-
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the association between the intake of systemic medications that may affect bone metabolism and their subsequent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the association between the intake of systemic medications that may affect bone metabolism and their subsequent impact on implant failures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted. Implant failure (IF) was the primary outcome, while biological/mechanical and the causes/timing associated with IF were set as secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses for the binary outcome IF and odds ratio were performed to investigate the association with medications.
RESULTS
A final selection of 17 articles was screened for qualitative assessment. As such, five studies focused on evaluating the association of implant failure and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), two on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), two on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), seven on bisphosphonates (BPs), and one on anti-hypertensives (AHTNs). For PPIs, the fixed effect model estimated a difference of IF rates of 4.3%, indicating significantly higher IF rates in the test compared to the control group (p < 0.5). Likewise, for SSRIs, the IF was shown to be significantly higher in the individuals taking SSRIs (p < 0.5) as estimated a difference of 7.5%. No subset meta-analysis could be conducted for AHTNs medications as only one study fulfilled the inclusion criteria, which revealed an increased survival rate of AHTN medication. None of the other medications yielded significance.
CONCLUSIONS
The present systematic review showed an association of PPIs and SSRIs with an increased implant failure rate. Hence, clinicians considering implant therapy should be aware of possible medication-related implant failures.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antihypertensive Agents; Bone and Bones; Databases, Factual; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Diphosphonates; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 30328197
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13137 -
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 -
Dysphagia Oct 2020Dysphagia is associated with increased risk of stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP). However, it is unclear what other factors contribute to that risk or which measures may... (Review)
Review
Dysphagia is associated with increased risk of stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP). However, it is unclear what other factors contribute to that risk or which measures may reduce it. This systematic review aimed to provide evidence on interventions and care processes associated with SAP in patients with dysphagia. Studies were screened for inclusion if they included dysphagia only patients, dysphagia and non-dysphagia patients or unselected patients that included dysphagic patients and evaluated factors associated with a recorded frequency of SAP. Electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2017. Eligible studies were critically appraised. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I. The primary outcome was SAP. Eleven studies were included. Sample sizes ranged from 60 to 1088 patients. There was heterogeneity in study design. Measures of immunodepression are associated with SAP in dysphagic patients. There is insufficient evidence to justify screening for aerobic Gram-negative bacteria. Prophylactic antibiotics did not prevent SAP and proton pump inhibitors may increase risk. Treatment with metoclopramide may reduce SAP risk. Evidence that nasogastric tube (NGT) placement increases risk of SAP is equivocal. A multidisciplinary team approach and instrumental assessment of swallowing may reduce risk of pneumonia. Patients with impaired mobility were associated with increased risk. Findings should be interpreted with caution given the number of studies, heterogeneity and descriptive analyses. Several medical interventions and care processes, which may reduce risk of SAP in patients with dysphagia, have been identified. Further research is needed to evaluate the role of these interventions and care processes in clinical practice.
Topics: Deglutition; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Pneumonia; Risk Factors; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation
PubMed: 31493069
DOI: 10.1007/s00455-019-10061-6 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Mar 2016To evaluate whether Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy benefits patients with functional dyspepsia (FD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To evaluate whether Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy benefits patients with functional dyspepsia (FD).
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy and safety of H. pylori eradication therapy for patients with functional dyspepsia published in English (up to May 2015) were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. Pooled estimates were measured using the fixed or random effect model. Overall effect was expressed as a pooled risk ratio (RR) or a standard mean difference (SMD). All data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0.
RESULTS
This systematic review included 25 RCTs with a total of 5555 patients with FD. Twenty-three of these studies were used to evaluate the benefits of H. pylori eradication therapy for symptom improvement; the pooled RR was 1.23 (95%CI: 1.12-1.36, P < 0.0001). H. pylori eradication therapy demonstrated symptom improvement during long-term follow-up at ≥ 1 year (RR = 1.24; 95%CI: 1.12-1.37, P < 0.0001) but not during short-term follow-up at < 1 year (RR = 1.26; 95%CI: 0.83-1.92, P = 0.27). Seven studies showed no benefit of H. pylori eradication therapy on quality of life with an SMD of -0.01 (95%CI: -0.11 to 0.08, P = 0.80). Six studies demonstrated that H. pylori eradication therapy reduced the development of peptic ulcer disease compared to no eradication therapy (RR = 0.35; 95%CI: 0.18-0.68, P = 0.002). Eight studies showed that H. pylori eradication therapy increased the likelihood of treatment-related side effects compared to no eradication therapy (RR = 2.02; 95%CI: 1.12-3.65, P = 0.02). Ten studies demonstrated that patients who received H. pylori eradication therapy were more likely to obtain histologic resolution of chronic gastritis compared to those who did not receive eradication therapy (RR = 7.13; 95%CI: 3.68-13.81, P < 0.00001).
