-
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jan 2021Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a relapsing and remitting condition affecting between 5% and 10% of people. Efficacious therapies are available, but their relative efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a relapsing and remitting condition affecting between 5% and 10% of people. Efficacious therapies are available, but their relative efficacy is unknown.
AIM
To perform a systematic review with network meta-analysis to resolve this uncertainty.
METHODS
We searched the medical literature through July 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing efficacy of drugs for adults with FD, compared with each other, or placebo. Trials reported a dichotomous assessment of symptom status after completion of therapy. We pooled data using a random effects model. Efficacy was reported as a pooled relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to summarise efficacy of each comparison tested. Relative ranking was assessed with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities.
RESULTS
We identified 71 eligible RCTs (19 243 participants). Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were ranked second for efficacy (RR of remaining symptomatic = 0.71; 95% CI 0.58-0.87, SUCRA 0.87), and first when only low risk of bias trials were included. Most RCTs that used TCAs recruited patients who were refractory to other drugs included in the network. Although sulpiride or levosulpiride were ranked first for efficacy (RR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.36-0.69, SUCRA 0.99), trial quality was low and only 86 patients received active therapy. TCAs were more likely to cause adverse events than placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
TCAs, histamine- receptor antagonists, standard- and low-dose proton pump inhibitors, sulpiride or levosulpiride, itopride and acotiamide were all more efficacious than placebo for FD.
Topics: Adult; Dyspepsia; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 32936964
DOI: 10.1111/apt.16072 -
Arab Journal of Urology 2021To analyse the current therapeutic options for patients with premature ejaculation (PE) and highlight their mechanism(s) of action, effectiveness, advantages and... (Review)
Review
To analyse the current therapeutic options for patients with premature ejaculation (PE) and highlight their mechanism(s) of action, effectiveness, advantages and limitations. A literature search was conducted using the PubMed database searching for articles exploring different PE treatment modalities. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach was used to report the results of the literature search. A total of 149 articles were included in this review. The currently available treatment methods for PE include behavioural therapy, local anaesthetics, tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and selective phosphodiesterase inhibitors. Most PE treatments are either experimental or used off-label. New treatments are certainly warranted to overcome this exasperating sexual dysfunction. AIPE: Arabic Index of Premature Ejaculation; CNS: central nervous system; CYP: cytochrome P450; ED: erectile dysfunction; FDA: United States Food and Drug Administration; H1: histamine receptors; 5-HT: 5-hydroxytryptamine; IELT: The intravaginal ejaculation latency time; IPE: Index of Premature Ejaculation; M1: muscarinic receptors; OCD: obsessive-compulsive disorder; PDE5: phosphodiesterase type 5; PE: premature ejaculation; PEP: Premature Ejaculation Profile; PRO: patient-reported outcome; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SS: Severance Secret (cream); SSRIs: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; TCAs: tricyclic antidepressants.
PubMed: 34552780
DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2021.1943273 -
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 -
Diseases of the Esophagus : Official... May 2017In patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and erosive esophagitis, treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is highly effective. However, in some... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
In patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and erosive esophagitis, treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is highly effective. However, in some patients, especially those with nonerosive reflux disease or atypical GERD symptoms, acid-suppressive therapy with PPIs is not as successful. Alginates are medications that work through an alternative mechanism by displacing the postprandial gastric acid pocket. This study performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the benefit of alginate-containing compounds in the treatment of patients with symptoms of GERD. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library electronic databases were searched through October 2015 for randomized controlled trials comparing alginate-containing compounds to placebo, antacids, histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), or PPIs for the treatment of GERD symptoms. Additional studies were identified through a bibliography review. Non-English studies and those with pediatric patients were excluded. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effect models to calculate odds ratios (OR). Heterogeneity between studies was estimated using the I2 statistic. Analyses were stratified by type of comparator. The search strategy yielded 665 studies and 15 (2.3%) met inclusion criteria. Fourteen were included in the meta-analysis (N = 2095 subjects). Alginate-based therapies increased the odds of resolution of GERD symptoms when compared to placebo or antacids (OR: 4.42; 95% CI 2.45-7.97) with a moderate degree of heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 71%, P = .001). Compared to PPIs or H2RAs, alginates appear less effective but the pooled estimate was not statistically significant (OR: 0.58; 95% CI 0.27-1.22). Alginates are more effective than placebo or antacids for treating GERD symptoms.
