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.
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.