目的 研究质子泵抑制剂在反流性食管炎维持治疗的临床疗效。 方法 将2009年3月-月门诊及住院的121例反流性食管炎并胃镜证实病灶已愈合，且停药1周内症状又复发者，随机分为A、B、C 3组，3组均选用兰索拉唑。A组为兰索拉唑15 mg，1次/d，早餐前服；B组为兰索拉唑15 mg，1次/d，晚餐前服；C组兰索拉唑15 mg，2次/d，餐前服。3组疗程均为4周。疗程结束后进行临床症状疗效评定，并予复查胃镜，评价3组胃镜下总有效率，并观察3组不良反应。 结果 三种方案有效率分别为77.5%、95.0%、92.7%。 结论 晚餐前15 mg 1次/d的兰索拉唑为反流性食管炎较佳维持治疗方案。
Objective To compare proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and H2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) for both the prevention of bleeding and the healing of ulcer after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), so as to provide best evidence for treating ESD-induced ulcer in clinic. Methods Databases including PubMed, CENTRAL, EMbase, ISI Web of Knowledge, VIP, CNKI, CBM and WanFang Data were searched from the date of their establishment to October 26, 2012 to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about comparison of PPI and H2RA on the prevention of bleeding and the healing of ulcer after ESD. Meanwhile the references of the included studies were also retrieved manually. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by four reviewers independently, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results A total of 6 studies involving 616 patients were included finally. The results of meta-analysis showed that: for the prevention of ulcer bleeding after ESD, PPI preceded H2RA apparently (OR=0.51, 95%CI 0.29 to 0.89, P=0.02), especially when the treatment course was 8-week (OR=0.43, 95%CI 0.22 to 0.82, P=0.01); but among the merged, 8-week and 4-week groups, there were no significant differences between PPI and H2RA in the healing of ESD-induced ulcer (OR=0.85, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.86, P=0.69; OR=1.33, 95%CI 0.28 to 6.27, P=0.72; OR=0.75, 95%CI 0.31 to 1.79, P=0.52). Conclusion PPI is superior to H2RA for the prevention of ulcer bleeding induced by ESD, but there is no significant difference between them in the healing of ulcer, so PPI is recommended to prevent ESD-induced ulcer bleeding in clinic. Due to the limitation of quantity and quality of the included studies, the safety of PPI has to be further proved by conducting more high quality, large scale and multicenter RCTs.
目的 探讨H2受体拮抗剂和质子泵抑制剂（PPI）缓解急性胃黏膜损伤的时效性研究。 方法 对2008年1月－2010年1月在急诊科就诊的98例急性乙醇中毒后胃黏膜损伤患者，随机分为对照组50例，治疗组48例。常规给予休息、保暖，补液，维持水、电解质、酸碱平衡，维持循环功能等治疗基础上，对照组给予H2受体拮抗剂治疗，治疗组给予PPI治疗。通过观察急性胃黏膜损伤患者上消化道症状及体征，记录不同饮酒及饮酒量，并根据患者就诊时间及不同饮酒组治疗后上消化道症状完全缓解时间进行比较。 结果 治疗组上消化道症状缓解所需时间与对照组比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.001），不同饮酒组上消化道症状缓解时间上差异有统计学意义（P=0.000）。 结论 PPI在缓解急性乙醇中毒所致胃黏膜损伤的时效上更明显，具有临床价值。
【摘要】 目的 〖JP2〗研究质子泵抑制剂（PPI）是否为危重患者发生医院获得性肺炎的危险因素。 方法 收集2002年6月-2009年6月收治的198例重症患者资料，分为使用PPI组（96例）和未使用PPI组（102例）。采用logistic回归分析PPI使用情况和医院获得性肺炎的关系。 结果 使用PPI组肺炎的发生率较高（26.9%），尤其是PPI使用时间超过7 d者（37.5%）。在不同的多变量logistic回归模型中，分别用APACHE Ⅱ评分和入住重症监护室原因校正后，使用PPI以及使用天数均是医院获得性肺炎发生的危险因素（P=0.031，OR＝2.230，95%CI：1.957~2.947；P=0.002，OR＝1.824，95%CI：1.457~2.242）。 结论 长时间应用PPI可能是增加ICU患者发生医院获得性肺炎的一种风险因素。【Abstract】 Objective To identify whether proton pump inhibitors (PPI) is a risk factor of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) in critical patients. Methods The clinical data of the critical patients admitted to ICU from June 2002 to June 2009 were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 198 patients were divided into two groups: 96 in PPI group and 102 in non-PPI group. The relationship between PPI and HAP was analyzed by logistic regression. Results The patients in PPI group had a higher risk of HAP (26.9%), especially who were treated with PPI more than 7 days (37.5%). Adjusted by APACHE Ⅱ score and reason for admission to ICU, PPI therapy and the using duration of PPI were both the risk factors of HAP in different multiple logistic models (P=0.031, OR=2.230, 95%CI: 1.957-2.947; P=0.002, OR=1.824, 95%CI: 1.457-2.242). Conclusion Long-term use of PPI is a risk factor of HAP.
