信:荟萃分析评论:细化幽门螺杆菌与嗜酸性粒细胞性食管炎之间的关系

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Haleema Rahman
{"title":"信:荟萃分析评论:细化幽门螺杆菌与嗜酸性粒细胞性食管炎之间的关系","authors":"Haleema Rahman","doi":"10.1111/apt.70122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Editors,</p><p>I was intrigued by the meta-analysis from Spinelli et al. [<span>1</span>], which reported a 46% reduction in odds of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) with <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> exposure (odds ratio [OR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43–0.67). This analysis of 19 studies and over 1.7 million participants advances understanding of this inverse relationship. However, I propose methodological refinements to strengthen its conclusions.</p><p>First, while <i>H. pylori</i> is framed as a hygiene marker, confounding by socioeconomic status (SES) or environmental factors was under-explored. The prevalence of <i>H. pylori</i> varies widely, potentially reflecting SES disparities in diet or healthcare access that independently affect EoE risk [<span>2</span>]. This suggests the association may partly stem from unadjusted confounders. Multivariate adjustment for SES, as demonstrated in similar contexts [<span>3</span>], could refine causal inference.</p><p>Second, combining hospital-based and population-based studies risks selection bias. Symptomatic hospital cohorts are more likely to undergo <i>H. pylori</i> testing than patients with milder disease in population samples, skewing the pooled OR [<span>4</span>]. The authors attributed heterogeneity to diagnostic criteria, but the recruitment setting warrants sensitivity analysis to assess its impact.</p><p>Third, the timing of <i>H. pylori</i> exposure versus EoE onset remains ambiguous. Although current versus past infections are hard to distinguish, reverse causation—where EoE treatments like proton pump inhibitors alter <i>H. pylori</i> detection [<span>5</span>], was not addressed. Gastric biopsies outperformed serology, suggesting that active infection matters. However, longitudinal data are needed to clarify directionality.</p><p>Lastly, publication bias assessment relies on funnel plots without quantitative validation (e.g., Egger's test [<span>6</span>]). The stronger post-2019 effect (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28–0.68) may indicate selective reporting, inflating the estimate. Including unpublished data could enhance robustness.</p><p>These points highlight opportunities to refine this valuable study. We encourage future work to address these gaps, ensuring a more precise understanding of <i>H. pylori</i>'s role in EoE.</p><p><b>Haleema Rahman:</b> conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, validation.</p><p>The author declares no conflicts of interest.</p><p>This article is linked to Spinelli et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.70042 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.70135.</p>","PeriodicalId":121,"journal":{"name":"Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics","volume":"61 10","pages":"1729-1730"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/apt.70122","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Letter: Meta-Analysis Critique: Refining the Association Between Helicobacter pylori and Eosinophilic Oesophagitis\",\"authors\":\"Haleema Rahman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/apt.70122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Editors,</p><p>I was intrigued by the meta-analysis from Spinelli et al. [<span>1</span>], which reported a 46% reduction in odds of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) with <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> exposure (odds ratio [OR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43–0.67). This analysis of 19 studies and over 1.7 million participants advances understanding of this inverse relationship. However, I propose methodological refinements to strengthen its conclusions.</p><p>First, while <i>H. pylori</i> is framed as a hygiene marker, confounding by socioeconomic status (SES) or environmental factors was under-explored. The prevalence of <i>H. pylori</i> varies widely, potentially reflecting SES disparities in diet or healthcare access that independently affect EoE risk [<span>2</span>]. This suggests the association may partly stem from unadjusted confounders. Multivariate adjustment for SES, as demonstrated in similar contexts [<span>3</span>], could refine causal inference.</p><p>Second, combining hospital-based and population-based studies risks selection bias. Symptomatic hospital cohorts are more likely to undergo <i>H. pylori</i> testing than patients with milder disease in population samples, skewing the pooled OR [<span>4</span>]. The authors attributed heterogeneity to diagnostic criteria, but the recruitment setting warrants sensitivity analysis to assess its impact.</p><p>Third, the timing of <i>H. pylori</i> exposure versus EoE onset remains ambiguous. Although current versus past infections are hard to distinguish, reverse causation—where EoE treatments like proton pump inhibitors alter <i>H. pylori</i> detection [<span>5</span>], was not addressed. Gastric biopsies outperformed serology, suggesting that active infection matters. However, longitudinal data are needed to clarify directionality.</p><p>Lastly, publication bias assessment relies on funnel plots without quantitative validation (e.g., Egger's test [<span>6</span>]). The stronger post-2019 effect (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28–0.68) may indicate selective reporting, inflating the estimate. Including unpublished data could enhance robustness.</p><p>These points highlight opportunities to refine this valuable study. We encourage future work to address these gaps, ensuring a more precise understanding of <i>H. pylori</i>'s role in EoE.</p><p><b>Haleema Rahman:</b> conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, validation.</p><p>The author declares no conflicts of interest.</p><p>This article is linked to Spinelli et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.70042 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.70135.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":121,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics\",\"volume\":\"61 10\",\"pages\":\"1729-1730\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/apt.70122\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apt.70122\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apt.70122","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

编辑们,我对Spinelli等人的荟萃分析很感兴趣,该分析报告幽门螺杆菌暴露可使嗜酸性粒细胞性食管炎(EoE)的发生率降低46%(优势比[OR] 0.54, 95%可信区间[CI] 0.43-0.67)。这项对19项研究和170多万参与者的分析促进了对这种反比关系的理解。然而,我建议改进方法以加强其结论。首先,虽然幽门螺杆菌被认为是一种卫生标志,但社会经济地位(SES)或环境因素的混杂性尚未得到充分研究。幽门螺杆菌的患病率差异很大,可能反映了SES在饮食或医疗保健方面的差异,这些差异独立地影响了EoE风险bb0。这表明这种关联可能部分源于未调整的混杂因素。在类似的情况下,对SES进行多变量调整可以改进因果推理。其次,结合以医院为基础的研究和以人群为基础的研究存在选择偏倚的风险。在人群样本中,有症状的医院队列比病情较轻的患者更有可能接受幽门螺杆菌检测,从而扭曲了汇总的OR bb0。作者将异质性归因于诊断标准,但招募设置需要进行敏感性分析以评估其影响。第三,幽门螺杆菌暴露与EoE发病的时间仍然不明确。虽然目前的感染和过去的感染很难区分,但反向因果关系——质子泵抑制剂等EoE治疗改变幽门螺杆菌检测[5],并没有得到解决。胃活检优于血清学,表明活动性感染很重要。然而,需要纵向数据来澄清方向性。最后,发表偏倚评估依赖于没有定量验证的漏斗图(例如,Egger检验[6])。较强的2019年后效应(OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.68)可能表明选择性报告,夸大了估计。包括未发表的数据可以增强稳健性。这些要点突出了完善这一有价值的研究的机会。我们鼓励未来的工作来解决这些空白,确保更准确地了解幽门螺杆菌在EoE中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Letter: Meta-Analysis Critique: Refining the Association Between Helicobacter pylori and Eosinophilic Oesophagitis

Editors,

I was intrigued by the meta-analysis from Spinelli et al. [1], which reported a 46% reduction in odds of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) with Helicobacter pylori exposure (odds ratio [OR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43–0.67). This analysis of 19 studies and over 1.7 million participants advances understanding of this inverse relationship. However, I propose methodological refinements to strengthen its conclusions.

First, while H. pylori is framed as a hygiene marker, confounding by socioeconomic status (SES) or environmental factors was under-explored. The prevalence of H. pylori varies widely, potentially reflecting SES disparities in diet or healthcare access that independently affect EoE risk [2]. This suggests the association may partly stem from unadjusted confounders. Multivariate adjustment for SES, as demonstrated in similar contexts [3], could refine causal inference.

Second, combining hospital-based and population-based studies risks selection bias. Symptomatic hospital cohorts are more likely to undergo H. pylori testing than patients with milder disease in population samples, skewing the pooled OR [4]. The authors attributed heterogeneity to diagnostic criteria, but the recruitment setting warrants sensitivity analysis to assess its impact.

Third, the timing of H. pylori exposure versus EoE onset remains ambiguous. Although current versus past infections are hard to distinguish, reverse causation—where EoE treatments like proton pump inhibitors alter H. pylori detection [5], was not addressed. Gastric biopsies outperformed serology, suggesting that active infection matters. However, longitudinal data are needed to clarify directionality.

Lastly, publication bias assessment relies on funnel plots without quantitative validation (e.g., Egger's test [6]). The stronger post-2019 effect (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28–0.68) may indicate selective reporting, inflating the estimate. Including unpublished data could enhance robustness.

These points highlight opportunities to refine this valuable study. We encourage future work to address these gaps, ensuring a more precise understanding of H. pylori's role in EoE.

Haleema Rahman: conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, validation.

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

This article is linked to Spinelli et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.70042 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.70135.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.60
自引率
7.90%
发文量
527
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics is a global pharmacology journal focused on the impact of drugs on the human gastrointestinal and hepato-biliary systems. It covers a diverse range of topics, often with immediate clinical relevance to its readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信