A systematic review with meta-analysis: Efficacy and safety of potassium-competitive acid blocker compared with proton pump inhibitor in the maintenance of healed erosive esophagitis.

Introduction: Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is the mainstay therapy for the maintenance of healed erosive esophagitis (EE). It is unknown whether potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs) are more efficacious and safer than PPIs. Methods: Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PCABs to PPIs in the maintenance of healing rates of endoscopically proven healed EE and indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL until 3 February 2024, were included. A fixed-effects model meta-analysis was performed to pool primary efficacy outcome (maintenance of healing rates at week 24) and safety data (any treatment-emergent adverse event or TEAE). The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool. Results: Four RCTs with a total of 2554 patients were eligible for inclusion. All trials were of low risk of bias. Compared to lansoprazole 15 mg, the maintenance rates of healed EE at week 24 were significantly higher with vonoprazan 10 mg (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.07-1.19) and vonoprazan 20 mg (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.10-1.21). Likewise, compared to lansoprazole 15 mg, any TEAEs were significantly greater with vonoprazan 20 mg (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.01-1.20) but not vonoprazan 10 mg. Conclusion: Vonoprazan 10 and 20 mg were superior to lansoprazole 15 mg in the maintenance of the healing of EE. Any TEAEs were greater with vonoprazan 20 mg.

Vonoprazan is superior to lansoprazole for healing of severe but not mild erosive esophagitis: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Healing rates of severe erosive esophagitis (EE; Los Angeles [LA] Grade C/D) in patients treated with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is suboptimal (~60-70%). Vonoprazan, a potassium-competitive acid blocker, is suggested to have better healing rates in patients with severe EE. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan 20 mg versus lansoprazole 30 mg daily in healing EE, specifically in those with LA Grade C/D. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL on May 24, 2023. Studies that randomized EE patients to vonoprazan 20 mg daily or lansoprazole 30 mg daily and compared healing rates were included. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 tool. The fixed-effect model was used to obtain the pooled efficacy and safety outcomes. Subgroup analysis was done to compare healing rates in mild (LA Grade A/B) versus severe EE and based on study location. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with low risks of bias comprising 2208 participants were included. Vonoprazan 20 mg was superior to lansoprazole 30 mg daily in healing severe EE at all weeks (Week 2 RR 1.294 [95% CI 1.169-1.433], Week 4 1.160 [1.059-1.270], and Week 8 1.175 [95% CI 1.107-1.247]), but was similar for mild EE at all weeks (P-interaction < 0.01). Vonoprazan 20 mg was more efficacious than lansoprazole 30 mg at Week 8 in Western versus Asian studies (P-interaction < 0.01). Any, serious, and drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: Vonoprazan 20 mg is superior to lansoprazole 30 mg for healing severe EE but not mild EE. Vonoprazan 20 mg daily has a similar safety profile to lansoprazole 30 mg daily.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of vonoprazan for proton pump inhibitor-resistant gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Up to 40% of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients experience inadequate symptom relief with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), termed PPI-resistant or refractory GERD. Vonoprazan, a potassium-competitive acid blocker, has better efficacy than PPI in suppressing gastric acid secretion. This meta-analysis summarizes the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan for treating PPI-resistant GERD (both erosive esophagitis [EE] and non-erosive reflux disease [NERD]). METHODS: Four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL) were searched for studies indexed until August 1, 2023. Both observational studies and clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan in PPI-resistant GERD were included. Efficacy outcomes included healing and maintenance rates of EE and improvement of the Frequency Scale for Symptoms of GERD (FSSG) scores. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were considered a safety outcome. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess study quality. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in this meta-analysis. Healing rates of PPI-resistant EE with vonoprazan 20 mg were 91.7% (95% CI 86.8-94.8%) and 88.5% (95% CI 69.7-96.2%) at weeks 4 and 8, respectively. For healed PPI-resistant EE, the overall maintenance rates with vonoprazan 10 mg were 82.6% (95% 61.2-95.0%) at week 8, 86.0% (95% CI 72.1-94.7%) at week 24, and 93.8% (95% CI 69.8-99.8%) at week 48. FSSG scores were improved in 74.6% (95% CI 65.8-81.7%) and 51.9% (95% CI 37.8-65.7%) of patients at weeks 4 and 8. Overall, no SAE was reported. CONCLUSION: Vonoprazan demonstrated high efficacy in the healing and maintenance of PPI-resistant EE and moderate efficacy for the improvement of FSSG score. Vonoprazan was well tolerated in PPI-resistant GERD patients.

