Dataset Information

Proton Pump Inhibitors in IPF: A Call for Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT: The recent FDA approval of two drugs, pirfenidone and nintedanib, for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) has fueled interest in the development of additional drugs to treat the disease or its major clinical complications including cough and acute exacerbations. Since 2015, there are at least a dozen active interventional studies that are testing the efficacy of novel pharmacotherapies, exercise or stem cells in modifying the disease process in IPF. Additionally, there are combinatorial studies evaluating the effectiveness of pirfenidone or nintedanib in combination with other agents. However, there remains an urgent need for clinical trials to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of existing drugs with promising retrospective data, such as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), in IPF. Several retrospective cohorts have provided tantalizing data supporting the beneficial effect of PPIs in patients with well-defined IPF. This review provides the general outlook of pharmacotherapies in IPF, and highlights preclinical and retrospective clinical data to make a case for randomized controlled clinical trials of PPIs in IPF.

SUBMITTER: Ghebre YT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5966555 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Proton Pump Inhibitors in IPF: A Call for Clinical Trials.

Ghebre Yohannes T YT

Frontiers in pharmacology 20180517

The recent FDA approval of two drugs, pirfenidone and nintedanib, for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) has fueled interest in the development of additional drugs to treat the disease or its major clinical complications including cough and acute exacerbations. Since 2015, there are at least a dozen active interventional studies that are testing the efficacy of novel pharmacotherapies, exercise or stem cells in modifying the disease process in IPF. Additionally, there are combi ...[more]

PMID: 29867501

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsPotassium-Competitive Acid Blockers (P-CABs) have been used in Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapies in recent years. However, the efficacy and safety of P-CABs compared to Proton-Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) in this setting remain controversial.MethodsThe efficacy and safety of P-CABs and PPIs for H. pylori eradication were compared in a meta-analysis based on a systematic literature search of major electronic databases for relevant Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).ResultsSeven studies and 1,168 patients were included. The pooled eradication rate determined by Intention-To-Treat (ITT) analysis was 90.2% for P-CAB-based and 75.5% for PPI-based triple therapy (pooled RR [95% CI] = 1.17 [1.08-1.28], p < 0.001). The Per-Protocol (PP) analysis also demonstrated significant superiority of P-CABs (pooled eradication rate = 92.4% vs. 77.8%; pooled RR [95% CI] = 1.14 [1.03-1.26], p < 0.01). In a subgroup evaluation, P-CABs were significantly better than PPIs as a first-line eradication therapy, in both the ITT analysis (pooled eradication rate = 91.8% vs. 76.4%; pooled RR [95% CI] = 1.18 [1.10-1.28], p < 0.0001) and the PP analysis (pooled eradication rate = 93.0% vs. 78.6%; pooled RR [95% CI] = 1.13 [1.02-1.26], p < 0.05). However, P-CABs were not superior to PPIs when administered as salvage therapy, as determined in the ITT (75.0% vs. 66.0%, pooled RR [95% CI] = 1.11 [0.69-1.78], p = 0.66) and PP (85.7% vs. 70.0%, pooled RR [95% CI] = 1.20 [0.82-1.75], p = 0.34) analyses. In a subgroup analysis limited to Japanese patients, both the ITT analysis (pooled eradication rate = 89.6% vs. 73.9%; RR [95% CI] = 1.21 [1.14-1.29], p < 0.01) and the PP analysis (pooled eradication rate = 92.0% vs. 75.7%; RR [95% CI] = 1.18 [1.06-1.32], p < 0.01) showed that P-CABs were significantly superior compared to PPIs as triple eradication therapy. However, in the subgroup analysis of patients from other countries, there was no significant difference in either the ITT analysis (pooled eradication rate = 93.8% vs. 85.2%; RR [95% CI] = 1.10 [0.99-1.22], p = 0.07) or PP analysis (pooled eradication rate = 95.0% vs. 90.8%; RR [95% CI] = 1.05 [0.98-1.14], p = 0.17). The incidence of adverse events associated with the two regimens did not significantly differ (P-CABs vs. PPIs: 33.6% vs. 40.0%; RR [95% CI] = 0.84 [0.71‒1.00], p = 0.05). The incidence of serious adverse events and dropout rate due to adverse events also did not differ (p = 0.44 and p = 0.67, respectively).ConclusionsThe efficacy of P-CAB-based triple therapy is superior to that of PPI-based triple therapy as a first-line approach to H. pylori eradication, particularly in Japanese patients. As salvage therapy, the efficacy of the two treatments did not significantly differ. The tolerability of P-CAB-based and PPI-based triple therapy was comparable, as was the incidence of adverse events.

Dataset Information

Proton Pump Inhibitors in IPF: A Call for Clinical Trials.

Publications

Proton Pump Inhibitors in IPF: A Call for Clinical Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets