Premedication with erythromycin improves endoscopic visualization of the gastric mucosa in patients with subtotal gastrectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

Characteristics of Metachronous Remnant Gastric Cancer After Proximal Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Analysis

PURPOSE

Despite annual endoscopy, patients with metachronous remnant gastric cancer (MRGC) following proximal gastrectomy (PG) are at times ineligible for endoscopic resection (ER). This study aimed to clarify the clinical risk factors for ER inapplicability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the records of 203 patients who underwent PG for cT1 gastric cancer between 2006 and 2015. The remnant stomach was categorized as a pseudofornix, corpus, or antrum.

RESULTS

Thirty-two MRGCs were identified in the 29 patients. Twenty MRGCs were classified as ER (ER group, 62.5%), whereas 12 were not (non-ER group, 37.5%). MRGCs were located in the pseudo-fornix in 1, corpus in 5, and antrum in 14 in the ER group, and in the pseudo-fornix in 6, corpus in 4, and antrum in 2 in the non-ER group (P=0.019). Multivariate analysis revealed that the pseudo-fornix was an independent risk factor for non-ER (P=0.014). In the non-ER group, MRGCs at the pseudo-fornix (n=6) had more frequent undifferentiated-type histology (4/6 vs. 0/6), deeper (≥pT1b2; 6/6 vs. 2/6) and nodal metastasis (3/6 vs. 0/6) than non-pseudo-fornix lesions (n=6). We examined the visibility of the region developing MRGC on an annual follow-up endoscopy one year before MRGC detection. In seven lesions at the pseudofornix, visibility was only secured in two (28.6%) because of food residues. Of the 25 lesions in the non-pseudo-fornix, visibility was secured in 21 lesions (84%; P=0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic visibility increases the chances of ER applicability. Special preparation is required to ensure the complete clearance of food residues in the pseudo-fornix.

Problems associated with the use of the term "antibiotics"

The term “antibiotics” is a broadly used misnomer to designate antibacterial drugs. In a recent article, we have proposed to replace, e.g., the term “antibiotics” by “antibacterial drugs”, “antibiosis” by “antibacterial therapy”, “antibiogram” by “antibacteriogram”, and “antibiotic stewardship” by “antibacterial stewardship” (Seifert and Schirmer Trends Microbiol, 2021). In the present article, we show that many traditional terms related to antibiotics are used much more widely in the biomedical literature than the respective scientifically precise terms. This practice should be stopped. Moreover, we provide arguments to end the use of other broadly used terms in the biomedical literature such as “narrow-spectrum antibiotics” and “reserve antibiotics”, “chemotherapeutics”, and “tuberculostatics”. Finally, we provide several examples showing that antibacterial drugs are used for non-antibacterial indications and that some non-antibacterial drugs are used for antibacterial indications now. Thus, the increasing importance of drug repurposing renders it important to drop short designations of drug classes such as “antibiotics”. Rather, the term “drug” should be explicitly used, facilitating the inclusion of newly emerging indications such as antipsychotic and anti-inflammatory. This article is part of an effort to implement a new rational nomenclature of drug classes across the entire field of pharmacology.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.