CONCLUSION
The decision to eradicate H. pylori in patients with functional dyspepsia requires individual assessment.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chi-Square Distribution; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dyspepsia; Female; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Remission Induction; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27022230
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i12.3486 -
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 -
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 -
BMJ Open Feb 2020To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines to assess the effectiveness of four treatment approaches (manual therapy, probiotics, proton... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines to assess the effectiveness of four treatment approaches (manual therapy, probiotics, proton pump inhibitors and simethicone) on colic symptoms including infant crying time, sleep distress and adverse events.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Mantis for studies published between 2009 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews and guidelines that used evidence and expert panel opinion. Three reviewers independently selected articles by title, abstract and full paper review. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Selected studies were assessed for quality using modified standardised checklists by two authors. Meta-analysed data for our outcomes of interest were extracted and narrative conclusions were assessed.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were selected. High-level evidence showed that probiotics were most effective for reducing crying time in breastfed infants (range -25 min to -65 min over 24 hours). Manual therapies had moderate to low-quality evidence showing reduced crying time (range -33 min to -76 min per 24 hours). Simethicone had moderate to low evidence showing no benefit or negative effect. One meta-analysis did not support the use of proton pump inhibitors for reducing crying time and fussing. Three national guidelines unanimously recommended the use of education, parental reassurance, advice and guidance and clinical evaluation of mother and baby. Consensus on other advice and treatments did not exist.
CONCLUSIONS
The strongest evidence for the treatment of colic was probiotics for breastfed infants, followed by weaker but favourable evidence for manual therapy indicated by crying time. Both forms of treatment carried a low risk of serious adverse events. The guidance reviewed did not reflect these findings.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019139074.
Topics: Antifoaming Agents; Colic; Humans; Infant; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Probiotics; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Review Literature as Topic; Simethicone; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32102827
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035405 -
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Jun 2021Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used for acid suppression in the treatment and prevention of many conditions, including gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastric...
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used for acid suppression in the treatment and prevention of many conditions, including gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastric and duodenal ulcers, erosive esophagitis, Helicobacter pylori infection, and pathological hypersecretory conditions. Most PPIs are metabolized primarily by cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) into inactive metabolites, and CYP2C19 genotype has been linked to PPI exposure, efficacy, and adverse effects. We summarize the evidence from the literature and provide therapeutic recommendations for PPI prescribing based on CYP2C19 genotype (updates at www.cpicpgx.org). The potential benefits of using CYP2C19 genotype data to guide PPI therapy include (i) identifying patients with genotypes predictive of lower plasma exposure and prescribing them a higher dose that will increase the likelihood of efficacy, and (ii) identifying patients on chronic therapy with genotypes predictive of higher plasma exposure and prescribing them a decreased dose to minimize the risk of toxicity that is associated with long-term PPI use, particularly at higher plasma concentrations.
Topics: Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Genotype; Humans; Pharmacogenetics; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 32770672
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.2015 -
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 Jun 2007NSAIDs are widely used. Almost 10% of people in The Netherlands used a non-aspirin NSAID in 1987, and the overall use was 11 defined daily doses per 1000 population per... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
NSAIDs are widely used. Almost 10% of people in The Netherlands used a non-aspirin NSAID in 1987, and the overall use was 11 defined daily doses per 1000 population per day. In Australia in 1994, overall use was 35 defined daily doses per 1000 population a day, with 36% of the people receiving NSAIDs for osteoarthritis, 42% for sprain and strain or low back pain, and 4% for rheumatoid arthritis; 35% of the people receiving NSAIDs were aged over 60 years.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: Are there any important differences between NSAIDs? What are the effects of topical NSAIDs; and of co-treatments to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects of NSAIDs? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to December 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 35 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the benefits and harms of the following interventions: alternative analgesics, H(2) blockers, misoprostol, NSAIDs (systemic, topical, differences in efficacy between, dose-response relationship of), proton pump inhibitors.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Disease; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Sprains and Strains; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 19454084
DOI: No ID Found