Association between proton pump inhibitors and respiratory infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have become the mainstay of treatment for and prevention of many serious gastrointestinal diseases. Laboratory and clinical evidence suggests that the increase in gastric pH caused by PPIs may be linked to increased bacterial colonization of the stomach and may predispose patients to an increased risk for respiratory infections. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between PPI treatment and respiratory infections. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases of randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of PPIs. Studies that listed and quantified the specific adverse events of 'respiratory infection' or 'upper respiratory infection' (or equivalent), and compared their rates between PPIs and placebo were included. The chi(2) analysis was used to calculate the significance of association in individual studies and a meta-analysis of the selected studies was performed. RESULTS: Of 7457 studies initially identified and 70 relevant randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) selected, seven studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 16 comparisons for chi(2) analysis were possible given the multiple dosage arms used in several studies. PPIs included in the studies were esomeprazole, rabeprazole, pantoprazole and omeprazole. More than one-half of the studies showed a trend toward an association between PPI use and respiratory infections, although the majority of the studies failed to show a significant correlation. A single study using high-dose esomeprazole (40 mg) showed a significant association -4.3% rate of respiratory infections in the active group compared with 0% in the placebo group (P<0.05). Meta-analysis showed a trend toward an association between PPIs and respiratory infections, although it failed to reach significance (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.35; P=0.17). CONCLUSION: Although a trend was evident in both a chi(2) analysis of individual studies and a meta-analysis, the present review and meta-analysis failed to show a conclusive association between PPIs and respiratory infections. Very few RCTs actively sought out respiratory infections, which excluded the majority of RCTs identified. A well-structured, placebo-controlled prospective study would be needed to determine whether a true association between PPIs and respiratory infections exists.     

Potential adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have revolutionized the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcer disease over the past two decades. Among the most commonly prescribed agents worldwide, PPIs’ overall safety profile is unquestionable. However, emerging evidence indicates that PPI therapy, particularly with long-term and/or high-dose administration, is associated with several potential adverse effects, including enteric infections (eg, Clostridium difficile), community-acquired pneumonia, and hip fracture, all of which have received much attention recently. We review the current data on these and other potential consequences of PPI therapy. More judicious use of PPIs (eg, administering them in no more than the minimum effective dose to older adult patients) may help to further limit the impact of some of these possible adverse effects.     

Therapeutic role of dual inhibitors of 5-LOX and COX,selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Dual 5-LOX/COX inhibitors are potential new drugs to treat inflammation. They act by blocking the formation of both prostaglandins and leucotrienes but do not affect lipoxin formation. Such combined inhibition avoids some of the disadvantages of selective COX-2 inhibitors and spares the gatrointestinal mucosa.     

Early heartburn relief with proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are often taken for short-term treatment of heartburn. We performed a systematic review of the efficacy of PPIs for heartburn relief within the first 1-2 days of therapy. METHODS: Bibliographic databases were searched for clinical trials of PPIs in patients with heartburn that provided information about the proportion with heartburn relief at day 1-2. The sample size-weighted pooled proportions of patients with complete or sustained (7 consecutive days) relief were calculated. Meta-analyses of randomized comparisons of PPIs were also performed. RESULTS: Eighteen trials met inclusion criteria. At day 1 of PPI therapy, complete 24-hour, daytime, nighttime, and sustained heartburn relief occurred in 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.32), 0.49 (95% CI, 0.48-0.50), 0.55 (95% CI, 0.53-0.56), and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.20-0.22) of patients. Up to 37% of the heartburn relief achievable with 28 days of PPIs occurred on day 1. Placebo was significantly less effective than PPIs for 24-hour relief on day 1 (relative risk [RR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.29-0.58), and single-dose PPI therapy was less effective than double-dose therapy (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Complete heartburn relief for the entire day occurs in approximately 30% of patients after their first PPI dose and 9% of patients after their first placebo (RR for relief on day 1 for placebo versus PPI was 0.41 [95% CI, 0.28-0.58]). Although PPIs might provide benefit from the first day of therapy, most patients will not have symptom relief with 1 or 2 days of PPI therapy.     