Topics: Adult; Alginates; Antacids; Female; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Glucuronic Acid; Hexuronic Acids; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28375448
DOI: 10.1093/dote/dow020 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 2020To determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS
We included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee ( Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates.
RESULTS
Seventy two trials including 12 660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
For higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019126656.
Topics: Critical Illness; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Patient Selection; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Risk Adjustment
PubMed: 31907166
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l6744 -
Inflammation Research : Official... Jan 2021Reports that the over-the-counter histamine H receptor antagonist famotidine could help treat the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) appeared from April 2020. We,...
OBJECTIVE
Reports that the over-the-counter histamine H receptor antagonist famotidine could help treat the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) appeared from April 2020. We, therefore, examined reports on interactions between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and histamine receptor antagonists.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed by 19 September 2020, and updated on 28 October 2020, in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar using (COVID-19 OR coronavirus OR SARS-CoV-2) AND (histamine antagonist OR famotidine OR cimetidine). ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for COVID-19 and (famotidine or histamine).
RESULTS
Famotidine may be a useful addition in COVID-19 treatment, but the results from prospective randomized trials are as yet awaited. Bioinformatics/drug repurposing studies indicated that, among several medicines, H and H receptor antagonists may interact with key viral enzymes. However, in vitro studies have to date failed to show a direct inhibition of famotidine on SARS-CoV-2 replication.
CONCLUSIONS
Clinical research into the potential benefits of H receptor antagonists in managing COVID-19 inflammation began from a simple observation and now is being tested in multi-centre clinical trials. The positive effects of famotidine may be due to H receptor-mediated immunomodulatory actions on mast cell histamine-cytokine cross-talk, rather than a direct action on SARS-CoV-2.
Topics: COVID-19; Histamine Antagonists; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Receptors, Histamine; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33206207
DOI: 10.1007/s00011-020-01422-1 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2022Nightmares are highly prevalent and distressing for the sufferer, which underlines the need for well-documented treatments. A comprehensive literature review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Nightmares are highly prevalent and distressing for the sufferer, which underlines the need for well-documented treatments. A comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis of the effects of different pharmacological placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, covering the period up to 1 December 2022, was performed. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsychInfo, Cinahl, and Google Scholar, resulting in the identification of 1762 articles, of which 14 met the inclusion criteria: pharmacological intervention of nightmares, based on a placebo-controlled randomized trial published in a European language, reporting outcomes either/or in terms of nightmare frequency, nightmare distress, or nightmare intensity, and reporting sufficient information enabling calculation of effect sizes. Most studies involved the effect of the α-adrenergic antagonist prazosin in samples of veterans or soldiers suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. Other medications used were hydroxyzine, clonazepam, cyproheptadine, nabilone, and doxazosin. The vast majority of studies were conducted in the USA. The studies comprised a total of 830 participants. The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale was the most frequently used outcome measure. The results showed an overall effect size of Hedges' = 0.50 (0.42 after adjustment for publication bias). The synthetic cannabinoid nabilone (one study) showed the highest effect size ( = 1.86), followed by the histamine H-antagonist hydroxyzine (one study), and prazosin (10 studies), with effect sizes of = 1.17 and = 0.54, respectively. Findings and limitations are discussed, and recommendations for future studies are provided.
Topics: Humans; Dreams; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Prazosin; Adrenergic alpha-1 Receptor Antagonists; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Hydroxyzine
PubMed: 36613097
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20010777 -
The American Journal of Medicine Oct 2022The role of antisecretory drugs for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients using anticoagulants is unclear. We investigated this question in a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The role of antisecretory drugs for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients using anticoagulants is unclear. We investigated this question in a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov thru April 2021 for controlled randomized trials and observational studies evaluating the association of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or H2-receptor antagonists with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients using anticoagulants. Independent duplicate review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed. Observational studies were included only if they provided results controlled for at least 2 variables. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models.
