-
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk... 2023Levothyroxine is a common prescribed drug. Many medications and food, however, can interfere with its bioavailability. The aim of this review was to summarize the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Levothyroxine is a common prescribed drug. Many medications and food, however, can interfere with its bioavailability. The aim of this review was to summarize the medications, food and beverages that interact with levothyroxine and to assess their effects, mechanisms and treatments.
METHODS
A systematic review on interfering substances that interact with levothyroxine was performed. Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane library, grey literature from other sources and the lists of references were searched for human studies comparing the levothyroxine efficacy with and without interfering substances. The patient characteristics, drug classes, effects and mechanism were extracted. The NHLBI study quality assessment tools and the JBI critical appraisal checklist were used to assess the quality of included studies.
RESULTS
A total of 107 articles with 128 studies were included. Drugs interactions were revealed in calcium and iron supplements, proton pump inhibitors, bile acid sequestrants, phosphate binders, sex hormones, anticonvulsants and other drugs. Some food and beverage could also induce malabsorption. Proposed mechanisms included direct complexing, alkalization, alteration of serum thyroxine-binding globulin levels and acceleration of levothyroxine catabolism via deiodination. Dose adjustment, administration separation and discontinuation of interfering substances can eliminate the interactions. Liquid solutions and soft-gel capsules could eliminate the malabsorption due to chelation and alkalization. The qualities of most included studies were moderate.
CONCLUSION
Lots of medications and food can impair the bioavailability of levothyroxine. Clinicians, patients and pharmaceutical companies should be aware of the possible interactions. Further well-designed studies are needed to provide more solid evidence on treatment and mechanisms.
PubMed: 37384019
DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S414460 -
Cancer May 2016Economic analyses of new technologies, such as proton-beam radiotherapy (PBT), are a public health priority. To date, no systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Economic analyses of new technologies, such as proton-beam radiotherapy (PBT), are a public health priority. To date, no systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of PBT has been performed.
METHODS
Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, abstracts from American Society for Radiation Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were conducted (2000-2015) along with abstracts from the Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group of North America for both years of existence (2014-2015). Eighteen original investigations were analyzed.
RESULTS
The cost-effectiveness for prostate cancer-the single most common diagnosis currently treated with PBT-was suboptimal. PBT was the most cost-effective option for several pediatric brain tumors. PBT costs for breast cancer were increased but were favorable for appropriately selected patients with left-sided cancers at high risk of cardiac toxicity and compared with brachytherapy for accelerated partial breast irradiation. For non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the greatest cost-effectiveness benefits using PBT were observed for locoregionally advanced-but not early stage-tumors. PBT offered superior cost-effectiveness in selected head/neck cancer patients at higher risk of acute mucosal toxicities. Similar cost-effectiveness was observed for PBT, enucleation, and plaque brachytherapy in patients with uveal melanoma.
CONCLUSIONS
With greatly limited amounts of data, PBT offers promising cost-effectiveness for pediatric brain tumors, well-selected breast cancers, locoregionally advanced NSCLC, and high-risk head/neck cancers. Heretofore, it has not been demonstrated that PBT is cost-effective for prostate cancer or early stage NSCLC. Careful patient selection is absolutely critical to assess cost-effectiveness. Together with increasing PBT availability, clinical trial evidence, and ongoing major technological improvements, cost-effectiveness data and conclusions from this analysis could change rapidly. Cancer 2016;122:1483-501. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
Topics: Brain Neoplasms; Breast Neoplasms; Child; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Prostatic Neoplasms; Proton Therapy
PubMed: 26828647
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29882 -
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer... Nov 2023Radiation therapy is used to treat head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. Proton beam therapy (PBT) is one of the newer treatment options. This systematic review will...
BACKGROUND
Radiation therapy is used to treat head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. Proton beam therapy (PBT) is one of the newer treatment options. This systematic review will describe the cost and cost-effectiveness of PBT compared with other first-line treatment options based on available literature and provide a better understanding of its usage in HNC in the future.
METHODS
This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Systematic searches were conducted in PUBMED, EMBASE and SCOPUS till February 2022. Original pharmacoeconomic articles written in English that considered PBT for HNC were included; the title, abstract and full text of the search items were screened. The included studies were critically appraised using the Drummond Checklist followed by data extraction.
RESULTS
Eight of the ten included studies were of good quality; most were cost-effectiveness or cost comparison studies and used the Markov model and lifetime horizon. The dominant comparator was intensity-modulated radiotherapy. The willingness to pay threshold ranged from $30,828 to $150,000 per QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was between $4,436.1 and $695,000 per QALY. In HNC patients with human papillomavirus infection, the ICER was lower ($288,000/QALY) from the payer's perspective, but much higher ($390,000/QALY) from the societal perspective.
