|
1
|
Fujishiro M, Iguchi M, Ono S, Funasaka K, Sakata Y, Mikami T, Kataoka M, Shimaoka S, Michida T, Igarashi Y, Tanaka S. Guidelines for endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (second edition). Dig Endosc 2025; 37:447-469. [PMID: 40114631 DOI: 10.1111/den.15019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2024] [Accepted: 02/19/2025] [Indexed: 03/22/2025]
Abstract
The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society has prepared Guidelines for Endoscopic Practice in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding as part of the initiative to develop evidence-based endoscopic practice guidelines. Hemorrhagic gastroduodenal (peptic) ulcers are the primary cause of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. With the advent of a super-aged society, the cases caused by Helicobacter pylori are on the decline, whereas those caused by drugs (e.g. aspirin) have been increasing. Endoscopic hemostasis is currently the first-line treatment for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and various methods have been devised for this purpose. It is recommended to stabilize the vital signs of the patient before and after endoscopic hemostasis with appropriate management based on an assessment of the severity of illness, in addition to the administration of acid secretion inhibitors. These guidelines describe the evaluation and initial treatment of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as the selection of endoscopic hemostasis for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding and its management after endoscopic hemostasis. This is achieved by classifying nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding into two main categories, namely, peptic ulcer and other types of gastrointestinal bleeding. We prepared statements for any available literature with supporting evidence, including the levels of evidence and recommendations. New evidence has been pooled since the publication of the first edition in this area; however, the levels of evidence and recommendations mostly remain low.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Satoshi Ono
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kohei Funasaka
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Tatsuya Mikami
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | | | - Tomoki Michida
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Shinji Tanaka
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Kanno T, Yuan Y, Tse F, Howden CW, Moayyedi P, Leontiadis GI. Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 1:CD005415. [PMID: 34995368 PMCID: PMC8741303 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd005415.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
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 (H2RA) 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takeshi Kanno
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
- Division of Gastroenterology, Tohoku University Hospital, Sendai, Japan
- Department of Education and Support for Regional Medicine, Tohoku University Hospital, Sendai, Japan
| | - Yuhong Yuan
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
- Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Frances Tse
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
- Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Colin W Howden
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of Tennessee, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Paul Moayyedi
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
- Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Grigorios I Leontiadis
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
- Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Massari NA, Nicoud MB, Medina VA. Histamine receptors and cancer pharmacology: an update. Br J Pharmacol 2020; 177:516-538. [PMID: 30414378 PMCID: PMC7012953 DOI: 10.1111/bph.14535] [Citation(s) in RCA: 83] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2018] [Revised: 09/26/2018] [Accepted: 10/23/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