Treatment with proton pump inhibitors in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis

Medical therapy is an attractive adjuvant to endoscopic treatment in upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding. This review aims to assess the treatment effects of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in acute non-variceal UGI bleeding. Outcome measures evaluated were further bleeding, surgery, all-cause deaths, ulcer deaths and non-ulcer deaths. We searched MEDLINE (1966-2002) and EMBASE (1974-2002) using the terms 'gastrointestinal hemorrhage', 'peptic ulcer hemorrhage', 'proton pump inhibitor', 'omeprazole', 'pantoprazole', 'lansoprazole', 'rabeprazole' and 'esomeprazole'. The search was extended to the Cochrane controlled trials registry database, published abstracts from five international gastroenterology conferences, manufacturers of PPI, known contacts and bibliographies from each full-length published report. We included trials published in English and non-English languages. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that compared the treatment effects of PPI therapy with placebo or H2 receptor antagonists in patients with acute non-variceal UGI bleeding. Of the 175 articles screened, 26 controlled trials including 4670 subjects (2317 in treatment arm and 2353 in control arm) were analyzed. The methodology, population, intervention, and outcomes of each selected trial were evaluated using duplicate independent review. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. PPI therapy significantly reduced rates of further bleeding (odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.57) and surgery (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.48-0.76). All-cause deaths were unaffected (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.76-1.37). Ulcer deaths showed a significant reduction (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.96), while non-ulcer deaths showed a significant increase (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.06-2.41) in the PPI therapy group. Sensitivity analysis of 22 trials published in peer-reviewed journals, 10 trials with double-blind design and 19 trials with high quality score and 22 trials using omeprazole in the treatment group showed results similar to those seen in the analysis of all 26 trials, confirming the stability of the conclusions. Subgroup analysis revealed that summary outcome measures were not influenced by control group therapy (placebo vs H2 receptor antagonists) or the use of prior endoscopic treatment to achieve hemostasis (given vs not given). However, the summary treatment effects for further bleeding and need for surgery were significant in only those trials enrolling patients with peptic ulcers having high risk for rebleeding and not in those trials enrolling patients with all causes of UGI bleeding. The summary treatment effects for further bleeding and need for surgery were significant in trials using intravenous as well as oral PPI. However, summary OR for all-cause deaths and non-ulcer deaths in trials using intravenous PPI were higher in the treatment group and not in trials using oral PPI. This raised the possibility of intravenous PPI-therapy-associated non-ulcer deaths in high-risk patients. PPI therapy in acute non-variceal UGI bleeding reduced rates of further bleeding, surgery and deaths caused by ulcer complications. However, non-ulcer deaths were increased. The overall mortality was unaffected. PPI therapy is useful only in a selected group of patients with acute non-variceal UGI bleeding, namely those with peptic ulcers having endoscopic high-risk stigmata for rebleeding.     

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: overall risks and management. Complementary roles for COX-2 inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are well recognised as causing peptic ulceration and ulcer complications. However, several critical issues, including the amount of both gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal disease affected by NSAIDs, their interaction with ancillary risk factors, and how to optimise management in subgroups, remain poorly understood. In this article, strategies for subgroups that take account of non-specific gastrointestinal risks, minimisation of residual risk, and the importance of non-gastrointestinal toxicity are suggested, and areas for research identified.     

Efficacy of mosapride plus proton pump inhibitors for treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: A systematic review

