36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effects of gastroprotectant drugs for the prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and its complications: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Gastroprotectant drugs are used for the prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and might reduce its associated complications, but reliable estimates of the effects of gastroprotectants in different clinical settings are scarce. We aimed to examine the effects of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), prostaglandin analogues, and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in different clinical circumstances by doing meta-analyses of tabular data from all relevant unconfounded randomised trials of gastroprotectant drugs.

          Methods

          We searched MEDLINE and Embase from Jan 1, 1950, to Dec 31, 2015, to identify unconfounded, randomised trials of a gastroprotectant drug (defined as a PPI, prostaglandin analogue, or H2RA) versus control, or versus another gastroprotectant. Two independent researchers reviewed the search results and extracted the prespecified outcomes and key characteristics for each trial. We did meta-analyses of the effects of gastroprotectant drugs on ulcer development, bleeding, and mortality overall, according to the class of gastroprotectant, and according to the individual drug within a gastroprotectant class.

          Findings

          We identified comparisons of gastroprotectant versus control in 849 trials (142 485 participants): 580 prevention trials (110 626 participants), 233 healing trials (24 033 participants), and 36 trials for the treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (7826 participants). Comparisons of one gastroprotectant drug versus another were available in 345 trials (64 905 participants), comprising 160 prevention trials (32 959 participants), 167 healing trials (28 306 participants), and 18 trials for treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (3640 participants). The median number of patients in each trial was 78 (IQR 44·0–210·5) and the median duration was 1·4 months (0·9–2·8). In prevention trials, gastroprotectant drugs reduced development of endoscopic ulcers (odds ratio [OR] 0·27, 95% CI 0·25–0·29; p<0·0001), symptomatic ulcers (0·25, 0·22–0·29; p<0·0001), and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (0·40, 0·32–0·50; p<0·0001), but did not significantly reduce mortality (0·85, 0·69–1·04; p=0·11). Larger proportional reductions in upper gastrointestinal bleeding were observed for PPIs than for other gastroprotectant drugs (PPIs 0·21, 99% CI 0·12–0·36; prostaglandin analogues 0·63, 0·35–1·12; H2RAs 0·49, 0·30–0·80; p het=0·0005). Gastroprotectant drugs were effective in preventing bleeding irrespective of the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (p het=0·56). In healing trials, gastroprotectants increased endoscopic ulcer healing (3·49, 95% CI 3·28–3·72; p<0·0001), with PPIs more effective (5·22, 99% CI 4·00–6·80) than prostaglandin analogues (2·27, 1·91–2·70) and H2RAs (3·80, 3·44–4·20; p het<0·0001). In trials among patients with acute bleeding, gastroprotectants reduced further bleeding (OR 0·68, 95% CI 0·60–0·78; p<0·0001), blood transfusion (0·75, 0·65–0·88; p=0·0003), further endoscopic intervention (0·56, 0·45–0·70; p<0·0001), and surgery (0·72, 0·61–0·84; p<0·0001), but did not significantly reduce mortality (OR 0·90, 0·72–1·11; p=0·31). PPIs had larger protective effects than did H2RAs for further bleeding (p het=0·0107) and blood transfusion (p het=0·0130).

          Interpretation

          Gastroprotectants, in particular PPIs, reduce the risk of peptic ulcer disease and its complications and promote healing of peptic ulcers in a wide range of clinical circumstances. However, this meta-analysis might have overestimated the benefits owing to small study bias.

          Funding

          UK Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Clopidogrel with or without omeprazole in coronary artery disease.

          Gastrointestinal complications are an important problem of antithrombotic therapy. Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are believed to decrease the risk of such complications, though no randomized trial has proved this in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy. Recently, concerns have been raised about the potential for PPIs to blunt the efficacy of clopidogrel. We randomly assigned patients with an indication for dual antiplatelet therapy to receive clopidogrel in combination with either omeprazole or placebo, in addition to aspirin. The primary gastrointestinal end point was a composite of overt or occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcers or erosions, obstruction, or perforation. The primary cardiovascular end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, revascularization, or stroke. The trial was terminated prematurely when the sponsor lost financing. We planned to enroll about 5000 patients; a total of 3873 were randomly assigned and 3761 were included in analyses. In all, 51 patients had a gastrointestinal event; the event rate was 1.1% with omeprazole and 2.9% with placebo at 180 days (hazard ratio with omeprazole, 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.63; P<0.001). The rate of overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding was also reduced with omeprazole as compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.56; P = 0.001). A total of 109 patients had a cardiovascular event, with event rates of 4.9% with omeprazole and 5.7% with placebo (hazard ratio with omeprazole, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.44; P = 0.96); high-risk subgroups did not show significant heterogeneity. The two groups did not differ significantly in the rate of serious adverse events, though the risk of diarrhea was increased with omeprazole. Among patients receiving aspirin and clopidogrel, prophylactic use of a PPI reduced the rate of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. There was no apparent cardiovascular interaction between clopidogrel and omeprazole, but our results do not rule out a clinically meaningful difference in cardiovascular events due to use of a PPI. (Funded by Cogentus Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00557921.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study