In the present review, we will discuss the recent advances in the understanding of the role of histamine and histamine receptors in cancer biology. The controversial role of the histaminergic system in different neoplasias including gastric, colorectal, oesophageal, oral, pancreatic, liver, lung, skin, blood and breast cancers will be reviewed. The expression of histamine receptor subtypes, with special emphasis on the histamine H4 receptor, in different cell lines and human tumours, the signal transduction pathways and the associated biological responses as well as the in vivo treatment of experimental tumours with pharmacological ligands will be described. The presented evidence demonstrates that histamine regulates cancer-associated biological processes during cancer development in multiple cell types, including neoplastic cells and cells in the tumour micro-environment. The outcome will depend on tumour cell type, the level of expression of histamine receptors, signal transduction associated with these receptors, tumour micro-environment and histamine metabolism, reinforcing the complexity of cancer disease. Findings show the pivotal role of H4 receptors in the development and progression of many types of cancers, and considering its immunomodulatory properties, the H4 receptor appears to be the most promising molecular therapeutic target for cancer treatment within the histamine receptor family. Furthermore, the H4 receptor is differentially expressed in tumours compared with normal tissues, and in most cancer types in which data are available, H4 receptor expression is associated with clinicopathological characteristics, suggesting that H4 receptors might represent a novel cancer biomarker. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed section on New Uses for 21st Century. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v177.3/issuetoc.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Noelia A Massari
- Department of Immunology, School of Natural and Health SciencesNational University of Patagonia San Juan BoscoComodoro RivadaviaArgentina
| | - Melisa B Nicoud
- Laboratory of Tumor Biology and Inflammation, Institute for Biomedical Research (BIOMED), School of Medical SciencesPontifical Catholic University of Argentina (UCA), National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET)Buenos AiresArgentina
| | - Vanina A Medina
- Laboratory of Tumor Biology and Inflammation, Institute for Biomedical Research (BIOMED), School of Medical SciencesPontifical Catholic University of Argentina (UCA), National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET)Buenos AiresArgentina
- Laboratory of Radioisotopes, School of Pharmacy and BiochemistryUniversity of Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Forgerini M, Mieli S, Mastroianni PDC. Safety assessment of omeprazole use: a review. SAO PAULO MED J 2018; 136:557-570. [PMID: 30892487 PMCID: PMC9897136 DOI: 10.1590/1516-3180.2018.0019220318] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2018] [Accepted: 03/22/2018] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risks regarding hospital admission due to adverse drug reactions and drug interactions from use of omeprazole have been reported. The question guiding the present review was "Which adverse events occur in patients using omeprazole in a Food and Drug Administration-approved and/or off-label manner?" It was also proposed to evaluate the safety of use of omeprazole. DESIGN AND SETTING Qualitative narrative review with critical evaluation, in a public university. METHODS The PubMed, SCOPUS, LILACS, SciELO, EMBASE and EBSCO databases were searched on July 31, 2018. Studies evaluating adverse events were screened. RESULTS 72 articles were included, among which 58 reported on adverse drug events (47, adverse drug reactions; 5, drug interactions; and 6, situations of ineffectiveness). 28 adverse drug reactions not described in compendia and drug leaflets were described in these studies: myocardial infarction (6); stroke (2); spontaneous abortion (1); proliferative changes (1); chills (1); heart failure (1); thrombosis (2); and dementia (1), among others. Severe adverse reactions, for instance cardiac problems, Steven-Johnson syndrome and proliferative changes, were identified. The antiplatelet effects of drugs such as clopidogrel, in patients who underwent heart-related surgery, increased the risk of developing cardiac problems, such as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke. In newly transplanted patients, decreased absorption of mycophenolate mofetil occurred, thus leading to rejection of transplanted organs. CONCLUSION Use of omeprazole should be monitored primarily in patients with heart disorders using antiplatelet agents concomitantly, and in newly transplanted patients using mycophenolic acid, in order to avoid serious adverse reactions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marcela Forgerini
- BSc. Pharmacist and Master’s Student in the Postgraduate Program on Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Araraquara (SP), Brazil.
| | - Stephania Mieli
- Undergraduate Pharmacy Student, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Araraquara (SP), Brazil.
| | - Patrícia de Carvalho Mastroianni
- PhD. Pharmacist and Adjunct Professor, Department of Drugs and Medicines, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Araraquara (SP), Brazil.
