-
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 -
Oncology Research and Treatment 2021This study aimed to systematically present application situation and therapeutic effect of proton therapy (PT), heavy ion therapy, and helical tomotherapy (TOMO) for...
PURPOSE
This study aimed to systematically present application situation and therapeutic effect of proton therapy (PT), heavy ion therapy, and helical tomotherapy (TOMO) for gastric cancer (GC), and to find gaps of existing studies.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Chinese Biological Medical Database were searched. Tables, bubble plot, and heat map were conducted to display results.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included. About PT, 7 single-arm studies showed median overall survival (OS) within 2-66 months and 1 study reported 40% of patients happened moderate degree of radiation gastritis. About TOMO, 1 study reported longer median OS and progression-free survival, lower occurrence of Grade III toxicity, and late toxicity compared to 3D-CRT, while another study remained neutral. About heavy ion therapy, there was no clinical study was found.
CONCLUSIONS
Existing studies presented good clinic treatment effect about PT and TOMO for GC, and furthermore clinical studies are needed.
Topics: Heavy Ion Radiotherapy; Humans; Proton Therapy; Protons; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 34695829
DOI: 10.1159/000518997 -
Stroke Feb 2018Pharmacokinetic and prior studies on thienopyridine and proton pump inhibitors (PPI) coadministration provide conflicting data for cardiovascular outcomes, whereas there... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Pharmacokinetic and prior studies on thienopyridine and proton pump inhibitors (PPI) coadministration provide conflicting data for cardiovascular outcomes, whereas there is no established evidence on the association of concomitant use of PPI and thienopyridines with adverse cerebrovascular outcomes.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies from inception to July 2017, reporting following outcomes among patients treated with thienopyridine and PPI versus thienopyridine alone (1) ischemic stroke, (2) combined ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, (3) composite outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and cardiovascular death, (4) MI, (5) all-cause mortality, and (6) major or minor bleeding events. After the unadjusted analyses of risk ratios, we performed additional analyses of studies reporting hazard ratios adjusted for potential confounders.
RESULTS
We identified 22 studies (12 randomized controlled trials and 10 cohort studies) comprising 131 714 patients. Concomitant use of PPI with thienopyridines was associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-2.16; <0.001), composite stroke/MI/cardiovascular death (risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.29; =0.04), and MI (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.00-1.40; =0.05). Likewise, in adjusted analyses concomitant use of PPI with thienopyridines was again associated with increased risk of stroke (hazard ratios adjusted, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04-1.61; =0.02), composite stroke/MI/cardiovascular death (hazard ratios adjusted, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.47; =0.02), but not with MI (hazard ratios adjusted, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.93-1.52; =0.16).
CONCLUSIONS
Co-prescription of PPI and thienopyridines increases the risk of incident ischemic strokes and composite stroke/MI/cardiovascular death. Our findings corroborate the current guidelines for PPI deprescription and pharmacovigilance, especially in patients treated with thienopyridines.
Topics: Brain Ischemia; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Stroke; Thienopyridines
PubMed: 29339434
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.019166 -
Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and... Jan 2015Discordant results have been reported on the effects of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for cardiovascular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Conflicting results between randomized trials and observational studies on the impact of proton pump inhibitors on cardiovascular events when coadministered with dual antiplatelet therapy: systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Discordant results have been reported on the effects of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for cardiovascular outcomes. We conducted a systematic review comparing the effectiveness and safety of concomitant use of PPIs and DAPT in the postdischarge treatment of unstable angina/non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients.
