-
Gut Pathogens Oct 2010In 2005, the first disease-specific Helicobacter pylori virulence factor that induced duodenal ulcer and had a suppressive action on gastric cancer has been identified,...
BACKGROUND
In 2005, the first disease-specific Helicobacter pylori virulence factor that induced duodenal ulcer and had a suppressive action on gastric cancer has been identified, and was named duodenal ulcer promoting gene (dupA). However, the importance of the dupA gene on clinical outcomes is conflicting in subsequent studies. The aim of this study was to estimate the magnitude of the risk for clinical outcomes associated with dupA gene.
METHODS
A meta-analysis of case-control studies which provided raw data on the infection rates with the dupA-positive H. pylori detected by polymerase chain reaction was performed.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies with a total of 2,466 patients were identified in the search. Infection with the dupA-positive H. pylori increased the risk for duodenal ulcer by 1.41-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.76) overall. Subgroup analysis showed that the summary odds ratio (OR) was 1.57 (95% CI, 1.19-2.06) in Asian countries and 1.09 (95% CI, 0.73-1.62) in Western countries. There was no association between the presence of the dupA gene and gastric cancer and gastric ulcer. Publication bias did not exist.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis confirmed the importance of the presence of the dupA gene for duodenal ulcer, especially in Asian countries.
PubMed: 21040520
DOI: 10.1186/1757-4749-2-13 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether a second procedure improves haemostatic efficacy or patient outcomes or both after epinephrine injection in adults with high-risk bleeding ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
For our update in 2014, we searched the following versions of these databases, limited from June 2009 to May 2014: Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to May Week 2 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily Update May 22, 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations May 22, 2014 (Appendix 1); Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews-the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) April 2014 (Appendix 2); and EMBASE 1980 to Week 20 2014 (Appendix 3).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing epinephrine alone versus epinephrine plus a second method. Populations consisted of patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers, that is, patients with haemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease (gastric or duodenal) with major stigmata of bleeding as defined by Forrest classification Ia (spurting haemorrhage), Ib (oozing haemorrhage), IIa (non-bleeding visible vessel) and IIb (adherent clot) (Forrest Ia-Ib-IIa-IIb).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model; risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented for dichotomous data.
MAIN RESULTS
Nineteen studies of 2033 initially randomly assigned participants were included, of which 11 used a second injected agent, five used a mechanical method (haemoclips) and three employed thermal methods.The risk of further bleeding after initial haemostasis was lower in the combination therapy groups than in the epinephrine alone group, regardless of which second procedure was applied (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81). Adding any second procedure significantly reduced the overall bleeding rate (persistent and recurrent bleeding) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). Mortality rates were not significantly different when either method was applied.Rebleeding in the 10 studies that scheduled a reendoscopy showed no difference between epinephrine and combined therapy; without second-look endoscopy, a statistically significant difference was observed between epinephrine and epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, with fewer participants rebleeding in the combined therapy group (nine studies) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.48).For ulcers of the Forrest Ia or Ib type (oozing or spurting), the addition of a second therapy significantly reduced the rebleeding rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.88); this difference was not seen for type IIa (visible vessel) or type IIb (adherent clot) ulcers. Few procedure-related adverse effects were reported, and this finding was not statistically significantly different between groups. Few adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant difference was noted between groups.The addition of a second injected method reduced recurrent and persistent rebleeding rates and surgery rates in the combination therapy group, but these findings were not statistically significantly different. Significantly fewer participants died in the combined therapy group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00).Epinephrine and a second mechanical method decreased recurrent and persistent bleeding (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.54) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect mortality rates.Epinephrine plus thermal methods decreased the rebleeding rate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.78) and the surgery rate (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect the mortality rate.Our risk of bias estimates show that risk of bias was low, as, although the type of study did not allow a double-blind trial, rebleeding, surgery and mortality were not dependent on subjective observation. Although some studies had limitations in their design or implementation, most were clear about important quality criteria, including randomisation and allocation concealment, sequence generation and blinding.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding and the need for surgery in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcer. The main adverse events include risk of perforation and gastric wall necrosis, the rates of which were low in our included studies and favoured neither epinephrine therapy nor combination therapy. The main conclusion is that combined therapy seems to work better than epinephrine alone. However, we cannot conclude that a particular form of treatment is equal or superior to another.