ObjectiveTo further evaluate the relation between usage of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and the risk of pancreatic cancer. MethodThe observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP. The combined odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of pancreatic cancer risk were estimated by the corresponding effect model according to the heterogeneous results, and the subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis were performed. In addition, the relation between the defined daily dose (DDD) and usage time of PPI and the pancreatic cancer risk were studied by using restricted cubic spline. ResultsA total of 14 studies were included, including 1 601 430 subjects. The meta-analysis result showed that usage of PPI was positively correlated with the risk of pancreatic cancer [I2=98.9%, OR (95%CI)=1.60 (1.21, 2.11), P<0.001]. The subgroup analysis results showed that usage of PPI would increase the risk of pancreatic cancer in the subgroups of literature published before 2018 [OR (95%CI)=1.88 (1.05, 3.38), P=0.034], non-Asian regions [OR (95%CI)=1.37 (1.04, 1.82), P=0.028], case-control studies [OR (95%CI)=1.59 (1.16, 2.18), P=0.004], cohort studies [OR (95%CI)=1.65 (1.13, 2.39), P=0.009], and high-quality studies [OR (95%CI)=1.62 (1.19, 2.20), P=0.002]. The dose-response curve showed that there was a nonlinear relation between the usage of PPI and the risk of pancreatic cancer (χ2linear=2.27, P=0.132; Pnonlinear=0.039). When the usage of PPI was 800 DDD or less, usage of PPI would increase the risk of pancreatic cancer, but there was no statistical significance when the usage of PPI was more than 800 DDD. The time-effect curve showed that there was a linear relation between the usage time of PPI and the risk of pancreatic cancer (χ2linear=6.92, P=0.009), and the risk of pancreatic cancer would increase by 2.3% if the usage of PPI increased by one month [OR=1.02, 95%CI (1.01, 1.04), P=0.009]. The sensitivity analysis confirmed that the results were stable by gradually eliminating each study, the OR (95%CI) of the risk of pancreatic cancer was 1.37 (1.08, 1.74) to 1.66 (1.22, 2.27), and the publication bias was not found by Egger test (P=0.594).ConclusionsFrom the results of this meta-analysis, usage of PPI will increase the risk of pancreatic cancer, and the dosage of PPI and usage time of PPI may be related to the risk of pancreatic cancer. The clinical usage of PPI should be strictly controlled, and the dosage and usage time should also be carefully considered.
ObjectiveTo research on the advances of stress ulcer drug prophylaxis. MethodsGuidelines for stress ulcer prophylaxis in and out of China were searched and analyzed. Risk factors for stress ulcer, recommended prevention drugs and safety of medicines were summarized. ResultsThe risk factors for stress ulcer included mechanical ventilation, coagulopathy, severe sepsis, multiple organ failure, shock, severe head injury, burns, major trauma, older than 65 and drug use. The recommended prevention drugs included proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonist and misoprostol, which played a role in the reduction of bleeding in intensive care units. However, recommended drugs had little function in the reduction of bleeding in general patients outside the intensive care units, which was even not recommended or supported in the clinical literature. Related adverse effects of these drugs also needed careful consideration. ConclusionExistence of risk factors for stress ulcer does not necessarily indicate the use of preventive drugs. Drug prophylaxis is used only for critically ill patients. This view summarized by the author provides a reference for physicians and pharmacists.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of hydrotalcite in the treatment of reflux esophagitis (RE).MethodsCBM, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched online to collect randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of hydrotalcite or hydrotalcite plus PPI versus PPI alone in the treatment of RE from inception to June 30th, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 15 RCTs involving 1 655 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: after 4-8 weeks of treatment, there was no significant difference between hydrotalcite vs. PPI regarding RE healing rates (RR=0.87, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.00, P=0.05). However, there were significant increases in RE healing rate (RR=1.22, 95%CI 1.14 to 1.31, P<0.001) and symptom relief rate (RR=1.36, 95%CI 1.12 to 1.66,P<0.01) between hydrotalcite plus PPIvs. PPI alone. Similar increases of RE healing rate (RR=1.16, 95%CI 1.08 to 1.25, P<0.001) and symptom relief rate (RR=1.12, 95%CI 1.04 to 1.20,P<0.01) were seen in patients with refractory RE. No increase of adverse effect rate was shown with hydrotalcite or hydrotalcite plus PPI compared to PPI alone.ConclusionsCompared with PPI alone, hydrotalcite plus PPI confers a statistically significant improvement of healing rate and symptom relief rate, while it does not increase adverse effect rate. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.
