-
Chest Jan 2016Unexplained chronic cough (UCC) causes significant impairments in quality of life. Effective assessment and treatment approaches are needed for UCC. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Unexplained chronic cough (UCC) causes significant impairments in quality of life. Effective assessment and treatment approaches are needed for UCC.
METHODS
This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) asked: What is the efficacy of treatment compared with usual care for cough severity, cough frequency, and cough-related quality of life in patients with UCC? Studies of adults and adolescents aged > 12 years with a chronic cough of > 8 weeks' duration that was unexplained after systematic investigation and treatment were included and assessed for relevance and quality. Based on the systematic review, guideline suggestions were developed and voted on by using the American College of Chest Physicians organization methodology.
RESULTS
Eleven RCTs and five systematic reviews were included. The 11 RCTs reported data on 570 participants with chronic cough who received a variety of interventions. Study quality was high in 10 RCTs. The studies used an assortment of descriptors and assessments to identify UCC. Although gabapentin and morphine exhibited positive effects on cough-related quality of life, only gabapentin was supported as a treatment recommendation. Studies of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) were affected by intervention fidelity bias; when this factor was addressed, ICS were found to be ineffective for UCC. Esomeprazole was ineffective for UCC without features of gastroesophageal acid reflux. Studies addressing nonacid gastroesophageal reflux disease were not identified. A multimodality speech pathology intervention improved cough severity.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence supporting the diagnosis and management of UCC is limited. UCC requires further study to establish agreed terminology and the optimal methods of investigation using established criteria for intervention fidelity. Speech pathology-based cough suppression is suggested as a treatment option for UCC. This guideline presents suggestions for diagnosis and treatment based on the best available evidence and identifies gaps in our knowledge as well as areas for future research.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Algorithms; Child; Chronic Disease; Cough; Decision Trees; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 26426314
DOI: 10.1378/chest.15-1496 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Jun 2018Although proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used, their relative potency and ideal dosing regimens remain unclear. We analyzed data from randomized clinical trials... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
Although proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used, their relative potency and ideal dosing regimens remain unclear. We analyzed data from randomized clinical trials that performed pH testing in patients receiving solid-dose PPI formulations (omeprazole, esomeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole) for a minimum of 5 days. We used omeprazole equivalency and the surrogate biomarker, percentage time pH > 4 over a 24-hour period (pH4time), to compare PPI effectiveness for different PPIs given once, twice, or 3 times daily. We found that increasing strength of once-daily PPIs (9-64 mg omeprazole equivalents) increased pH4time linearly from approximately 10.0 to 15.6 hours; higher doses produced no further increase in pH4time. Increasing the frequency to twice-daily PPI increased pH4time linearly, from approximately 15.8 to 21.0 hours. Three-times daily PPIs performed similarly to twice-daily PPIs. The costs of PPIs varied greatly, but the cost variation was not directly related to potency. We conclude that PPIs can be used interchangeably based on potency. Using twice-daily PPIs is more effective in increasing efficacy increasing once-daily PPI dosage. Omeprazole and lansoprazole (30 mg) and 20 mg of esomeprazole rabeprazole are functionally equivalent.
Topics: Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28964908
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.09.033 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017In people with acute pancreatitis, it is unclear what the role should be for medical treatment as an addition to supportive care such as fluid and electrolyte balance... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In people with acute pancreatitis, it is unclear what the role should be for medical treatment as an addition to supportive care such as fluid and electrolyte balance and organ support in people with organ failure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different pharmacological interventions in people with acute pancreatitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trial registers to October 2016 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only RCTs performed in people with acute pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, severity, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We did not perform a network meta-analysis as planned because of the lack of information on potential effect modifiers and differences of type of participants included in the different comparisons, when information was available. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the binary outcomes and rate ratios with 95% CIs for count outcomes using a fixed-effect model and random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 84 RCTs with 8234 participants in this review. Six trials (N = 658) did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The remaining 78 trials excluded 210 participants after randomisation. Thus, a total of 7366 participants in 78 trials contributed to one or more outcomes for this review. The treatments assessed in these 78 trials included antibiotics, antioxidants, aprotinin, atropine, calcitonin, cimetidine, EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), gabexate, glucagon, iniprol, lexipafant, NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), octreotide, oxyphenonium, probiotics, activated protein C, somatostatin, somatostatin plus omeprazole, somatostatin plus ulinastatin, thymosin, ulinastatin, and inactive control. Apart from the comparison of antibiotics versus control, which included a large proportion of participants with necrotising pancreatitis, the remaining comparisons had only a small proportion of patients with this condition. Most trials included either only participants with severe acute pancreatitis or included a mixture of participants with mild acute pancreatitis and severe acute pancreatitis (75 trials). Overall, the risk of bias in trials was unclear or high for all but one of the trials.
SOURCE OF FUNDING
seven trials were not funded or funded by agencies without vested interest in results. Pharmaceutical companies partially or fully funded 21 trials. The source of funding was not available from the remaining trials.Since we considered short-term mortality as the most important outcome, we presented only these results in detail in the abstract. Sixty-seven studies including 6638 participants reported short-term mortality. There was no evidence of any differences in short-term mortality in any of the comparisons (very low-quality evidence). With regards to other primary outcomes, serious adverse events (number) were lower than control in participants taking lexipafant (rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), octreotide (rate ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89; N = 770; 5 studies; very low-quality evidence), somatostatin plus omeprazole (rate ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.70; N = 140; 1 study; low-quality evidence), and somatostatin plus ulinastatin (rate ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.60; N = 122; 1 study; low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with organ failure was lower in octreotide than control (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; N = 430; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with sepsis was lower in lexipafant than control (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of differences in any of the remaining comparisons in these outcomes or for any of the remaining primary outcomes (the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event and the occurrence of infected pancreatic necrosis). None of the trials reported heath-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very low-quality evidence suggests that none of the pharmacological treatments studied decrease short-term mortality in people with acute pancreatitis. However, the confidence intervals were wide and consistent with an increase or decrease in short-term mortality due to the interventions. We did not find consistent clinical benefits with any intervention. Because of the limitations in the prognostic scoring systems and because damage to organs may occur in acute pancreatitis before they are clinically manifest, future trials should consider including pancreatitis of all severity but power the study to measure the differences in the subgroup of people with severe acute pancreatitis. It may be difficult to power the studies based on mortality. Future trials in participants with acute pancreatitis should consider other outcomes such as complications or health-related quality of life as primary outcomes. Such trials should include health-related quality of life, costs, and return to work as outcomes and should follow patients for at least three months (preferably for at least one year).
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antioxidants; Confidence Intervals; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Pancreatitis; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28431202
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011384.pub2 -
Digestion 2023Vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, has a strong acid suppression effect and potent efficacy in acid-associated diseases, including Helicobacter... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, has a strong acid suppression effect and potent efficacy in acid-associated diseases, including Helicobacter pylori eradication. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy for H. pylori eradication.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search through PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to June 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy and triple therapies for H. pylori eradication. Primary outcomes were cure rates and relative efficacy. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, dropout rate, and subgroup analysis.
RESULTS
Five studies with 1,852 patients were included in the analysis. The cure rates of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy were 85.6% with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 79.7-91.5% and 88.5% (95% CI: 83.2-93.8%) in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. The efficacy of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy was not inferior to that of triple therapy with pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.03 (95% CI: 0.97-1.10) and 1.02 (95% CI: 0.98-1.08) in intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses; while it was significantly superior to the omeprazole or lansoprazole-based triple therapy (RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.05-1.25, p = 0.001). For clarithromycin-resistant strains, vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy showed superiority to vonoprazan-based triple therapy (86.7% vs. 71.4%, RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.39, p = 0.02); however, vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy was significant inferior to vonoprazan-based triple therapy for clarithromycin-sensitive strains (83.0% vs. 92.8%, RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.85-0.95, p = 0.0002). The adverse effects of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy were lower than those of triple therapy (21.2% vs. 26.5%, RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.73-1.01, p = 0.06), especially the incidence of diarrhea (p = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy is noninferior to vonoprazan-based triple therapy but superior to the omeprazole or lansoprazole-based triple therapy and has less side effects. Patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains are particularly expected to benefit from vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy.
Topics: Humans; Amoxicillin; Clarithromycin; Helicobacter pylori; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Helicobacter Infections; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Pyrroles; Lansoprazole; Omeprazole; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37015201
DOI: 10.1159/000529622 -
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 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are usually prescribed to prevent gastrointestinal (GI) complications in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). This...
Efficacy and safety of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors with aspirin-clopidogrel dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are usually prescribed to prevent gastrointestinal (GI) complications in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of the concomitant use of PPIs with aspirin-clopidogrel DAPT in patients with Coronary heart disease (CHD). The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to August 2022 for eligible studies. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to different PPI subtypes, populations, follow-up times and study types. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022332195). A total of 173,508 patients from 18 studies [2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 3 analyses of RCTs, and 13 cohort studies] were included in this study. Pooled data revealed that coadministration of PPIs significantly increased the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.06-1.26, = .001) and reduced the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) complications (HR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.30-0.64, .0001). Subgroup analysis results showed that the esomeprazole users and patients with coronary stenting in the PPI group were associated with an increased risk of MACEs compared with the non-PPI group. The occurrence of MACEs in PPI users was more common than that in non-PPI users in long-term follow-up (≥12 months) studies and in the observational studies. There was no significant differences in the incidences of net clinical adverse events (NACEs), all-cause mortality, or cardiac death between the two groups. In patients with CHD, the concomitant use of PPIs with aspirin and clopidogrel was associated with a reduced risk of GI complications but could increase the rates of MACEs (particularly in patients receiving esomeprazole or with coronary stenting). There was no clear evidence of an association between PPI use and NACEs, all-cause mortality, or cardiac death. The results could have been affected by the follow-up time and study type. Further large-scale RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.
