Sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation versus sphincterotomy alone for choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation (ESBD) is considered to be a promising method for the removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, when compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) alone, the efficacy and safety of ESBD remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESBD vs. EST for the removal of large CBD stones. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to 15 July 2018 for literature that compared ESBD with EST for the removal of CBD stones. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) of the stone clearance rate and the complication rate were used to compare the efficacy and safety of ESBD vs. EST. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies with 2789 patients were included. The results showed that the stone removal rate was much higher in the ESBD group than in the EST group, both across all endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) sessions (OR 2.68, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.79 to 4.01) and during the first ERCP session (OR 2.07, 95 %CI 1.37 to 3.12). The ESBD group had fewer complications than EST alone (OR 0.63, 95 %CI 0.47 to 0.85). Moreover, the ESBD group needed less mechanical lithotripsy (OR 0.38, 95 %CI 0.24 to 0.61) and had a shorter procedure time (mean difference - 4.05, 95 %CI - 7.02 to - 1.09) than EST alone. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of ESBD were superior to those of EST for the removal of large CBD stones. Moreover, less mechanical lithotripsy and shorter procedure times were needed with ESBD to manage large stones.

Review: A Japanese population-based meta-analysis of vonoprazan versus PPI for Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy: Is superiority an illusion?

BACKGROUND: Vonoprazan (VPZ) is a novel acid suppressant that has been used in Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapies in recent years. However, the efficacy and safety of VPZ vs proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) in H. pylori eradication therapies remain controversial. OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis in order to assess the efficacy and safety of VPZ vs PPI for H. pylori eradication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to July 10, 2017, for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized clinical studies (NRCTs). The pooled eradication rate (ER) and pooled occurrence rates of adverse events were used to compare the efficacy and safety of VPZ - and PPI-containing regimens. RESULT: A total of 14 studies with 14 636 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that the pooled ER of VPZ -containing regimens was much higher than that of PPI-containing regimens when used as first-line therapies. This difference was significant for both intention-to-treat (85.1% vs 68.0%, P < .00001) and per-protocol analyses (89.0% vs 74.2%, P < .00001). Moreover, subgroup analysis indicated significant superiority of VPZ in both patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains (81.5% vs 40.9%, P < .00001) and those with clarithromycin-susceptible strains (94.9% vs 89.6%, P = .006). However, VPZ did not show superiority to PPI as part of a second-line triple therapy based on both intention-to-treat (83.4% vs 82.0%, P = .79) and per-protocol analyses (89.3% vs 90.1%, P = .06). Finally, RCT subgroup analysis showed the safety of VPZ -containing regimens to be better than PPI-containing regimens (26.4% vs 33.3%, P = .008), whereas there was no significant difference in this regard for the NRCT subgroup analysis (5.7% vs 4.7%, P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of VPZ is superior to PPI in first-line H. pylori triple eradication therapies but not in second-line therapies. The safety of VPZ -containing regimens appears to be equal or even superior to that of PPI. However, most reports included in this study had low levels of evidence. Hence, adequate and high-quality RCTs will be needed to support our results.