Left lateral decubitus sleeping position is associated with improved gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A limited number of studies have demonstrated that sleeping in the left lateral decubitus (LLD) decreases nocturnal reflux in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) compared to right lateral decubitus (RLD) and supine. AIM: This systematic review summarizes the association between sleeping in the LLD position and nocturnal reflux in patients with GERD. METHODS: Studies published up to July 17, 2023, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched. Eligible studies were randomized and nonrandomized studies assessing the effect of sleeping in LLD compared to RLD and supine in reducing nocturnal reflux in GERD patients. Outcomes include the acid exposure time (AET) (% time in pH<4), acid clearance time (ACT) (in sec/episode), number of reflux episodes, and improvement in N-GSSIQ scores. RESULTS: Two nonrandomized studies showed decreased AET and ACT in LLD sleep position in comparison to RLD (mean difference [MD] -2.03 [95%CI: -3.62 to -0.45]; -81.84 [95%CI: -127.48 to -36.20], respectively) and supine position (MD -2.71 [95%CI: -4.34 to -1.09]; -74.47 [95%CI: -116.26 to -32.69], respectively). There was no difference in AET and ACT between RLD sleep position and supine. Furthermore, one randomized controlled trial investigating the use of electronic sleep positional therapy, which increased the duration of LLD sleep and decreased the duration of RLD sleep compared to sham, showed nocturnal symptoms improvement (improved N-GSSIQ score, increased reflux-free nights, and resolution of nocturnal reflux symptoms). CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that sleeping on the left side could reduce nocturnal reflux and improve GERD-related quality of life, therefore warranting interventions that promote LLD sleep position.

Role of endoscopy in gastroesophageal reflux disease.

In general, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is diagnosed clinically based on typical symptoms and/or response to proton pump inhibitor treatment. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is reserved for patients presenting with alarm symptoms, such as dysphagia, odynophagia, significant weight loss, gastrointestinal bleeding, or anorexia; those who meet the criteria for Barrett's esophagus screening; those who report a lack or partial response to proton pump inhibitor treatment; and those with prior endoscopic or surgical anti-reflux interventions. Newer endoscopic techniques are primarily used to increase diagnostic yield and provide an alternative to medical or surgical treatment for GERD. The available endoscopic modalities for the diagnosis of GERD include conventional endoscopy with white-light imaging, high-resolution and high-magnification endoscopy, chromoendoscopy, image-enhanced endoscopy (narrow-band imaging, I- SCAN, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging, and linked color imaging), and confocal laser endomicroscopy. Endoscopic techniques for treating GERD include esophageal radiofrequency energy delivery/Stretta procedure, transoral incisionless fundoplication, and endoscopic full-thickness plication. Other novel techniques include anti-reflux mucosectomy, peroral endoscopic cardiac constriction, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and endoscopic band ligation. Currently, many of the new endoscopic techniques are not widely available, and their use is limited to centers of excellence.

Review of Traditional First Aid for Burn Injuries in the 21st Century.