PubMed: 36703730
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1021584 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023One-third of people with gastrointestinal disorders, including functional dyspepsia, use some form of complementary and alternative medicine, including herbal medicines. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
One-third of people with gastrointestinal disorders, including functional dyspepsia, use some form of complementary and alternative medicine, including herbal medicines.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective is to assess the effects of non-Chinese herbal medicines for the treatment of people with functional dyspepsia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases on 22 December 2022: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, among other sources, without placing language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing non-Chinese herbal medicines versus placebo or other treatments in people with functional dyspepsia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened references, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias from trial reports. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs). We created effect direction plots when meta-analysis was not possible, following the reporting guideline for Synthesis without Meta-analysis (SWiM). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence (CoE) for all outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 trials with 4477 participants that assessed 27 herbal medicines. This review evaluated global symptoms of functional dyspepsia, adverse events and quality of life; however, some studies did not report these outcomes. STW5 (Iberogast) may moderately improve global symptoms of dyspepsia compared with placebo at 28 to 56 days; however, the evidence is very uncertain (MD -2.64, 95% CI -4.39 to -0.90; I = 87%; 5 studies, 814 participants; very low CoE). STW5 may also increase the improvement rate compared to placebo at four to eight weeks' follow-up (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.47; 2 studies, 324 participants; low CoE). There was little to no difference in adverse events for STW5 compared to placebo (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.64; I = 0%; 4 studies, 786 participants; low CoE). STW5 may cause little to no difference in quality of life compared to placebo (no numerical data available, low CoE). Peppermint and caraway oil probably result in a large improvement in global symptoms of dyspepsia compared to placebo at four weeks (SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.58; I = 0%; 2 studies, 210 participants; moderate CoE) and increase the improvement rate of global symptoms of dyspepsia (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.81; I = 0%; 3 studies, 305 participants; moderate CoE). There may be little to no difference in the rate of adverse events between this intervention and placebo (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.53; I = 47%; 3 studies, 305 participants; low CoE). The intervention probably improves the quality of life (measured on the Nepean Dyspepsia Index) (MD -131.40, 95% CI -193.76 to -69.04; 1 study, 99 participants; moderate CoE). Curcuma longa probably results in a moderate improvement global symptoms of dyspepsia compared to placebo at four weeks (MD -3.33, 95% CI -5.84 to -0.81; I = 50%; 2 studies, 110 participants; moderate CoE) and may increase the improvement rate (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.11; 1 study, 76 participants; low CoE). There is probably little to no difference in the rate of adverse events between this intervention and placebo (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.08; 1 study, 89 participants; moderate CoE). The intervention probably improves the quality of life, measured on the EQ-5D (MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; 1 study, 89 participants; moderate CoE). We found evidence that the following herbal medicines may improve symptoms of dyspepsia compared to placebo: Lafonesia pacari (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.14; 1 study, 97 participants; moderate CoE), Nigella sativa (SMD -1.59, 95% CI -2.13 to -1.05; 1 study, 70 participants; high CoE), artichoke (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.09; 1 study, 244 participants; low CoE), Boensenbergia rotunda (SMD -2.22, 95% CI -2.62 to -1.83; 1 study, 160 participants; low CoE), Pistacia lenticus (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.01; 1 study, 148 participants; low CoE), Enteroplant (SMD -1.09, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.77; 1 study, 198 participants; low CoE), Ferula asafoetida (SMD -1.51, 95% CI -2.20 to -0.83; 1 study, 43 participants; low CoE), ginger and artichoke (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.13; 1 study, 126 participants; low CoE), Glycyrrhiza glaba (SMD -1.86, 95% CI -2.54 to -1.19; 1 study, 50 participants; moderate CoE), OLNP-06 (RR 3.80, 95% CI 1.70 to 8.51; 1 study, 48 participants; low CoE), red pepper (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.89 to -0.26; 1 study, 27 participants; low CoE), Cuadrania tricuspidata (SMD -1.19, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.72; 1 study, 83 participants; low CoE), jollab (SMD -1.22, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.85; 1 study, 133 participants; low CoE), Pimpinella anisum (SMD -2.30, 95% CI -2.79 to -1.80; 1 study, 107 participants; low CoE). The following may provide little to no difference compared to placebo: Mentha pulegium (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.02; 1 study, 100 participants; moderate CoE) and cinnamon oil (SMD 0.38, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.94; 1 study, 51 participants; low CoE); moreover, Mentha longifolia may increase dyspeptic symptoms (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.88; 1 study, 88 participants; low CoE). Almost all the studies reported little to no difference in the rate of adverse events compared to placebo except for red pepper, which may result in a higher risk of adverse events compared to placebo (RR 4.31, 95% CI 1.56 to 11.89; 1 study, 27 participants; low CoE). With respect to the quality of life, most studies did not report this outcome. When compared to other interventions, essential oils may improve global symptoms of dyspepsia compared to omeprazole. Peppermint oil/caraway oil, STW5, Nigella sativa and Curcuma longa may provide little to no benefit compared to other treatments.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on moderate to very low-certainty evidence, we identified some herbal medicines that may be effective in improving symptoms of dyspepsia. Moreover, these interventions may not be associated with important adverse events. More high-quality trials are needed on herbal medicines, especially including participants with common gastrointestinal comorbidities.
