Efficacy and Safety of Drugs for Gastroparesis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although there have been multiple drugs tested in gastroparesis, their relative efficacy and safety are unknown. We evaluated this in a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched the literature to September 7, 2022. We judged the efficacy of drugs based on global symptoms of gastroparesis; individual symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, or fullness; and safety according to total adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal. We extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be treatment failures and reporting pooled relative risks (RRs) of not improving with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), ranking drugs according to P-score. RESULTS: We identified 29 RCTs (3772 patients). Based on global symptoms, clebopride ranked first for efficacy (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.57; P-score = .99) followed by domperidone (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.98; P-score = .76). No other drug was superior to placebo. Only 2 drug classes were efficacious: in rank order, oral dopamine antagonists (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.77; P-score = .96) and tachykinin-1 antagonists (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93; P-score = .83). For individual symptoms, oral metoclopramide ranked first for nausea (RR 0.46; 95% CI, 0.21-1.00; P-score = .95), fullness (RR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.35-1.28; P-score = .86), and bloating (RR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.93; P-score = .97), based on only 1 small trial. Only prucalopride was more likely to be associated with adverse events than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In a network meta-analysis, oral dopamine antagonists and tachykinin-1 antagonists were more efficacious than placebo for gastroparesis, but confidence in the evidence was low to moderate for most comparisons. There is an unmet need for efficacious therapies for gastroparesis.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Efficacy of Mesalamine in Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Some patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) demonstrate low-grade inflammation in the intestine. Mesalamine, which has anti-inflammatory effects, may be an efficacious treatment for IBS, but studies are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess efficacy and safety of mesalamine in IBS. METHODS: We searched the medical literature up to September 14, 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mesalamine in IBS. We judged efficacy and safety using dichotomous assessments of effect on global IBS symptoms, abdominal pain, bowel habit or stool frequency, and occurrence of any adverse event. We pooled data using a random effects model, with efficacy and safety reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We identified 8 eligible RCTs (820 patients). Mesalamine was more efficacious than placebo for global IBS symptoms (RR of global symptoms not improving, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.95; number needed to treat = 10; 95% CI, 6-27), but not for abdominal pain or bowel habit or stool frequency. Subgroup analyses demonstrated efficacy of mesalamine in IBS with diarrhea for global IBS symptoms (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.99), but not patients with other predominant bowel habits or those with post-infection IBS. Adverse event rates were no higher with mesalamine (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.89-1.63) but were reported in only 5 trials. CONCLUSIONS: Mesalamine may be modestly efficacious for global symptoms in IBS, particularly IBS with diarrhea, but quality of evidence was low. Adequately powered high quality RCTs of mesalamine in IBS are needed.

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: Risk of Herpes zoster with biological therapies and small molecules in inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Biologics and small molecules for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may increase infection risk. Herpes zoster causes acute and long-term symptoms, but vaccination is not recommended in patients with IBD, unless >50 years of age. AIMS: To examine risk of Herpes zoster infection with all licensed biologics and small molecules for IBD using network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched the literature to 4th October 2022, for randomised controlled trials of these drugs in luminal Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis reporting data on occurrence of Herpes zoster infection during follow-up. We used a frequentist approach and a random effects model, pooling data as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We identified 25 trials (9935 patients). Only tofacitinib 10 mg b.d. (RR = 6.90; 95% CI 1.56-30.63, number needed to harm (NNH) = 97; 95% CI 19-1022) and upadacitinib 45 mg o.d. (RR = 7.89; 95% CI 1.04-59.59, NNH = 83; 95% CI 10-14,305) were significantly more likely to increase risk of Herpes zoster infection. Janus kinase inhibitors were the most likely drug class to increase risk of infection, and risk increased with higher doses (RR with lowest dose = 3.16; 95% CI 1.02-9.84, NNH = 265; 95% CI 65-28,610, RR with higher dose = 5.91; 95% CI 2.21-15.82, NNH = 117; 95% CI 39-473). CONCLUSIONS: In a network meta-analysis, the janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib, and all janus kinase inhibitors considered as a class, were most likely to increase risk of Herpes zoster infection. Risk increased with higher doses.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: efficacy of peppermint oil in irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common disorders of gut-brain interaction, with a complex pathophysiology. Antispasmodics are prescribed as first-line therapy because of their action on gut dysmotility. In this regard, peppermint oil also has antispasmodic properties. AIM: To update our previous meta-analysis to assess efficacy and safety of peppermint oil, particularly as recent studies have cast doubt on its role in the treatment of IBS METHODS: We searched the medical literature up to 2nd April 2022 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of peppermint oil in IBS. Efficacy and safety were judged using dichotomous assessments of effect on global IBS symptoms or abdominal pain, and occurrence of any adverse event or of gastro-oesophageal reflux. Data were pooled using a random effects model, with efficacy and safety reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We identified 10 eligible RCTs (1030 patients). Peppermint oil was more efficacious than placebo for global IBS symptoms (RR of not improving = 0.65; 95% CI 0.43-0.98, number needed to treat [NNT] = 4; 95% CI 2.5-71), and abdominal pain (RR of abdominal pain not improving = 0.76; 95% CI 0.62-0.93, NNT = 7; 95% CI 4-24). Adverse event rates were significantly higher with peppermint oil (RR of any adverse event = 1.57; 95% CI 1.04-2.37). CONCLUSIONS: Peppermint oil was superior to placebo for the treatment of IBS, but adverse events were more frequent, and quality of evidence was very low. Adequately powered RCTs of peppermint oil as first-line treatment for IBS are needed.