METHODS AND RESULTS
We searched for clinical studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 1995 to 2012. Reviewers screened and extracted data, assessed applicability and quality, and graded the strength of evidence. We performed meta-analyses of direct comparisons when outcomes and follow-up periods were comparable. Thirty-five studies were eligible. Five (4 randomized controlled trials and 1 observational) assessed the effect of omeprazole when added to DAPT; the other 30 (observational) assessed the effect of PPIs as a class when compared with no PPIs. Random-effects meta-analyses of the studies assessing PPIs as a class consistently reported higher event rates in patients receiving PPIs for various clinical outcomes at 1 year (composite ischemic end points, all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, stroke, revascularization, and stent thrombosis). However, the results from randomized controlled trials evaluating omeprazole compared with placebo showed no difference in ischemic outcomes, despite a reduction in upper gastrointestinal bleeding with omeprazole.
CONCLUSIONS
Large, well-conducted observational studies of PPIs and randomized controlled trials of omeprazole seem to provide conflicting results for the effect of PPIs on cardiovascular outcomes when coadministered with DAPT. Prospective trials that directly compare pharmacodynamic parameters and clinical events among specific PPI agents in patients with unstable angina/non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction treated with DAPT are warranted.
Topics: Angina, Unstable; Cardiovascular Diseases; Drug Interactions; Drug Therapy, Combination; Evidence-Based Medicine; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Observational Studies as Topic; Odds Ratio; Platelet Aggregation; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25587094
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001177 -
Advances in Radiation Oncology 2023The aim of this study was to comprehensively review all studies examining clinical outcomes of craniospinal irradiation with proton radiotherapy for medulloblastoma (MB)... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to comprehensively review all studies examining clinical outcomes of craniospinal irradiation with proton radiotherapy for medulloblastoma (MB) to determine whether theoretical dosimetric advantages have translated into superior clinical outcomes (including survival and toxicities) compared with traditional photon-based techniques.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
We performed a systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Articles reporting on clinical outcomes of pediatric and/or adult patients with MB treated with proton radiotherapy were included. Evidence quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle Ottawa scale and GRADE score.
RESULTS
Thirty-five studies were included, with a total of 2059 patients reported (representing an estimated 630-654 unique patients). None of the studies were randomized, 12 were comparative, 9 were prospective, 3 were mixed, and 22 were retrospective. Average mean/median follow-up was 5.0 years (range, 4 weeks to 12.6 years). The majority of studies (n = 19) reported on treatment with passive scatter proton beams exclusively. Average study quality was 6.0 out of 9 (median, 6; standard deviation, 1.6). Nine studies scored ≥8 out of 9 on the modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale; an overall "moderate" GRADE score was assigned. Well-designed comparative cohort studies with adequate follow-up demonstrate superior neurocognitive outcomes, lower incidence of hypothyroidism (23% vs 69%), sex hormone deficiency (3% vs 19%), greater heights, and reduced acute toxicities in patients treated with protons compared to photons. Overall survival (up to 10 years), progression-free survival (up to 10 years), brain stem injury, and other endocrine outcomes were similar to those reported for photon radiation. There was insufficient evidence to make conclusions on endpoints of quality of life, ototoxicity, secondary malignancy, alopecia, scoliosis, cavernomas, and cerebral vasculopathy.
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-grade evidence supports proton radiotherapy as a preferred treatment for craniospinal irradiation of MB based on equivalent disease control and comparable-to-improved toxicity versus photon beam radiation therapy.
PubMed: 37008255
DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101189 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022Central nervous system tumors are now the most common primary neoplasms seen in children, and radiation therapy is a key component in management. Secondary malignant...
BACKGROUND
Central nervous system tumors are now the most common primary neoplasms seen in children, and radiation therapy is a key component in management. Secondary malignant neoplasms (SMNs) are rare, but dreaded complications. Proton beam therapy (PBT) can potentially minimize the risk of SMNs compared to conventional photon radiation therapy (RT), and multiple recent studies with mature data have reported the risk of SMNs after PBT. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to characterize and compare the incidence of SMNs after proton and photon-based radiation for pediatric CNS tumors.