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Fujishiro M, Iguchi M, Kakushima N, Kato M, Sakata Y, Hoteya S, Kataoka M, Shimaoka S, Yahagi N, Fujimoto K. Guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Dig Endosc 2016; 28:363-378. [PMID: 26900095 DOI: 10.1111/den.12639] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2015] [Revised: 02/16/2016] [Accepted: 02/17/2016] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has compiled a set of guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding using evidence-based methods. The major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. As a result, these guidelines mainly focus on peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, although bleeding from other causes is also overviewed. From the epidemiological aspect, in recent years in Japan, bleeding from drug-related ulcers has become predominant in comparison with bleeding from Helicobacter pylori (HP)-related ulcers, owing to an increase in the aging population and coverage of HP eradication therapy by national health insurance. As for treatment, endoscopic hemostasis, in which there are a variety of methods, is considered to be the first-line treatment for bleeding from almost all causes. It is very important to precisely evaluate the severity of the patient's condition and stabilize the patient's vital signs with intensive care for successful endoscopic hemostasis. Additionally, use of antisecretory agents is recommended to prevent rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, especially for gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. Eighteen statements with evidence and recommendation levels have been made by the JGES committee of these guidelines according to evidence obtained from clinical research studies. However, some of the statements that are supported by a low level of evidence must be confirmed by further clinical research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Motohiko Kato
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Shu Hoteya
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | | | - Naohisa Yahagi
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Satoh K, Yoshino J, Akamatsu T, Itoh T, Kato M, Kamada T, Takagi A, Chiba T, Nomura S, Mizokami Y, Murakami K, Sakamoto C, Hiraishi H, Ichinose M, Uemura N, Goto H, Joh T, Miwa H, Sugano K, Shimosegawa T. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease 2015. J Gastroenterol 2016; 51:177-194. [PMID: 26879862 DOI: 10.1007/s00535-016-1166-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 83] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/25/2015] [Accepted: 01/06/2016] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease in 2014 and has created an English version. The revised guidelines consist of seven items: bleeding gastric and duodenal ulcers, Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy, non-eradication therapy, drug-induced ulcer, non-H. pylori, non-nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ulcer, surgical treatment, and conservative therapy for perforation and stenosis. Ninety clinical questions (CQs) were developed, and a literature search was performed for the CQs using the Medline, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases between 1983 and June 2012. The guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Therapy is initially provided for ulcer complications. Perforation or stenosis is treated with surgery or conservatively. Ulcer bleeding is first treated by endoscopic hemostasis. If it fails, surgery or interventional radiology is chosen. Second, medical therapy is provided. In cases of NSAID-related ulcers, use of NSAIDs is stopped, and anti-ulcer therapy is provided. If NSAID use must continue, the ulcer is treated with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or prostaglandin analog. In cases with no NSAID use, H. pylori-positive patients receive eradication and anti-ulcer therapy. If first-line eradication therapy fails, second-line therapy is given. In cases of non-H. pylori, non-NSAID ulcers or H. pylori-positive patients with no indication for eradication therapy, non-eradication therapy is provided. The first choice is PPI therapy, and the second choice is histamine 2-receptor antagonist therapy. After initial therapy, maintenance therapy is provided to prevent ulcer relapse.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kiichi Satoh
- Department of Gastroenterology, International University of Health and Welfare Hospital, 537-3 Iguchi, Nasushiobara-shi, Tochigi, 329-2763, Japan.
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan.
| | - Junji Yoshino
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Taiji Akamatsu
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Toshiyuki Itoh
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Mototsugu Kato
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Tomoari Kamada
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Atsushi Takagi
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Toshimi Chiba
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Sachiyo Nomura
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Yuji Mizokami
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Kazunari Murakami
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Choitsu Sakamoto
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Hideyuki Hiraishi
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Masao Ichinose
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Naomi Uemura
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Hidemi Goto
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Takashi Joh
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Hiroto Miwa
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Kentaro Sugano
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| | - Tooru Shimosegawa