AIM:To assess the potential benefits of mosapride plus proton pump inhibitors(PPIs)in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.METHODS:A literature search was performed through MEDLINE,EMBASE,and the ISI Web of Knowledge.The clinical trials that compared the benefit of mosapride plus PPI treatment with that of PPI monotherapy were analyzed.The rate of responders was evaluated by the pooled relative risk(PRR)and improvement in symptom scores was assessed by single effect size of a standardized mean,while Hedges’g was used as the effect size.Pooled effect sizes with 95%CIs were calculated using a fixed-effects model.Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I2analyses.In addition,studies that assessed the additional efficacy of mosapride in PPI-resistant patients were also reviewed.RESULTS:This systematic review included information on a total of 587 patients based on 7 trials.Four trials compared the efficacy of combination therapy of mosapride plus a PPI with that of PPI monotherapy.The statistical analysis for the effect of additional mosapride showed equivocal results(PRR=1.132;95%CI:0.934-1.372;P=0.205;Hedges’g=0.24;95%CI:0.03-0.46;P=0.023).No heterogeneity and publication bias were found among the studies.Three openlabeled trials assessed the additional efficacy of mosapride in PPI-resistant patients.However,since these trials did not set the control group,the results may be considerably biased.CONCLUSION:Mosapride combined therapy is not more effective than PPI alone as first-line therapy.Whether it is effective in PPI-resistant patients needs to be determined.     

High-dose vs low-dose proton pump inhibitors for upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis

AIM:To evaluate the efficacy of high-dose proton pump inhibitors(PPIs)vs low-dose PPIs for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.METHODS:PubMed,Embase,the Cochrane Library,and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials(RCTs).Eligible trials were RCTs that compared high-dose PPI with low-dose PPI following endoscopic hemostasis.The primary endpoint was rebleeding;secondary endpoints were patient numbers that needed surgery,and mortality.The meta-analysis was perfor...     

Nimesulide - a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, a preferential cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor

Nimesulide (Aulin) refers to the class of sulphonanilides, which is unique among the non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), being also the first drug on the market of pharmaceuticals, which preferentially inhibits the enzyme cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2). This enzyme takes part in the synthesis of prostaglandin, which is produced in the course of the cascade of the inflammation process and has relation to the pathogenesis of pain, inflammation and fever, while the COX-1 enzyme forms prostaglandin, which projects the gastro-intestinal mucosis. Many newly found factors, together with the preferential inhibition of COX-2, are also contributing to the therapeutic effects of Nimesulide. The therapeutic concentration of non-combined active substance in blood-circulation reduces the following indicators: the activity of the myeloperoxidase; the release of cytokines; the histamine effects; the synthesis of stromelysin and collagenase, which pull down the proteoglicans and collagen. It is also characteristic of Nimesulide its antioxidant activity and suppression of: the synthesis of superoxidic ions from the neutrophils; also, the synthesis of platelet activating factor. Nimesulide shows good tolerability and is safe with patients having respiratory problems due to treatment with other NSAIDs.     

Efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials

PURPOSE—To assess the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for low back pain.
DATA SOURCES—Computer aided search of published randomised clinical trials and assessment of the methods of the studies.
STUDY SELECTION—26 randomised clinical trials evaluating NSAIDs for low back pain were identified.
DATA EXTRACTION—Score for quality (maximum = 100 points) of the methods based on four categories: study population; interventions; effect measurement; data presentation and analysis. Determination of success rate per study group and evaluation of different contrasts. Statistical pooling of placebo controlled trials in similar patient groups and using similar outcome measures.
RESULTS—The methods scores of the trials ranged from 27 to 83 points. NSAIDs were compared with placebo treatment in 10 studies. The pooled odds ratio in four trials comparing NSAIDs with placebo after one week was 0.53 (95% confidence intervals 0.32 to 0.89) using the fixed effect model, indicating a significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared with placebo. In nine studies NSAIDs were compared with other (drug) therapies. Of these, only two studies reported better results of NSAIDs compared with paracetamol with and without dextropropoxyphene. In the other trials NSAIDs were not better than the reference treatment. In 11 studies different NSAIDs were compared, of which seven studies reported no differences in effect.
CONCLUSIONS—There are flaws in the design of most studies. The pooled odds ratio must be interpreted with caution because the trials at issue, including the high quality trials, did not use identical outcome measures. The results of the 26 randomised trials that have been carried out to date, suggest that NSAIDs might be effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with uncomplicated low back pain, but are less effective or ineffective in patients with low back pain with sciatica and patients with sciatica with nerve root symptoms.