Topics: Adult; Combined Modality Therapy; Epinephrine; Hemostasis, Endoscopic; Humans; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 25308912
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005584.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Ischaemic heart disease including heart failure is the most common cause of death in the world, and the incidence of the condition is rapidly increasing. Heart failure... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ischaemic heart disease including heart failure is the most common cause of death in the world, and the incidence of the condition is rapidly increasing. Heart failure is characterised by symptoms such as fatigue and breathlessness during light activity, as well as disordered breathing during sleep. In particular, sleep disordered breathing (SDB), including central sleep apnoea (CSA) and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), is highly prevalent in people with chronic heart failure. A previous meta-analysis demonstrated that positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy dramatically increased the survival rate of people with heart failure who had CSA, and thus could contribute to improving the prognosis of these individuals. However, recent trials found that adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) including PAP therapy had a higher risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. A meta-analysis that included recent trials was therefore needed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of positive airway pressure therapy for people with heart failure who experience central sleep apnoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection on 7 February 2019 with no limitations on date, language, or publication status. We also searched two clinical trials registers in July 2019 and checked the reference lists of primary studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We excluded cross-over trials and included individually randomised controlled trials, reported as full-texts, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted outcome data from the included studies. We double-checked that data had been entered correctly by comparing the data presented in the systematic review with study reports. We analysed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and continuous data as mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. Furthermore, we performed subgroup analysis in the ASV group or continuous PAP group separately. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the quality of evidence as it relates to those studies that contribute data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 randomised controlled trials involving a total of 2125 participants. The trials evaluated PAP therapy consisting of ASV or continuous PAP therapy for 1 to 31 months. Many trials included participants with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Only one trial included participants with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. We are uncertain about the effects of PAP therapy on all-cause mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.21; participants = 1804; studies = 6; I = 47%; very low-quality evidence). We found moderate-quality evidence of no difference between PAP therapy and usual care on cardiac-related mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.24; participants = 1775; studies = 5; I = 11%). We found low-quality evidence of no difference between PAP therapy and usual care on all-cause rehospitalisation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; participants = 1533; studies = 5; I = 40%) and cardiac-related rehospitalisation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.35; participants = 1533; studies = 5; I = 40%). In contrast, PAP therapy showed some indication of an improvement in quality of life scores assessed by all measurements (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.04; participants = 1617; studies = 6; I = 76%; low-quality evidence) and by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MD -0.51, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.24; participants = 1458; studies = 4; I = 0%; low-quality evidence) compared with usual care. Death due to pneumonia (N = 1, 3% of PAP group); cardiac arrest (N = 18, 3% of PAP group); heart transplantation (N = 8, 1% of PAP group); cardiac worsening (N = 3, 9% of PAP group); deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (N = 1, 3% of PAP group); and foot ulcer (N = 1, 3% of PAP group) occurred in the PAP therapy group, whereas cardiac arrest (N = 16, 2% of usual care group); heart transplantation (N = 12, 2% of usual care group); cardiac worsening (N = 5, 14% of usual care group); and duodenal ulcer (N = 1, 3% of usual care group) occurred in the usual care group across three trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effect of PAP therapy on all-cause mortality was uncertain. In addition, although we found evidence that PAP therapy did not reduce the risk of cardiac-related mortality and rehospitalisation, there was some indication of an improvement in quality of life for heart failure patients with CSA. Furthermore, the evidence was insufficient to determine whether adverse events were more common with PAP than with usual care. These findings were limited by low- or very low-quality evidence. PAP therapy may be worth considering for individuals with heart failure to improve quality of life.
Topics: Heart Failure; Humans; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Apnea, Central; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive
PubMed: 31797360
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012803.pub2 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Dec 1999To assess whether frequency of placebo administration is associated with duodenal ulcer healing. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
To assess whether frequency of placebo administration is associated with duodenal ulcer healing.
METHODS
A systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials was undertaken. 79 of 80 trials that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled 4 week placebo healing rate of all duodenal ulcer trials that employed a four times a day regimen was compared with the rate obtained from trials with a twice a day regimen.
RESULTS
The pooled 4 week healing rate of the 51 trials with a four times a day regimen was 44. 2% (805 of 1821 patients) compared with 36.2% (545 of 1504 patients) in the 28 trials with a twice a day regimen (difference, 8.0% [equal effects model]; 95% confidence interval, 4.6% to 11.3%). Depending on the statistical analysis, the rate difference ranged from 6.0% (multivariable random effects model) to 8.0% (equal effects model). A number of sensitivity analyses showed comparable differences between the two regimens. Most of these sensitivity analyses were not significant, probably because a number of trials were excluded resulting in a loss of power.
