Search

Background: Recent clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of vonoprazan‐amoxicillin (VA) dual therapy as the first‐line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection in different regions with inconsistent results reported. In this systematic review and meta‐analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of VA dual therapy compared to the currently recommended therapy for eradicating H. pylori. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases was performed using the following search terms: ("Helicobacter" OR "H. pylori" OR "Hp") AND ("vonoprazan" OR "potassium‐competitive acid blocker" OR "P‐CAB") AND ("amoxicillin" OR "penicillin") AND ("dual"). The primary outcome was to evaluate the eradication rate according to intention‐to‐treat and per‐protocol analysis. The secondary outcomes were adverse events and compliance. Results: A total of 15 studies involving 4, 568 patients were included. The pooled eradication rate of VA dual therapy was 85.0% and 90.0% by intention‐to‐treat and per‐protocol analysis, respectively. The adverse events rate and compliance of VA dual therapy were 17.5% and 96%, respectively. The efficacy of VA dual therapy was superior to proton pump inhibitors‐based triple therapy (82.0% vs. 71.4%, p < 0.01) but lower than vonoprazan‐containing quadruple therapy (83.1% vs. 93.3%, p = 0.02). 7‐day VA dual therapy showed lower eradication rates than 10‐day (χ2 = 24.09, p < 0.01) and 14‐day VA dual therapy (χ2 = 11.87, p < 0.01). The adverse events rate of VA dual therapy was lower than vonoprazan triple therapy (24.6% vs. 30.9%, p = 0.01) and bismuth‐containing quadruple therapy (20.5% vs. 47.9%, p < 0.01). No significant difference of compliance was observed between VA dual therapy and each subgroup. Conclusion: VA dual therapy, a novel regimen, showed high efficacy as the first‐line treatment for H. pylori eradication, which should be optimized before application in different regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The purpose of this scoping review was to map out the existing literature on caffeine intake and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in adults. Methods: In this scoping review, we searched for all studies available until June 2019 in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register, PsycINFO, LILACS, LiSSa, Web of Science, and Joanna Briggs Institute electronic databases, in addition to a hand search of the bibliographies of all relevant articles and a gray literature search. Both intervention studies on the effects of caffeine reduction in adults with LUTS and observational studies on the association between caffeine intake and LUTS‐related outcomes in adults were included and assessed for methodological quality by two independent reviewers. Results: Fourteen intervention and 12 observational studies were included. Overall, there was a decrease in urgency episodes (level of evidence 2, grade of recommendation B) and nocturnal enuresis episodes (4, C) with caffeine reduction. Observational studies reported an unclear association between caffeine intake and LUTS‐related outcomes. Most importantly, this present review highlighted high heterogeneity in the studied populations, caffeine measures, and reported outcomes. There was also unknown or high risk of bias in most identified studies. Conclusions: Caffeine reduction appears to reduce LUTS. Future studies on caffeine reduction interventions should target populations with urgency and urge urinary incontinence, which show the most promising results, and include valid and reliable measures of caffeine intake and LUTS. Finally, future studies should also use reporting guidelines to ensure lower risk of bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]