Objective To make an individualized treatment plan for one first-visit gastro-esophageal reflux disease patient via evidence-based medicine methods. Methods The condition of the patient was evaluated comprehensively, then clinical problems were put forward according to PICO principle, and high-quality evidence was collected from The Cochrane Library (1990 to 2010), PubMed (1990 to 2010), and EMbase (1990 to 2010). The treatment plan was designed based on the evaluation of evidence, doctor’s experience, and patient’s preferences. Results A total of 17 RCTs and 10 meta-analyses/ systematic reviews were included. The evidence showed that the therapeutic effect of PPI was better than that of H2RA, and meanwhile prokinetic drugs should be used. When PPI needed to be use for a long time, HP eradication operation was required for the combination of HP inflammation. Laparoscopic fundoplication surgery was a better choice if the operation was required. Based on the above evidence combined with the patient’s preferences, the combination of general treatment, esomeprazole and cisaPride were adopted to treat. Meanwhile, anti-HP medicine was used to control the HP inflammation caused by the long-term maintenance therapy. The gastro-esophageal reflux symptoms were remarkably relieved six months after the treatment. Conclusion PPI plus prokinetic drugs, combined with HP eradication of gastroesophageal reflux surgery, can improve the clinical outcomes and patient’s quality of life. However, long-term prognostic benefits need to be confirmed by further follow-up.
Objective To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitor （PPI） and H2RA for stress ulcer bleeding in stroke patients. Methods Randomized controlled trials （RCT） were identified from MEDLINE （ 1966- Oct. 2005 ） ,EMBASE （ 1984- Oct. 2005 ）, The Cochrane Library （ Issue 4,2005 ）, CBMdisc （ 1980- Oct. 2005 ） and VIP（ 1980- Oct. 2005 ）. We handsearched the related published and unpublished data and their references. The quality of included trials was evaluated. Data were extracted by two reviewers independently with a designed extraction form. RevMan 4. 2.7 software was used for data analysis. Results Twenty RCT were included with 2 624 patients. The results of meta-analysis were listed as follows： （1） stress ulcer bleeding （SUB） ： PPI （ OR 0.14,95% CI 0.08 to 0.24, NNT = 3 ） and H2RA （OR 0.24,95% CI 0.15 to 0.39, NNT =5） significantly reduced the incidence of SUB in comparison with control group. PPI significantly reduced the incidence of SUB compared with H2R.A（P 〈0. 00001 ）. （2） Mortality： PPI （OR 0.22,95% CI 0. 11 to 0.47, NNT =8） and H2RA （OR 0.53,95% CI 0. 34 to 0.81, NNT =16） significantly decreased the mortality compared with non-prophylaxis group. PPI significantly decreased the mortality compared with H2RA （OR 0.28,95% CI 0.09 to 0. 89）. （3） Adverse effect： There were not evident adverse effects in both PPI and H2RA groups. Conclusions PPI and H2RA may reduce the incidence and mortality of SUB in stroke patients, and PPls are better in reducing incidence of SUB than H2RA.
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used in digestive system diseases, but long-term use of PPI may cause Clostridium difficile infection, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and gastrointestinal barrier dysfunction. Probiotics can improve the digestive tract microecological disorder caused by the application of PPI by inhibiting the colonization of bacteria in the intestinal tract, regulating the body’s immunity, reducing the pH value of the intestinal tract, and enhancing the barrier function of the intestinal mucosa. This article elaborates on the influence of PPI on the microecology of the digestive tract and the regulation of probiotics on the microecology of the digestive tract, aiming to provide some ideas for the digestive tract microecological disorders caused by the application of PPI in clinical practice and their intervention strategies.