RESUMEN
Objective: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) or metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is a significant contributor to chronic liver disease worldwide. Orlistat blocks intestinal fat absorption, leading to decreased liver fat content. Therefore, it is a viable option for NAFLD management. Methods: We performed a systematic review and metaanalysis using randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We used mean difference (MD) to pool continuous outcomes presented with the corresponding confidence interval (CI). Results: We included four RCTs with a total of 379 patients. Orlistat was effective in reducing liver fat content (MD: -5.02, 95% CI [-7.23, -2.82], P = 0.00001), alanine transferase (MD: -10.03, 95% CI [-17.80, -2.26], P = 0.01), aspartate transferase (MD: -4.29, 95% CI [-7.59, -0.99], P = 0.01), waist circumference (MD: -3.18, 95% CI [-4.25, -2.10], P = 0.00001), body mass index (MD: -1.03, 95% CI [-1.34, -0.73], P = 0.00001), total cholesterol (MD: -3.75, 95% CI [-4.02, -3.49], P = 0.00001), and low-density lipoprotein (MD: -3.83, 95% CI [-4.05, -3.61], P = 0.00001). However, orlistat was associated with increased serum triglycerides (MD: 7.46, 95% CI [6.48, 8.44], P = 0. 00001). Conclusion: Orlistat is a viable option for NAFLD management; however, it increases triglyceride levels. Larger RCTs are required.
RESUMEN
Background: Liver abscess is a life-threatening condition. Percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) and percutaneous needle aspiration (PNA) are both minimally invasive techniques used to manage liver abscess. We aim to compare both techniques' efficacy and safety. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis involving randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, WOS, Cochrane, and Google scholar until July 22nd, 2022. We pooled dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and continuous outcomes using mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. We registered our protocol with ID: CRD42022348755. Results: We included 15 RCTs with 1,626 patients. Pooled RR favored PCD (RR: 1.21 with 95% CI: 1.11, 1.31, P<0.00001) in success rate and recurrence after six months (RR: 0.41 with 95% CI: 0.22, 0.79, P=0.007). We found no difference in adverse events (RR: 2.2 with 95% CI: 0.51, 9.54, P=0.29). Pooled MD favored PCD in time to clinical improvement (MD: -1.78 with 95% CI: -2.50, -1.06, P<0.00001), time to achieve 50% reduction (MD: -2.83 with 95% CI: -3.36, -2.30], P<0.00001) and duration of antibiotic needed (MD: -2.13 with 95% CI: -3.84, -0.42, P=0.01). We found no difference in the duration of hospitalization (MD: -0.72 with 95% CI: -1.48, 0.03, P=0.06). The results were heterogeneous for all the continuous outcomes which were all measured in days. Conclusions: Our updated meta-analysis concluded that PCD is more effective than PNA in liver abscess drainage. However, evidence is still uncertain, and more high-quality trials are still required to confirm our results.
RESUMEN
Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is the most prevalent etiology of gastritis worldwide. H. pylori management depends mainly on antibiotics, especially the triple therapy formed of clarithromycin, amoxicillin, and proton pump inhibitors. Lately, many antibiotic-resistant strains have emerged, leading to a decrease in the eradication rates of H. pylori. Polaprezinc (PZN), a mucosal protective zinc-L-carnosine complex, may be a non-antibiotic agent to treat H. pylori without the risk of resistance. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a PZN-based regimen for the eradication of H. pylori. This study used a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, PubMed, and Google Scholar until 25 July 2022. We used the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes presented with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We registered our protocol in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022349231. We included 3 trials with a total of 396 participants who were randomized to either PZN plus triple therapy (n = 199) or triple therapy alone (control) (n = 197). Pooled OR found a statistical difference favoring the PZN arm in the intention to treat and per protocol H. pylori eradication rates (OR: 2.01 with 95% CI [1.27, 3.21], p = 0.003) and (OR: 2.65 with 95% CI [1.55, 4.54], p = 0.0004), respectively. We found no statistical difference between the two groups regarding the total adverse events (OR: 1.06 with 95% CI [0.55, 2.06], p = 0.85). PZN, when added to the triple therapy, yielded a better effect concerning the eradication rates of H. pylori with no difference in adverse event rates, and thus can be considered a valuable adjuvant for the management of H. pylori. However, the evidence is still scarce, and larger trials are needed to confirm or refute our findings.