METHODS
A systematic search of literature on electronic (PubMed, Cochrane Central, and Embase) databases was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method. We included studies reporting the incidence and nature of SMNs in pediatric patients with primary CNS tumors. The crude incidence of SMNs and all secondary neoplasms were separately extracted, and the random-effects model was used for pooled analysis and subgroup comparison was performed between studies using photons vs. protons.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies were included for analysis. A total of 418 SMNs were seen in 38,163 patients. The most common SMN were gliomas (40.6%) followed by meningiomas (38.7%), sarcomas (4.8%), and thyroid cancers (4.2%). The median follow-up was 8.8 years [3.3-23.2].The median latency to SMN for photons and protons were 11.9 years [5-23] and 5.9 years [5-6.7], respectively. The pooled incidence of SMNs was 1.8% (95% CI: 1.1%-2.6%, I = 94%) with photons and 1.5% (95% CI: 0%-4.5%, I = 81%) with protons. The pooled incidence of all SNs was not different [photons: 3.6% (95% CI: 2.5%-4.8%, I = 96%) vs. protons: 1.5% (95% CI: 0-4.5%, I = 80%); p = 0.21].
CONCLUSION
We observed similar rates of SMN with PBT at 1.5% compared to 1.8% with photon-based RT for pediatric CNS tumors. We observed a shorter latency to SMN with PBT compared to RT. With increasing use of pencil beam scanning PBT and VMAT, further studies are warranted to evaluate the risk of secondary cancers in patients treated with these newer modalities.
PubMed: 36033525
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.893855 -
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 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2010NSAIDs 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 a... (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 a 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 oral NSAIDs? What are the effects of topical NSAIDs; and of co-treatments to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects of oral NSAIDs? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2009 (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 36 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: differences in efficacy among different oral NSAIDs, between oral and topical NSAIDs, and between oral NSAIDs and alternative analgesics; dose-response relationship of oral NSAIDs; and H(2) blockers, misoprostol, or proton pump inhibitors to mitigate gastrointestinal adverse effects of oral NSAIDs.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Disease; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Incidence; Osteoarthritis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Sprains and Strains; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 21733202
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Apr 2015To summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effect of probiotics by using a meta-analytic approach. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effect of probiotics by using a meta-analytic approach.
METHODS
In July 2013, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, the Cochrane Library, and three Chinese databases (Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Medical Current Content, and Chinese Scientific Journals database) to identify relevant RCTs. We included RCTs investigating the effect of a combination of probiotics and standard therapy (probiotics group) with standard therapy alone (control group). Risk ratios (RRs) were used to measure the effect of probiotics plus standard therapy on Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication rates, adverse events, and patient compliance using a random-effect model.
RESULTS
We included data on 6997 participants from 45 RCTs, the overall eradication rates of the probiotic group and the control group were 82.31% and 72.08%, respectively. We noted that the use of probiotics plus standard therapy was associated with an increased eradication rate by per-protocol set analysis (RR = 1.11; 95%CI: 1.08-1.15; P < 0.001) or intention-to-treat analysis (RR = 1.13; 95%CI: 1.10-1.16; P < 0.001). Furthermore, the incidence of adverse events was 21.44% in the probiotics group and 36.27% in the control group, and it was found that the probiotics plus standard therapy significantly reduced the risk of adverse events (RR = 0.59; 95%CI: 0.48-0.71; P < 0.001), which demonstrated a favorable effect of probiotics in reducing adverse events associated with H. pylori eradication therapy. The specific reduction in adverse events ranged from 30% to 59%, and this reduction was statistically significant. Finally, probiotics plus standard therapy had little or no effect on patient compliance (RR = 0.98; 95%CI: 0.68-1.39; P = 0.889).
CONCLUSION
The use of probiotics plus standard therapy was associated with an increase in the H. pylori eradication rate, and a reduction in adverse events resulting from treatment in the general population. However, this therapy did not improve patient compliance.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Odds Ratio; Patient Compliance; Probiotics; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25892886
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i14.4345