablation. Risks of ablative endoscopic methods should be weighted against those of resective surgery. It is also important to consider lifetime endoscopic follow-up for both short and long term BE patients, with consideration to limitations imposed by a range of comorbidities. Unfortunately, there are no randomized controlled trials that have evaluated which is the best recommendation for BE follow-up and endoscopic surveillance (>1 cm) protocols, however, based on current International Guidelines, it is recommended esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) every 5 years in BE without dysplasia with 1 up to 3 cm of extension; every 3 years in BE without dysplasia with >3 up to 10 cm of extension, every 6 to 12 months in BE with low grade dysplasia and, finally, EGD every 3 months after ablative endoscopic therapy in cases of BE with high grade dysplasia.
Topics: Barrett Esophagus; Endoscopy, Digestive System; Esophagoscopy; Follow-Up Studies; Humans
PubMed: 33027480
DOI: 10.1590/S0004-2803.202000000-53 -
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