RESULTS
Six observational studies and 1 randomized trial were included. All but 1 study had low risk of bias. None of the studies excluded patients with concomitant aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. For PPIs, the pooled relative risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding was 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.61, 0.74) with low statistical heterogeneity (I = 15%). Individual studies showed greater treatment effect in patients with higher risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or aspirin use, elevated bleeding risk score). A single observational study evaluating the association of H2-receptor antagonists with upper gastrointestinal bleeding found a relative risk of 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.24-2.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence drawn mostly from observational studies with low risk of bias demonstrate that PPIs reduce upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients prescribed oral anticoagulants. The benefit appears to be most clearcut and substantial in patients with elevated risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Gastrointestinal Agents; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 35679879
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2022.05.031 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2015Acute bronchitis affects more than 40 in 1000 adults per year in the UK. The causes are usually considered to be infective, but only around half of people have... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute bronchitis affects more than 40 in 1000 adults per year in the UK. The causes are usually considered to be infective, but only around half of people have identifiable pathogens. The role of smoking or of environmental tobacco smoke inhalation in predisposing to acute bronchitis is unclear. One third of people may have longer-term symptoms or recurrence.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for acute bronchitis in people without chronic respiratory disease? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2015 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).
RESULTS
At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 420 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 306 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 245 studies and the further review of 61 full publications. Of the 61 full articles evaluated, three updated systematic reviews and three RCTs were added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for 12 PICO combinations.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we categorised the efficacy for six intervention-comparison combinations, based on information about the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, antihistamines, antitussives, beta2 agonists (inhaled), and expectorants/mucolytics.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antitussive Agents; Bronchitis; Expectorants; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26186368
DOI: No ID Found -
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2023Oral H antihistamines are the first-line treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis, while it is uncertain which kind and dosage of the antihistamines are more... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Oral H antihistamines are the first-line treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis, while it is uncertain which kind and dosage of the antihistamines are more effective in improving symptoms of patients.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of different oral H antihistamine treatments on patients with allergic rhinitis by performing a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
The search was executed in PubMed, Embase, OVID, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant studies. The network meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 16.0, and the outcome measures of the analysis were symptom score reductions of patients. Relative risks with 95% Confidence Intervals were used in the network meta-analysis to compare the clinical effect of treatments involved, and Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curves (SUCRAs) were also calculated to rank the treatments' efficacy.
RESULTS
18 eligible randomized controlled studies, involving a total of 9419 participants, were included in this meta-analysis. All the antihistamine treatments outperformed placebo in total symptom score reduction and each individual symptom score reduction. According to the results of SUCRA, rupatadine 20 mg and rupatadine 10 mg were ranked relatively high in reductions of total symptom score (SUCRA: 99.7%, 76.3%), nasal congestion score (SUCRA: 96.4%, 76.4%), rhinorrhea score (SUCRA: 96.6%, 74.6%) and ocular symptom score (SUCRA: 97.2%, 88.8%); rupatadine 20 mg and levocetirizine 5 mg were ranked relatively high in reductions of nasal itching score (SUCRA: 84.8%, 83.4%) and sneezing score (SUCRA: 87.3%, 95.4%); loratadine 10 mg was ranked the lowest in each symptom score reduction besides placebo.
CONCLUSION
This study suggests that rupatadine is the most effective in alleviating symptoms of patients with allergic rhinitis among different oral H antihistamine treatments involved, and rupatadine 20 mg performs better than rupatadine 10 mg. While loratadine 10 mg has inferior efficacy for patients to the other antihistamine treatments.
Topics: Humans; Loratadine; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Histamine Antagonists; Rhinitis, Allergic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37271114
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2023.03.009