INTRODUCTION: This review aims to investigate data on traditional burn first aid materials used in different countries. METHODS: A systematic search was performed through 8 databases for studies on traditional burn first aid published in the 21st century. Data regarding study demographics, burn first aid, first aid materials, water irrigation, and source of knowledge were summarized, and the use of each material was discussed. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies including 20,150 subjects were identified. An average of 29% of the study population applied water irrigation, whereas 46% used various traditional materials, and 30% did not administer first aid. People with higher education and socioeconomy class tend to choose correct first aid actions. DISCUSSION: The single best treatment as burn first aid is cool-water irrigation. Despite that, various other materials have been used, most of which are not suitable for first aid. Some materials possess healing abilities and can be used as wound dressing, whereas others are harmful. Inappropriate materials are mostly used in underdeveloped regions lacking water access and hygiene. Mass media and community knowledge have a large influence in burn first aid practices. CONCLUSION: Raising public health awareness on burn first aid is crucial along with providing the people access to water, basic hygiene, and health care.

A systematic review of gut microbiota profile in COVID-19 patients and among those who have recovered from COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Given the scale and persistence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), significant attention has been devoted to understanding the relationship between human gut microbiota and COVID-19. In this systematic review we aimed to comprehensively assess the gut microbiota composition in patients infected with COVID-19 and those recovered from COVID-19 in comparison to healthy controls (HCs). METHODS: Peer-reviewed articles and preprints published up to September 1, 2022, were searched in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and SCOPUS. Observational studies reporting the gut microbiota profile in adult (≥18 years) COVID-19 patients or those recovered from COVID-19 compared to HCs were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. The quality assessment of studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: We identified 27 studies comprising 18 studies that compared COVID-19 patients and six that compared recovered COVID-19 patients to HCs, while the other three studies compared both COVID-19 and recovered COVID-19 patients to HCs. Compared to HCs, decreased gut microbial diversity and richness and a distinctive microbial composition were reported in COVID-19 patients and recovered COVID-19 patients. In COVID-19 patients, Bacteroidetes were found to be enriched, and Firmicutes depleted. Decreased short-chain fatty acid (SCFA)-producing bacteria, such as Faecalibacterium, Ruminococcus, and Bifidobacterium, among others, were also observed in COVID-19 patients, which were not restored to normal levels in those who recovered. CONCLUSION: Gut dysbiosis was evident in COVID-19, and available data suggested that dysbiosis persisted even in recovered COVID-19 patients, with decreased Firmicutes and SCFA-producing bacteria.

Gastrointestinal Symptoms of Monkeypox Infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Since early May 2022, outbreaks of Monkeypox (Mpox) cases have emerged and become a global concern. Studies exploring the gastrointestinal symptoms and/or liver injury of Mpox are still very limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis is the first to summarize the gastrointestinal symptoms reported by Mpox patients. We searched for Mpox studies published until October 21, 2022, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and organization websites. Mpox studies were observational studies that reported at least one of either gastrointestinal symptoms and/or liver injury in Mpox patients. Meta-analysis was done to obtain the pooled prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms in Mpox patients. Subgroup analyses were done based on the study location, age groups, and Mpox Clades. The quality of included studies was assessed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool. Overall, 31 studies that reported gastrointestinal symptoms and/or liver injury in Mpox patients were included. The reported gastrointestinal symptoms were abdominal pain, anorexia, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. There is a lack of reporting for liver injury. The most prevalent gastrointestinal symptoms in Mpox patients were anorexia (47%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 41%-53%), followed by vomiting (12%; 95% CI 11%-13%), nausea (10%; 95% CI 9%-11%), abdominal pain (9%; 95% CI 8%-10%), and diarrhea (5%; 95% CI 4%-6%). Additionally, the prevalence of proctitis, rectal/anal pain, and rectal bleeding were 11% (95% CI 11%-12%), 25% (95% CI 24%-27%), and 12% (95% CI 11%-13%), respectively. Anorexia was the most frequently reported gastrointestinal symptom in Mpox patients, followed by vomiting, nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. Proctitis is a novel presentation of Mpox in the 2022 outbreak.