CONCLUSIONS
We found a relation between frequency of placebo administration and healing of duodenal ulcer. We realize that the comparison was based on nonrandomized data. However, we speculate that the difference between regimens was induced by the difference in frequency of placebo administration. A better knowledge of various placebo effects is required in order to make clinically relevant assessments of treatment effects derived from placebo-controlled trials.
Topics: Duodenal Ulcer; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Models, Statistical; Placebo Effect; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 10594490
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.1999.00094.x -
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology &... Nov 2014Peptic ulcer rebleeding (PUR) usually occurs within three days following endoscopic hemostasis. However, recent data have increasingly suggested delayed rebleeding. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peptic ulcer rebleeding (PUR) usually occurs within three days following endoscopic hemostasis. However, recent data have increasingly suggested delayed rebleeding.
OBJECTIVE
To better characterize the timing of PUR (Forrest Ia to IIb) following initially successful endoscopic hemostasis.
METHODS
An exhaustive literature search (1989 to 2013), with cross-referencing, was performed to identify pertinent randomized controlled trial (RCT) arms. Patients receiving high-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) infusion following successful modern-day endoscopic hemostasis were included. A sensitivity analysis included any patients receiving PPI doses >40 mg daily. The main outcome measure was 30-day rebleeding, while weighted mean averages at t = three, seven, 14 and 28 to 30 days are also reported.
RESULTS
Of 756 citations, six RCTs were included (561 patients; 58.5% to 89.5% male; 55.3 to 67.5 years of age). Among patients receiving high-dose PPI (five RCTs [393 patients]), 11.5% (95% CI 8.4% to 14.7%) experienced rebleeding, 55.6% (95% CI 41.1% to 70.1%) rebled within three days, 20% (95% CI 8.3% to 31.7%) between four and seven days, 17.8% (95% CI 6.6% to 28.9%) at eight to 14 days, and 6.7% (95% CI 0% to 14%) at 15 to 28 to 30 days. Using the relaxed lower PPI dosing threshold, similar respective rates were 14.4% (95% CI 11.5% to 17.3%) overall, with interval rates of 39.5% (95% CI 28.9% to 50.15%), 34.6% (95% CI 24.2% to 44.9%), 19.7% (95% CI 11% to 28.4%) and 6.2% (95% CI 0.95% to 11.5%). Qualitative review of patient characteristics, limited by small sample size, possible bias and study heterogeneity, suggested increased patient comorbidity and postendoscopic use of lower PPI dosing may predict delayed rebleeding.
CONCLUSION
In patients with high-risk PUR undergoing successful endoscopic hemostasis, most rebled within three days, with many experiencing later rebleeding. Additional research is needed to better predict such an outcome.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Duodenal Ulcer; Female; Hemostasis, Endoscopic; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Peptic Ulcer; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Recurrence; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 25390616
DOI: 10.1155/2014/324967 -
Journal of Research in Medical Sciences... Mar 2012Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is known as a major etiologic factor for a variety of gastroduodenal diseases. In Iran, with a high rate of H. pylori infection...
BACKGROUND
Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is known as a major etiologic factor for a variety of gastroduodenal diseases. In Iran, with a high rate of H. pylori infection close to 90%, numerous studies have revealed many aspects of interaction between the bacterium, mucosal surface and induction of disease outcome. The organism is genetically diverse and several virulence factors are attributed to the more virulent strains. The well-characterized virulence factors of H. pylori are cytotoxin associated gene A and vacuolating cytotoxin gene A. The distribution pattern of H. pylori genotypes and its association with disease status varies geographically. The present review focused on the virulence factors and genotyping of H. pylori in relation to gastroduodenal disorders in different regions of Iran.
METHODS
In total, 398 studies were reported on different aspects related to H. pylori in our electronic search from 1995-2011. H. pylori infection and its virulence factors in association with disease status were investigated in 159 reports. Looking specifically at the gastrointestinal tract disorders, the most relevant reports including 37 papers were selected.
RESULTS
We found no correlation of cagA genotype and disease status in the majority of studies, whereas vacA was demonstrated as a useful marker in predicting the disease outcome. The results of reports on other virulence factors of H. pylori such as blood group antigen-binding adhesion gene A, the induced by contact with epithelium gene A, the outer inflammatory protein A, the duodenal ulcer promoting gene A, and Helicobacter outer membrane gene and their relation with disease status were contradictory.
CONCLUSIONS
Although different markers of H. pylori were emphasized as useful when predicting disease outcomes in some studies, the inconsistent researches and the scarcity of data made any conclusion or even comparison impossible. Considering the gap of information observed during our search relating to genotyping and other aspects of H. pylori infection, further investigations are suggested.
PubMed: 23267382
DOI: No ID Found