            Objective To examine the presence and extent of small study effects in clinical osteoarthritis research. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources 13 meta-analyses including 153 randomised trials (41 605 patients) that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patients’ reported pain as an outcome. Methods We compared estimated benefits of treatment between large trials (at least 100 patients per arm) and small trials, explored funnel plots supplemented with lines of predicted effects and contours of significance, and used three approaches to estimate treatment effects: meta-analyses including all trials irrespective of sample size, meta-analyses restricted to large trials, and treatment effects predicted for large trials. Results On average, treatment effects were more beneficial in small than in large trials (difference in effect sizes −0.21, 95% confidence interval −0.34 to −0.08, P=0.001). Depending on criteria used, six to eight funnel plots indicated small study effects. In six of 13 meta-analyses, the overall pooled estimate suggested a clinically relevant, significant benefit of treatment, whereas analyses restricted to large trials and predicted effects in large trials yielded smaller non-significant estimates. Conclusions Small study effects can often distort results of meta-analyses. The influence of small trials on estimated treatment effects should be routinely assessed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Age-specific risks, severity, time course, and outcome of bleeding on long-term antiplatelet treatment after vascular events: a population-based cohort study

              Summary Background Lifelong antiplatelet treatment is recommended after ischaemic vascular events, on the basis of trials done mainly in patients younger than 75 years. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a serious complication, but had low case fatality in trials of aspirin and is not generally thought to cause long-term disability. Consequently, although co-prescription of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduces upper gastrointestinal bleeds by 70–90%, uptake is low and guidelines are conflicting. We aimed to assess the risk, time course, and outcomes of bleeding on antiplatelet treatment for secondary prevention in patients of all ages. Methods We did a prospective population-based cohort study in patients with a first transient ischaemic attack, ischaemic stroke, or myocardial infarction treated with antiplatelet drugs (mainly aspirin based, without routine PPI use) after the event in the Oxford Vascular Study from 2002 to 2012, with follow-up until 2013. We determined type, severity, outcome (disability or death), and time course of bleeding requiring medical attention by face-to-face follow-up for 10 years. We estimated age-specific numbers needed to treat (NNT) to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding with routine PPI co-prescription on the basis of Kaplan–Meier risk estimates and relative risk reduction estimates from previous trials. Findings 3166 patients (1582 [50%] aged ≥75 years) had 405 first bleeding events (n=218 gastrointestinal, n=45 intracranial, and n=142 other) during 13 509 patient-years of follow-up. Of the 314 patients (78%) with bleeds admitted to hospital, 117 (37%) were missed by administrative coding. Risk of non-major bleeding was unrelated to age, but major bleeding increased steeply with age (≥75 years hazard ratio [HR] 3·10, 95% CI 2·27–4·24; p<0·0001), particularly for fatal bleeds (5·53, 2·65–11·54; p<0·0001), and was sustained during long-term follow-up. The same was true of major upper gastrointestinal bleeds (≥75 years HR 4·13, 2·60–6·57; p<0·0001), particularly if disabling or fatal (10·26, 4·37–24·13; p<0·0001). At age 75 years or older, major upper gastrointestinal bleeds were mostly disabling or fatal (45 [62%] of 73 patients vs 101 [47%] of 213 patients with recurrent ischaemic stroke), and outnumbered disabling or fatal intracerebral haemorrhage (n=45 vs n=18), with an absolute risk of 9·15 (95% CI 6·67–12·24) per 1000 patient-years. The estimated NNT for routine PPI use to prevent one disabling or fatal upper gastrointestinal bleed over 5 years fell from 338 for individuals younger than 65 years, to 25 for individuals aged 85 years or older. Interpretation In patients receiving aspirin-based antiplatelet treatment without routine PPI use, the long-term risk of major bleeding is higher and more sustained in older patients in practice than in the younger patients in previous trials, with a substantial risk of disabling or fatal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Given that half of the major bleeds in patients aged 75 years or older were upper gastrointestinal, the estimated NNT for routine PPI use to prevent such bleeds is low, and co-prescription should be encouraged. Funding Wellcome Trust, Wolfson Foundation, British Heart Foundation, Dunhill Medical Trust, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol
                Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol
                The Lancet. Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                Elsevier B.V
                2468-1253
                21 February 2018
                April 2018
                21 February 2018
                : 3
                : 4
                : 231-241
                Affiliations
                [a ]Emergency Department, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK
                [b ]Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford, UK
                [c ]Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford, UK
                [d ]Gastroenterology and Liver Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Mindelsohn Way, Birmingham, UK
                [e ]Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK
                [f ]Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
                [g ]Department of Medicine and Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
                [h ]Division of Gastroenterology and Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University Health Science Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada
                [i ]Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
                [j ]VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA
                [k ]Service of Digestive Diseases, University Clinic Hospital, University of Zaragoza, IIS Aragón, CIBERehd, Zaragoza, Spain
                [l ]Department of Pharmacology, Catholic University School of Medicine, Rome, Italy
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Professor Colin Baigent, Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford OX3 7LF, UKCorrespondence to: Professor Colin Baigent, Medical Research Council Population Health Research UnitClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU)Nuffield Department of Population HealthOxfordOX3 7LFUK colin.baigent@ 123456ndph.ox.ac.uk
                [†]

                Contributed equally

                Article
                S2468-1253(18)30037-2
                10.1016/S2468-1253(18)30037-2
                5842491
                29475806
                f87a6f34-a3fb-4d99-a12e-5df33a968413
                © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article