Topics: Humans; Dyspepsia; Quality of Life; Plant Extracts; Complementary Therapies
PubMed: 37323050
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013323.pub2 -
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 -
European Journal of Medical Research Aug 2023To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan-amoxicillin (VA) dual therapy for radically eradicating Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan-amoxicillin (VA) dual therapy for radically eradicating Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori).
METHODS
The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang databases were searched up to July 7, 2022, to identify clinical trials comparing the efficacy of VA dual therapy and triple therapy for H. pylori eradication. After evaluating the quality of the included studies, random effects models were conducted, and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the efficacy and safety of each approach.
RESULTS
Six publications (including four randomized controlled trials) involving 2019 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, the eradication rate for VA dual therapy was 89.9%, while it was 85.2% for triple therapy based on other acid inhibitors. The eradication rate of H. pylori in the VA dual regimen group was higher than that in the PPI-based (omeprazole or lansoprazole) triple therapy group (RR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.07-1.23, p < 0.0001). However, the efficacy of VA dual therapy was comparable with VA-Clarithromycin (VAC) triple therapy (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.93-1.02). Besides, the incidence of adverse reactions in VA dual therapy was also lower than that in triple therapy (RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.91, p = 0.0009).
CONCLUSION
Compared with PPI-based triple therapy, VA dual therapy showed a better therapeutic effect, safety and patient compliance rate for eradicating H. pylori, which should be used as a novel curative strategy in the future.
Topics: Humans; Amoxicillin; Helicobacter pylori; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Helicobacter Infections; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37550781
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-023-01249-6 -
Cureus Aug 2023Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) refers to the occurrence of an open erosion in the inner lining of the stomach, duodenum, or sometimes lower esophagus. Treatments like proton... (Review)
Review
Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Histamine-2 Receptor Antagonists in the Management of Patients With Peptic Ulcer Disease: A Systematic Review.
Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) refers to the occurrence of an open erosion in the inner lining of the stomach, duodenum, or sometimes lower esophagus. Treatments like proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) are available on the market to efficiently treat the break in the mucosal lining. However, there is little evidence about the effects of the medication on the type and location of the ulcer and the epigastric pain caused by disintegration and increased acidity in the stomach. Given the above, we conducted a systematic review comparing the safety and efficacy of PPIs and H2RAs in various ulcer locations (gastric, duodenal, and pre-pyloric) and the effect of prolonging the treatment with the same medication or changing into a drug from another class in treatment-resistant ulcers. We employed major research literature databases and search engines such as PubMed, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Science Direct, and Google Scholar to find relevant articles. After a thorough screening, a quality check using various tools, and applying filters that suited our eligibility criteria, we identified eight articles, of which five were random clinical trials (RCTs), two review articles, and one meta-analysis. This study compares the different side effects of PPIs and H2RAs. Most studies concluded that omeprazole is superior in healing ulcers and bringing pain relief and that patients resistant to H2RAs can be treated better when switched to a PPI. This study also discusses the adverse effects of chronic use, such as diarrhea, constipation, headaches, and gastrointestinal infections. Patients on long-term PPI therapy are required to take calcium supplements to prevent the risk of fractures in older adults. Regarding long-term outcomes, PPIs remain the mainstay of treatment for peptic ulcer disease, based on the papers we reviewed.
PubMed: 37779765
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.44341