The Tibetan herbal formula Padma Digestin in functional dyspepsia: an open-label study.

BACKGROUND: The etiology of functional dyspepsia (FD) is multi-factorial. Its prevalence is high and it considerably impairs the patients' quality of life. The treatment options are limited. Padma Digestin, a multi-herbal formula from Tibetan Medicine, is traditionally used in malabsorption and dyspeptic symptoms as they do occur in FD, but as yet no clinical data exist on the formula. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of Padma Digestin in patients with FD in a prospective, open, clinical phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were recruited by general practitioners, internists, and gastroenterologists and treated with 2 × 3 capsules of Padma Digestin daily for 6 weeks. Dyspeptic symptoms were analyzed using the Domestic/International Gastroenterology Surveillance Study (DIGEST) questionnaire extended by the 2 symptoms stomach cramps and lack of appetite. The quality of life was assessed using the Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI-S) questionnaire (short version). RESULTS: 37 patients were admitted and efficacy could be assessed in 31. In the overall efficacy assessment, the Padma Digestin treatment led to a statistically highly significant reduction of the respective most bothersome symptom scores regarding frequency, severity, and impairment of daily activities (p < 0.01). The treatment also led to significant improvements of the individual symptoms of postprandial fullness, nausea, localized and diffuse epigastric pain, stomach cramps, and lack of appetite. The onset of improvement was after a median of 7 days; time until disappearance of the symptoms was after a median of 22 days. The global efficacy and tolerability were rated as good or very good by the doctors and the patients in 84% and 78%, respectively. The PGWBI-S increased from 55 ± 19.5% to 70.5 ± 15.5%, which is nearly the normal value (73.5 ± 15.4%). As for safety, 11 patients reported a total of 17 adverse events (AE), 1 of which was serious but unrelated to the study medication. The AE were mild or moderate. The safety laboratory data showed no statistically significant or otherwise relevant changes. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the formula Padma Digestin has a high tolerability and efficacy in FD symptoms and positively influences psychological well-being and thus quality of life. It therefore represents a much needed extension of the therapeutic repertoire in FD.

Improved capsule endoscopy after bowel preparation.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy depends on the quality of visualization of the small-bowel wall and complete passage through the small bowel. This study examined the effect of bowel preparation on the volume of intestinal content and on small-bowel transit. METHODS: Sixty-one consecutive patients (34 men, 27 women; mean age 56 years, range 17-88 years) were enrolled in the study. Although not randomized, 33 patients received a bowel preparation, and 28 had no preparation. Gastric emptying, small-bowel transit time, overall preparation assessment, and bowel-wall visualization were evaluated by 3 investigators who were unaware of whether the patient had undergone bowel preparation. RESULTS: Small-bowel transit time was significantly shorter in patients with bowel preparation (median 213 minutes: 95% CI[190, 267]) than in those without preparation (median 253 minutes: 95% CI[228, 307]) (p <0.01). The capsule reached the cecum in 97% of patients in the bowel-preparation group, compared with 76% in the nonpreparation group (p=0.02). Bowel preparation improved the quality of visualization significantly; this effect was more pronounced in the distal small bowel. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that bowel preparation accelerates small-bowel capsule transit and leads to a higher rate of complete capsule endoscopy. Visualization of the small bowel was improved by bowel preparation. Bowel preparation before capsule endoscopy is recommended.

Clinical outcomes of primary stenting versus balloon angioplasty in patients with myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To examine whether primary stenting as compared with primary balloon angioplasty reduces clinical outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction. METHODS: Major medical databases from 1979 to March 2002 were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared primary stenting with balloon angioplasty in patients with myocardial infarction. Two independent reviewers selected and extracted data from identified trials. The outcomes were mortality at 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months; recurrent events; and bleeding. RESULTS: Nine trials with a total of 4433 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The odds ratios for mortality after stenting as compared with balloon angioplasty were 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78 to 1.74) at 30 days, 1.07 (95% CI: 0.76 to 1.52) at 6 months, and 1.09 (95% CI: 0.80 to 1.50) at 12 months (P for heterogeneity >0.1 for each comparison). The odds ratios for reinfarction after stenting as compared with balloon angioplasty were 0.52 (95% CI: 0.31 to 0.87) at 30 days, 0.67 (95% CI: 0.45 to 1.00) at 6 months, and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.45 to 0.99) at 12 months; for target vessel revascularization, they were 0.46 (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.61) at 30 days, 0.42 (95% CI: 0.35 to 0.51) at 6 months, and 0.48 (95% CI: 0.39 to 0.59) at 12 months (P for heterogeneity >0.1 for all estimates with the exception of reinfarction at 12 months where P=0.08). The odds ratio for postinterventional bleeding complications after stenting as compared with balloon angioplasty was 1.34 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.88; P for heterogeneity >0.1). CONCLUSION: Compared with balloon angioplasty, primary stenting is not associated with lower mortality, but is associated with a lower risk of reinfarction and target vessel revascularization.

