Opioid Use Among Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite reported adverse effects of opioids in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), the burden of opioid use in this population appears to be high. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prior studies to determine the prevalence of opioid use among patients with IBD as well as risk factors and outcomes associated with opioid use in this population. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library through November of 2019. Primary outcomes included the prevalence of opioid use and demographic and clinical variables associated with opioid use in patients with IBD. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We used random-effect meta-analysis to estimate pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of 780 citations identified, 31 were included in our study. The prevalence of opioid use was 21% (95% CI, 13%-30%) in the outpatient setting. Likewise, 62% (95% CI, 25%-92%) of patients received opioids while hospitalized for IBD. Opioid use was associated with female sex (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.03-1.40), depression (1.99; 95% CI 1.80-2.19), substance abuse (4.67; 95% CI 2.87-7.60), prior gastrointestinal surgery (2.33; 95% CI 1.66-3.26), biologic use (1.36; 95% CI 1.06-1.74), and steroid use (1.41; 95% CI 1.04-1.91). Based on the systematic review, opioid use also appeared to be associated with increased IBD activity, healthcare use, infection, and mortality. CONCLUSION: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that 21% of outpatients with IBD (and 62% of hospitalized patients) are opioid users; use is associated with more severe IBD and increased healthcare use. Further studies are required to determine whether opioids are the cause or an effect of these associations. Nonetheless, urgent interventions are needed to reduce opioid use, improve disease-related outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.

Advanced endoscopic resection for colorectal dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease: a meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Little is known about outcomes of advanced endoscopic resection (ER) for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with dysplasia. The aim of our meta-analysis was to estimate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for dysplastic lesions in patients with IBD. Methods We performed a systematic review through Jan 2021 to identify studies of IBD with dysplasia that was treated by EMR or ESD. We estimated the pooled rates of complete ER, adverse events, post-ER surgery, and recurrence. Proportions were pooled by random effect models. Results Eleven studies including 506 patients and 610 lesions were included. Mean lesion size was 23 mm. The pooled rate of complete ER was 97.9 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 95.3 % to 99.7 %). The pooled rate of endoscopic perforation was 0.8 % (95 % CI:0.1 % to 2.2 %) while bleeding occurred in 1.6 % of patients (95 %CI:0.4 % to 3.3 %). Overall, 6.6 % of patients (95 %CI:3.6 % to 10.2 %) underwent surgery after an ER. Among 471 patients who underwent surveillance, local recurrence occurred in 4.9 % patients (95 % CI:1.0 % to 10.7 %) and metachronous lesions occurred in 7.4 % patients (95 %CI:1.5 % to 16 %) over a median follow-up of 33 months. Metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) was detected in 0.2 % of patients (95 %CI:0 % to 2.2 %) during the surveillance period. Conclusions Advanced ER is safe and effective in the management of large dysplastic lesions in IBD and warrants consideration as first-line therapy. Although the risk of developing CRC after ER is low, meticulous endoscopic surveillance is crucial to monitor for local or metachronous recurrence of dysplasia.

Aspirin Use Is Associated with a Reduced Incidence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third-leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, with a growing incidence and poor prognosis. While some recent studies suggest an inverse association between aspirin use and reduced HCC incidence, other data are conflicting. To date, the precise magnitude of risk reduction-and whether there are dose-dependent and duration-dependent associations-remains unclear. To provide an updated and comprehensive assessment of the association between aspirin use and incident HCC risk, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all observational studies published through September 2020. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we calculated the pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between aspirin use and incident HCC risk. Where data were available, we evaluated HCC risk according to the defined daily dose of aspirin use. Among 2,389,019 participants, and 20,479 cases of incident HCC, aspirin use was associated with significantly lower HCC risk (adjusted RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.73; P ≤ 0.001; I2 = 90.4%). In subgroup analyses, the magnitude of benefit associated with aspirin was significantly stronger in studies that adjusted for concurrent statin and/or metformin use (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.64) versus those that did not (P heterogeneity = 0.02), studies that accounted for cirrhosis (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.45-0.52) versus those that did not (P heterogeneity = 0.02), and studies that confirmed HCC through imaging/biopsy (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.15-0.58) compared with billing codes (P heterogeneity < 0.001). In four studies, each defined daily dose was associated with significantly lower HCC risk (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.98), corresponding to an 8.4% risk reduction per year of aspirin use. Conclusion: In this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, aspirin use was associated with a significant reduction in HCC risk. These benefits appeared to increase with increasing dose and duration of aspirin use.