Comparative efficacy of long-term antibiotic treatments in the primary prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several antibiotic treatments aiming to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in cirrhotic patients with low-protein content in ascitic fluid have been tested; however, there are limited data on the comparative efficacy of these regimens. We assessed their comparative efficacy through a network meta-analysis and using GRADE criteria to appraise quality of evidence. METHODS: Through literature review through October 2018, we identified 10 randomized controlled trials comparing antibiotic treatments (norfloxacin, ciprofloxacin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifaximin) with each other or placebo. Primary outcome was SBP occurrence, with mortality rate and rate of other infections as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: In comparison with placebo, moderate quality evidence supports the use of norfloxacin and ciprofloxacin in primary prophylaxis of SBP (risk ratio 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.56; P = 0.001 and 0.23; 0.07-0.79; P = 0.02 respectively) while only low quality evidence suggests superiority of rifaximin (risk ratio 0.15; 0.05-0.42). When antimicrobial agents were compared to each other, no significant difference was found. With regard to mortality, moderate quality supports the superiority of norfloxacin over placebo (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.99; P = 0.04), while ciprofloxacin and rifaximin showed only a non-significant benefit and no significant difference was found in the other comparisons. None of the tested antibiotics proved to significantly decrease the rate of other infections. CONCLUSIONS: Norfloxacin appears to have significant benefit both in terms of SBP prevention and mortality; ciprofloxacin represents a valuable option although without a clear survival benefit. Rifaximin shows interesting results but needs to be tested in further trials.

Endocuff-assisted versus Cap-assisted Colonoscopy in Increasing Adenoma Detection Rate. A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Several add-on devices have been developed to increase rates of colon adenoma detection. We aimed to compare the endocuff-assisted colonoscopy with cap-assisted colonoscopy through a pairwise meta-analysis of randomized trials. METHODS: We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through March 2020 and identified 6 randomized controlled trials (comprising 2,027 patients). The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate; secondary outcomes included sessile serrated adenoma detection rate, mean adenoma per colonoscopy, cecal intubation rate and time to reach cecum. Safety data were also analyzed. We performed pairwise meta-analysis through a random effects model and expressed data as risk ratio and 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Overall, pooled adenoma detection rate was 48.1% (39.3-56.8%) with endocuff and 40.5% (30.4- 50.6%; risk ratio 1.14, 0.96-1.35) with cap. Proximal adenoma detection rate was 45.7% (36.8-54.7%) and 24% (17-45.1%) with endocuff and cap, respectively (risk ratio 2.04, 0.93-4.49), whereas endocuff outperformed cap-assisted colonoscopy in detecting diminutive (≤ 5 mm) adenomas (risk ratio 2.74, 1.53-4.90) and in terms of mean adenoma per colonoscopy (mean difference 0.31, 0.05 -0.57; p=0.02). Sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (risk ratio 1.36, 0.72-2.59), cecal intubation rate (risk ratio 0.99, 0.98-1.00), and time to reach cecum (6.87 min versus 6.87 min) were similar between the two groups. No serious adverse event was observed. CONCLUSION: Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy seems to provide a higher adenoma detection rate as compared to cap-assisted colonoscopy, in particular concerning smaller diminutive polyps.