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review showed that appropriate patient selection can make PBT cost-effective. HPV-associated tumors can be cost-effectively treated with PBT. From the payer's perspective, PBT is a cost-effective treatment option. In younger patients, PBT can result in lesser incidence of adverse effects, and hence, can reduce the subsequent need for long-term supportive care. Lower fractionation schedules can also make PBT a cost-effective treatment.
Topics: Humans; Proton Therapy; Financial Stress; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Chemical Fractionation; Dose Fractionation, Radiation; Papillomavirus Infections
PubMed: 38019221
DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2023.24.11.3643 -
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease Feb 2022COVID-19 has proved to be a serious, and consequential disease that has affected millions of people globally. Previously, the adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors... (Review)
Review
COVID-19 has proved to be a serious, and consequential disease that has affected millions of people globally. Previously, the adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) have been observed with increasing the risk of pneumonia and COVID-19. This meta-analysis aims to address the relationship between the use of PPI and the severity of COVID-19 infection. We conducted a systemic literature search from PUBMED, Science Direct, and Cinahl from December 2019 to January 2022. Published and unpublished randomized control trials and cohort studies were included. Review Manager was used for all statistical analyses. In total, 14 studies were included in this systemic review and meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest include: (1) susceptibility of COVID-19 infection and (2) severity of COVID-19 (defined as the composite of poor outcomes: ICU admission, need for oxygen therapy, need for a ventilator, or death), and (3) mortality due to COVID-19. PPI use was marginally associated with a nominal but statistically significant increase in the risk of COVID-19 infection (OR 1.05 [1.01, 1.09]; I2 97%, p = 0.007). PPI use also increased the risk of the composite poor outcome (OR 1.84 [1.71, 1.99]; I2 98%, p < 0.00001) and mortality (OR 1.12 [1.00, 1.25]; I2 84%, p = 0.05) in patients with COVID-19.
PubMed: 35324584
DOI: 10.3390/tropicalmed7030037 -
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 -
Medicine Nov 2022Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and vonoprazan are recommended as first-line therapies for erosive esophagitis (EE). However, it is uncertain how the magnitude of efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and vonoprazan are recommended as first-line therapies for erosive esophagitis (EE). However, it is uncertain how the magnitude of efficacy and safety of first-line therapy, the choice of individual PPIs or vonoprazan in the treatment of EE remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan and PPIs in healing esophageal mucosal injury in patients with EE.
METHODS
Relevant databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials of proton pump inhibitors and vonoprazan in the treatment of reflux esophagitis up to December 2021. Studies on standard-dose PPIs or vonoprazan that were published in Chinese or English and assessed healing effects in EE were included in the analysis. Stata16.0 was used to conduct a network Meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the treatment.
RESULTS
A total of 41 literatures were included with 11,592 enrolled patients. For the endoscopic cure rate, all the PPIs and vonoprazan significantly improve compared to Placebo; Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, Ilaprazole ranked first, followed by esomeprazole, vonoprazan, pantoprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, rabeprazole and placebo therapy ranked the last. For the rate of adverse events, there was no significant difference among all the PPIs, vonoprazan, and placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Ilaprazole, esomeprazole and vonoprazan have more advantages in mucosal erosion healing, there was no significant difference in the comparative safety among all interventions.
Topics: Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Esomeprazole; Network Meta-Analysis; Peptic Ulcer; Rabeprazole; Esophagitis, Peptic; Abdominal Injuries
PubMed: 36451489
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031807 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2008Gastro-oesophageal regurgitation is considered a problem if it is frequent, persistent, and associated with other symptoms such as increased crying, discomfort with... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Gastro-oesophageal regurgitation is considered a problem if it is frequent, persistent, and associated with other symptoms such as increased crying, discomfort with regurgitation, and frequent back arching. A cross-sectional survey of parents of 948 infants attending 19 primary care paediatric practices found that regurgitation of at least one episode a day was reported in 51% of infants aged 0-3 months.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatment for symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2007 (BMJ 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 27 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 effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: domperidone, feed thickeners in infants, H(2) antagonists, head elevated sleep positioning, left lateral or prone sleep positioning, metoclopramide, proton pump inhibitors, sodium alginate, surgery, soy formula with added fibre, and weight loss.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Domperidone; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Metoclopramide; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 19445794
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2020The present systematic review aims to determine the evidence on the impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on dental implants. (Review)
Review
AIM
The present systematic review aims to determine the evidence on the impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on dental implants.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN
This secondary qualitative and quantitative research was done using a pre-specified question and inclusion criteria.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in electronic databases such as PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane. All the studies that assessed the effect of PPIs on dental implants were included, irrespective of the design. Literature review, letter to editors, short commentaries, and opinion articles were excluded.
RESULTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED
A total of three publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All these included articles were retrospective cohort studies; the methodological quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A total of 452 implants were placed in 149 PPI users, whereas 6798 were positioned in 2241 nonusers. Of these, 43 and 212 implants failed in users and nonusers, respectively (odds ratio: 2.91, 95% confidence interval: 2.06-4.11). The meta-analysis was performed using the statistical software Review Manager, and a fixed-effect model was used to obtain the odds ratio. The success rate of implants based on age, gender, smoking, and bone augmentation could be combined only from two studies, which revealed a considerable effect of these factors.
CONCLUSION
As far as the available evidence is considered, it seems as if the usage of PPI has a detrimental effect on the success of dental implants. This influence needs justification as none of the included studies segregated the data based on confounding factors. Hence, there is a need to conduct well-designed, prospective, randomized clinical trials with balanced confounding factors to derive a proper conclusion.
PubMed: 33223692
DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_283_19 -
Journal of Bone Metabolism Aug 2018This study's objective was to evaluate the association between proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) use and bone fracture incidence and bone mineral density (BMD) by...
BACKGROUND
This study's objective was to evaluate the association between proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) use and bone fracture incidence and bone mineral density (BMD) by meta-analyzing the estimates reported by epidemiological and cohort studies.
METHODS
Data were acquired from studies identified after a literature search in electronic databases. Odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), and risk ratios (RRs) between PPI use and bone fracture incidence were pooled under the random effects model, and meta-analysis of standardized mean differences between PPI users and controls in cross-sectional values and BMD changes was conducted.
RESULTS
Thirty-three studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These studies provided data from 2,714,502 individuals with a mean age of 66.91 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.37-70.46); 33.21% (95% CI, 30.44-35.99) were males and 64.61% (95% CI, 60.73-68.49) were females. Overall, fracture incidence was 22.04% (95% CI, 16.10-27.97) in PPI users and 15.57% (95% CI, 12.28-18.86) in controls. The overall effect size of the point estimate was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.22-1.35) between PPI use and bone fracture incidence. There was a trend towards increased fracture incidence from short duration use: OR 1.29 (95% CI, 1.19-1.40), medium duration use: OR 1.33 (95% CI, 1.12-1.55) and long duration use: OR 1.62 (95% CI, 1.33-1.90). There was no significant difference in the standardized mean differences between PPI users and controls, either in cross-sectional BMD values or in the BMD change observed in longitudinal studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Pooling of ORs, HRs, and RRs suggested that PPI use might increase fracture risk. However, there was no effect of PPI use on BMD.
PubMed: 30237993
DOI: 10.11005/jbm.2018.25.3.141 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Nov 2021The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) is common worldwide, with reports suggesting that they may be overused. Several studies have found that PPI may affect colorectal...
BACKGROUND
The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) is common worldwide, with reports suggesting that they may be overused. Several studies have found that PPI may affect colorectal cancer (CRC) risk.
AIM
To summarize current knowledge on the relationship between PPI and CRC from basic research, epidemiological and clinical studies.
METHODS
This systematic review was based on the patients, interventions, comparisons, outcome models and performed according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception until May 17, 2021. The initial search returned 2591 articles, of which, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. The studies were categorized as basic research studies ( = 12), epidemiological studies ( = 11), and CRC treatment studies ( = 5). The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool depending on the study design.
RESULTS
Data from basic research indicates that PPI do not stimulate CRC development the trophic effect of gastrin but instead may paradoxically inhibit it. These studies also suggest that PPI may have properties beneficial for CRC treatment. PPI appear to have anti-tumor properties (omeprazole, pantoprazole), and are potential T lymphokine-activated killer cell-originated protein kinase inhibitors (pantoprazole, ilaprazole), and chemosensitizing agents (pantoprazole). However, these mechanisms have not been confirmed in human trials. Current epidemiological studies suggest that there is no causal association between PPI use and increased CRC risk. Treatment studies show that concomitant PPI and capecitabine use may reduce the efficacy of chemotherapy resulting in poorer oncological outcomes, while also suggesting that pantoprazole may have a chemosensitizing effect with the fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) regimen.
CONCLUSION
An unexpected inhibitory effect of PPI on CRC carcinogenesis by way of several potential mechanisms is noted. This review identifies that different PPI agents may have differential effects on CRC treatment, with practical implications. Prospective studies are warranted to delineate this relationship and assess the role of individual PPI agents.
Topics: Capecitabine; Colorectal Neoplasms; Fluorouracil; Humans; Leucovorin; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 34908809
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i44.7716