- Guidelines Committee for creating and evaluating the "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer", the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), K-18 Building 8F, 8-9-13, Ginza, Chuo, Tokyo, 104-0061, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Mo C, Sun G, Wang YZ, Lu ML, Yang YS. PPI versus Histamine H2 Receptor Antagonists for Prevention of Upper Gastrointestinal Injury Associated with Low-Dose Aspirin: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0131558. [PMID: 26147767 PMCID: PMC4493004 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131558] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2015] [Accepted: 06/03/2015] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
This study compared proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) for prevention of low-dose aspirin (LDA)-related gastrointestinal (GI) erosion, ulcer and bleeding. Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and WanFang Data were searched from the date of their establishment to December 31, 2013. Randomized controlled trials comparing PPIs and H2RAs for prevention of GI injury associated with low-dose aspirin (LDA) were collected. Two reviewers independently abstracted studies and patient characteristics and appraised study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. We included nine RCTs involving 1047 patients. The meta-analysis showed that PPIs were superior to H2RAs for prevention of LDA-associated GI erosion/ulcer [odds ratio (OR=0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.16-0.50] and bleeding (OR=0.28, 95% CI: 0.14-0.59). In conclusion, PPIs were superior to H2RAs for prevention of LDA-related GI erosion/ulcer and bleeding. Higher quality, large, multicenter RCTs are needed to demonstrate the preventive effect of the two acid-suppressive drugs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chen Mo
- Institute of Digestive Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
- Cadre Ward No. 2, the General Hospital of Chinese Armed Force Police, Beijing 100039, China
| | - Gang Sun
- Institute of Digestive Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
| | - Yan-Zhi Wang
- Institute of Digestive Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
| | - Ming-Liang Lu
- Institute of Digestive Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
| | - Yun-Sheng Yang
- Institute of Digestive Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Zhang YS, Li Q, He BS, Liu R, Li ZJ. Proton pump inhibitors therapy vs H 2 receptor antagonists therapy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding after endoscopy: A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21:6341-6351. [PMID: 26034370 PMCID: PMC4445112 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i20.6341] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2014] [Revised: 09/23/2014] [Accepted: 11/11/2014] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM: To compare the therapeutic effects of proton pump inhibitors vs H2 receptor antagonists for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients after successful endoscopy.
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed for randomized controlled trials until July 2014 for this study. The risk of bias was evaluated by the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and all of the studies had acceptable quality. The main outcomes included mortality, re-bleeding, received surgery rate, blood transfusion units and hospital stay time. These outcomes were estimated using odds ratios (OR) and mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI). RevMan 5.3.3 software and Stata 12.0 software were used for data analyses.
RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials involving 1283 patients were included in this review; 678 subjects were in the proton pump inhibitors (PPI) group and the remaining 605 subjects were in the H2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) group. The meta-analysis results revealed that after successful endoscopic therapy, compared with H2RA, PPI therapy had statistically significantly decreased the recurrent bleeding rate (OR = 0.36; 95%CI: 0.25-0.51) and receiving surgery rate (OR = 0.29; 95%CI: 0.09-0.96). There were no statistically significant differences in mortality (OR = 0.46; 95%CI: 0.17-1.23). However, significant heterogeneity was present in both the numbers of patients requiring blood transfusion after treatment [weighted mean difference (WMD), -0.70 unit; 95%CI: -1.64 - 0.25] and the time that patients remained hospitalized [WMD, -0.77 d; 95%CI: -1.87 - 0.34]. The Begg’s test (P = 0.283) and Egger’s test (P = 0.339) demonstrated that there was no publication bias in our meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION: In patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy, compared with H2RA, PPI may be a more effective therapy.
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Wang WD, Guo BM. Clinical effects of omeprazole vs famotidine for treatment of stress-induced gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with high energy multiple fractures. Shijie Huaren Xiaohua Zazhi 2015; 23:479-482. [DOI: 10.11569/wcjd.v23.i3.479] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM: To compare the clinical effects of famotidine and omeprazole in the treatment of stress-induced gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with high energy multiple fractures.
METHODS: Ninety patients with high energy multiple fractures who had stress-induced gastrointestinal bleeding and were treated at the Second People's Hospital of Xining City from January 2012 to December 2013 were randomly and equally divided into two groups: A and B. Group A was given omeprazole, and group B received famotidine. Clinical effects were compared for the two groups.
RESULTS: The effective rate was significantly higher in group A than in group B (91.1% vs 71.1%, P < 0.05). The bleeding time was significantly shorter in group A than in group B (8.2 h ± 2.4 h vs 14.5 h ± 3.4 h, P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions was significantly lower in group A than in group B (11.1% vs 26.7%, P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Omeprazole is superior to famotidine in the treatment of stress-induced gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with high energy multiple fractures in terms of better clinical efficacy and fewer adverse reactions.
Collapse
|