Clinical outcomes of stents versus balloon angioplasty in non-acute coronary artery disease. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: To evaluate whether stents as compared to balloon angioplasty reduce mortality in patients with non-acute coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified randomized controlled trials comparing stents to balloon angioplasty for the treatment of non-acute coronary artery disease by searching major medical databases from 1979 to March 2002. Two independent reviewers selected and extracted data from trials that had to report data on death and myocardial infarction. Nineteen trials, with a total of 8004 patients, fulfilled our inclusion criteria. For 1000 patients treated with stents rather than balloon angioplasty, 3 (95% CI 0-6), 5 (95% CI 0-9), and 6 (95% CI -1-12) additional lives were saved at 30 days, 6 and 12 months. At 12 months, for 1000 patients treated with stents rather than balloon angioplasty 46 (95% CI 25-66) additional target vessel revascularizations were avoided, but 25 (95% CI 15-34) additional bleeding complications with need for blood transfusion or surgical intervention occurred. In sensitivity analysis 11 (95% CI 2-20) and 2 (95% CI -4-7) deaths were avoided per 1000 patients treated with stents rather than PTCA in trials that routinely used compared to trials that did not use glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. CONCLUSION: In non-acute coronary disease stents may reduce overall mortality, but this benefit seems to be limited to stents used in conjunction with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Stents compared to PTCA reduce target vessel revascularizations, but increase the risk of bleeding complications.

Evidence for prevention and screening: recommendations in adults.

A growing body of evidence supports preventive interventions in asymptomatic adults. Primary prevention, which includes counselling (in particular for smoking cessation) and review of immunisation status, has been shown to be more cost-effective than secondary prevention. Evidence supports screening for hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer and obesity. Screening for lung, pancreatic and ovarian cancer has no effect on outcome and should not be performed. Controversial preventive interventions include general screening for diabetes mellitus, thyroid disorders and prostate cancer. Physicians should be aware of a possible hidden agenda in patients presenting for a checkup.

N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Observational studies have shown an inconsistent association between n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and the risk of coronary heart disease. We investigated the effects of dietary and non-dietary (supplemental) intake of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids on coronary heart disease. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We searched the literature to identify randomized controlled trials that compared dietary or non-dietary intake of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids with a control diet or placebo in patients with coronary heart disease. Studies had to have at least 6 months of follow-up data, and to have reported clinical endpoint data. We identified 11 trials, published between 1966 and 1999, which included 7951 patients in the intervention and 7855 patients in the control groups. RESULTS: The risk ratio of nonfatal myocardial infarction in patients who were on n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid-enriched diets compared with control diets or placebo was 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5 to 1.2, P = 0.16; Breslow-Day test for heterogeneity, P = 0.01), and the risk ratio of fatal myocardial infarction was 0.7 (95% CI: 0.6 to 0.8, P <0.001; heterogeneity P >0.20). In 5 trials, sudden death was associated with a risk ratio of 0.7 (95% CI: 0.6 to 0.9, P <0.01; heterogeneity P >0.20), whereas the risk ratio of overall mortality was 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7 to 0.9, P <0.001; heterogeneity P >0.20). There was no difference in summary estimates between dietary and non-dietary interventions of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids for all endpoints. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that dietary and non-dietary intake of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces overall mortality, mortality due to myocardial infarction, and sudden death in patients with coronary heart disease.