Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness and tolerance of treatments for Helicobacter pylori: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the most efficacious treatment for eradication of Helicobacter pylori with the lowest likelihood of some common adverse events among pre-recommended and newer treatment regimens.

Design

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources

Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase without language or date restrictions.

Study selection

Full text reports of randomised controlled trials that compared different eradication treatments for H pylori among adults.

Results

Of the 15,565 studies identified, 143 were eligible and included. Data on 14 kinds of treatments were available. Of 91 possible comparisons for the efficacy outcome, 34 were compared directly and the following treatments performed better: seven days of concomitant treatment (proton pump inhibitor and three kinds of antibiotics administered together), 10 or 14 days of concomitant treatment, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment (standard triple treatment which is probiotic supplemented), 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment (proton pump inhibitor, levofloxacin, and antibiotic administered together), 14 days of hybrid treatment (proton pump inhibitor and amoxicillin used for seven days, followed by a proton pump inhibitor, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and 5-nitroimidazole for another seven days), and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment (five or seven days of a proton pump inhibitor plus amoxicillin, followed by five or seven additional days of a proton pump inhibitor plus clarithromycin and 5-nitroimidazole or amoxicillin). In terms of tolerance, all treatments were considered tolerable, but seven days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment and seven days of levofloxacin based triple treatment ranked best in terms of the proportion of adverse events reported.

Conclusion

Comparison of different eradication treatments for H pylori showed that concomitant treatments, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment, 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment, 14 days of hybrid treatment, and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment might be better alternatives for the eradication of H pylori.

SUBMITTER: Li BZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4541168 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionChronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, 'usual care' and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs.Methods and analysisSix electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.Prospero registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.

Project description:BackgroundImmunosuppressive agents in general are shown to prevent renal progression and all-cause mortality in idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN) patients with nephrotic syndrome. However, the efficacy and safety of different immunosuppressive treatments have not been systematic assessed and compared. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare different immunosuppressive treatment in IMN.MethodsCochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial register system were searched for randomized controlled trials reporting the treatments for IMN to May 3, 2016. Composite endpoint of mortality or end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), complete or partial proteinuria remission and withdrawal because of treatment adverse events were compared combing direct and indirect comparison using network meta-analysis. Ranking different immunosuppressive treatments in the outcomes were analyzed by using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).ResultsTotal 36 randomized controlled trials (n = 2018) covering 11 kinds of treatments were included. Compared with non-immunosuppressive treatment, only cyclophosphamide (CTX) and chlorambucil significantly reduced the risk of composite outcome of mortality or ESKD while combining the direct and indirect comparison (OR = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.12-0.81 and OR = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.12-0.92). CTX increased the composite outcome of complete remission (CR) or partial remission (PR) (OR = 4.29, 95%CI: 2.30-8.00) but chlorambucil did not (OR = 1.58, 95%CI: 0.80-3.12) as compared with non-immunosuppressive treatment. Chlorambucil also significantly increased the withdrawal risk (OR = 3.34, 95%CI: 1.37-8.17) as compared to CTX. Both tacrolimus (OR = 3.10, 95%CI: 1.36-7.09) and cyclosporine (CsA) (OR = 2.81, 95%CI: 1.08-7.32) also significantly increased the rate of CR or PR as compared with non-immunosuppressive treatment (without significant difference as compared with CTX), while ranking results showed that cyclosporine or tacrolimus was with less possibility of drug withdrawal as compared to CTX.ConclusionsCyclophosphamide and chlorambucil reduce risk of ESKD or death in IMN with nephrotic range proteinuria, but carry substantial toxicity that may be lower for cyclophosphamide. Tacrolimus and cyclosporine increase the possibility of proteinuria remission with less drug withdrawal, but the effects on kidney failure remain uncertain.