Cargando…

Comparative efficacy of first-line therapeutic interventions for achalasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Several interventions with variable efficacy are available as first-line therapy for patients with achalasia. We assessed the comparative efficacy of different strategies for management of achalasia, through a network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect treatment comparisons. MET...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Facciorusso, Antonio, Singh, Siddharth, Abbas Fehmi, Syed M., Annese, Vito, Lipham, John, Yadlapati, Rena
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8011535/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32856150
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07920-x
_version_ 1783673241016991744
author Facciorusso, Antonio
Singh, Siddharth
Abbas Fehmi, Syed M.
Annese, Vito
Lipham, John
Yadlapati, Rena
author_facet Facciorusso, Antonio
Singh, Siddharth
Abbas Fehmi, Syed M.
Annese, Vito
Lipham, John
Yadlapati, Rena
author_sort Facciorusso, Antonio
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Several interventions with variable efficacy are available as first-line therapy for patients with achalasia. We assessed the comparative efficacy of different strategies for management of achalasia, through a network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect treatment comparisons. METHODS: We identified six randomized controlled trials in adults with achalasia that compared the efficacy of pneumatic dilation (PD; n = 260), laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM; n = 309), and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM; n = 176). Primary efficacy outcome was 1-year treatment success (patient-reported improvement in symptoms based on validated scores); secondary efficacy outcomes were 2-year treatment success and physiologic improvement; safety outcomes were risk of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), severe erosive esophagitis, and procedure-related serious adverse events. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis for all treatments, and used GRADE criteria to appraise quality of evidence. RESULTS: Low-quality evidence, based primarily on direct evidence, supports the use of POEM (RR [risk ratio], 1.29; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.99–1.69), and LHM (RR, 1.18 [0.96–1.44]) over PD for treatment success at 1 year; no significant difference was observed between LHM and POEM (RR 1.09 [0.86–1.39]). The incidence of severe esophagitis after POEM, LHM, and PD was 5.3%, 3.7%, and 1.5%, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse event rate after POEM, LHM, and PD was 1.4%, 6.7%, and 4.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: POEM and LHM have comparable efficacy, and may increase treatment success as compared to PD with low confidence in estimates. POEM may have lower rate of serious adverse events compared to LHM and PD, but higher rate of GERD. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-020-07920-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8011535
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80115352021-07-20 Comparative efficacy of first-line therapeutic interventions for achalasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis Facciorusso, Antonio Singh, Siddharth Abbas Fehmi, Syed M. Annese, Vito Lipham, John Yadlapati, Rena Surg Endosc Article BACKGROUND: Several interventions with variable efficacy are available as first-line therapy for patients with achalasia. We assessed the comparative efficacy of different strategies for management of achalasia, through a network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect treatment comparisons. METHODS: We identified six randomized controlled trials in adults with achalasia that compared the efficacy of pneumatic dilation (PD; n = 260), laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM; n = 309), and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM; n = 176). Primary efficacy outcome was 1-year treatment success (patient-reported improvement in symptoms based on validated scores); secondary efficacy outcomes were 2-year treatment success and physiologic improvement; safety outcomes were risk of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), severe erosive esophagitis, and procedure-related serious adverse events. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis for all treatments, and used GRADE criteria to appraise quality of evidence. RESULTS: Low-quality evidence, based primarily on direct evidence, supports the use of POEM (RR [risk ratio], 1.29; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.99–1.69), and LHM (RR, 1.18 [0.96–1.44]) over PD for treatment success at 1 year; no significant difference was observed between LHM and POEM (RR 1.09 [0.86–1.39]). The incidence of severe esophagitis after POEM, LHM, and PD was 5.3%, 3.7%, and 1.5%, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse event rate after POEM, LHM, and PD was 1.4%, 6.7%, and 4.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: POEM and LHM have comparable efficacy, and may increase treatment success as compared to PD with low confidence in estimates. POEM may have lower rate of serious adverse events compared to LHM and PD, but higher rate of GERD. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-020-07920-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2020-08-27 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8011535/ /pubmed/32856150 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07920-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Facciorusso, Antonio
Singh, Siddharth
Abbas Fehmi, Syed M.
Annese, Vito
Lipham, John
Yadlapati, Rena
Comparative efficacy of first-line therapeutic interventions for achalasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title Comparative efficacy of first-line therapeutic interventions for achalasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full Comparative efficacy of first-line therapeutic interventions for achalasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparative efficacy of first-line therapeutic interventions for achalasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparative efficacy of first-line therapeutic interventions for achalasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_short Comparative efficacy of first-line therapeutic interventions for achalasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_sort comparative efficacy of first-line therapeutic interventions for achalasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8011535/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32856150
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07920-x
work_keys_str_mv AT facciorussoantonio comparativeefficacyoffirstlinetherapeuticinterventionsforachalasiaasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT singhsiddharth comparativeefficacyoffirstlinetherapeuticinterventionsforachalasiaasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT abbasfehmisyedm comparativeefficacyoffirstlinetherapeuticinterventionsforachalasiaasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT annesevito comparativeefficacyoffirstlinetherapeuticinterventionsforachalasiaasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT liphamjohn comparativeefficacyoffirstlinetherapeuticinterventionsforachalasiaasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT yadlapatirena comparativeefficacyoffirstlinetherapeuticinterventionsforachalasiaasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis