A prospective randomized comparative trial showing that omeprazole prevents rebleeding in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer after successful endoscopic therapy

Cyr N, Douen A, Fogel J, Trillo J. A retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes between hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received famotidine or pantoprazole

Background and Aim

There is limited research on the use of histamine-H2 receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors for treating COVID-19. We compare clinical outcomes between patients hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving famotidine or pantoprazole.

Methods

This retrospective study included 2184 patients (famotidine: n = 638, pantoprazole: n = 727, nonuse: n = 819) aged 18 years or older treated for COVID-19 from March 2020 to March 2021. Patients who received both famotidine and pantoprazole treatments were excluded. Multivariate logistic regression was used for the primary outcome, namely all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes, namely mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, acute kidney injury, and gastrointestinal bleeding. The main predictor variable was the use of famotidine or pantoprazole. Covariates were demographics, chronic diseases, and symptoms.

Results

As compared to nonuse, famotidine (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.20-0.44, P < 0.001) and pantoprazole (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.33-0.66, P < 0.001) were significantly associated with lower odds for all-cause mortality. Comparison of famotidine and pantoprazole showed that the former had lower odds for all-cause mortality (OR: 0.65, 95% CI:0.45-0.95, P < 0.05), mechanical ventilation (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.25-0.58, P < 0.001), vasopressor use (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.22-0.48, P < 0.001), acute kidney injury (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.30-0.54, P < 0.001), and gastrointestinal bleeding (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.29, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Famotidine is associated with lower odds for all-cause mortality, mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, acute kidney injury, and gastrointestinal bleeding as compared to pantoprazole in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We recommend that clinicians consider the use of famotidine over pantoprazole for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Future research with a clinical trial would be beneficial to further support such use of famotidine.

Effects of high-dose versus low-dose proton pump inhibitors for treatment of gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

We performed a meta-analysis to compare the effects of high-dose (80 mg/day) versus low-dose (40 mg/day) proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding.

Methods

We retrieved studies of randomized controlled trials of PPIs administered according to different schedules for the treatment of gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding from Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Database in April 2020.

Results

Nine randomized controlled trials including 2329 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in the incidences of re-bleeding, operation intervention, postoperative mortality, and length of hospital stay between the low-dose and high-dose groups. However, the blood transfusion volume was significantly higher in the high-dose group.

Conclusion

Compared with low-does PPIs, high-dose PPIs had no effect on the incidence of re-bleeding, operation intervention, or postoperative mortality, and did not reduce hospital stay in patients treated with endoscopic hemostasis for gastrointestinal bleeding.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Upper Gastrointestinal and Ulcer Bleeding

We performed systematic reviews addressing predefined clinical questions to develop recommendations with the GRADE approach regarding management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We suggest risk assessment in the emergency department to identify very-low-risk patients (e.g., Glasgow-Blatchford score = 0-1) who may be discharged with outpatient follow-up. For patients hospitalized with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we suggest red blood cell transfusion at a threshold of 7 g/dL. Erythromycin infusion is suggested before endoscopy, and endoscopy is suggested within 24 hours after presentation. Endoscopic therapy is recommended for ulcers with active spurting or oozing and for nonbleeding visible vessels. Endoscopic therapy with bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, and absolute ethanol injection is recommended, and low- to very-low-quality evidence also supports clips, argon plasma coagulation, and soft monopolar electrocoagulation; hemostatic powder spray TC-325 is suggested for actively bleeding ulcers and over-the-scope clips for recurrent ulcer bleeding after previous successful hemostasis. After endoscopic hemostasis, high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy is recommended continuously or intermittently for 3 days, followed by twice-daily oral proton pump inhibitor for the first 2 weeks of therapy after endoscopy. Repeat endoscopy is suggested for recurrent bleeding, and if endoscopic therapy fails, transcatheter embolization is suggested.

Intravenous versus oral omeprazole on patients with high risk bleeding peptic ulcers: A prospective randomized clinical trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) decrease the rate of rebleeding following endoscopic hemostatic therapy in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. This study compares the efficacy of oral omeprazole vs intravenous omeprazole in decrease of rebleeding of peptic ulcer patients.

METHOD

The present study was authorized by the local research ethics committee of Jiangjin District Central Hospital (2020120987) and informed consent was obtained from all patients. All adult patients who were admitted to medical emergency rooms of Jiangjin District Central Hospital due to upper gastrointestinal bleeding (as evidenced by hematemesis, melena or hematochezia) were considered for inclusion in the study. Endoscopy was performed within 24 hours after admission. Patients older than 18 years with successful endoscopic therapy of high risk ulcers [defined as active bleeding (Forrest IA, IB), non-bleeding visible vessel (NBVV, Forrest IIA) or adherent clots (Forrest IIB)] were enrolled. Patients with low risk ulcers (clean base, ulcers with a simple washable clot), suspicious malignant ulcer, bleeding tendency, uremia, liver cirrhosis, Mallory Weiss tear or already on PPI as an outpatient were excluded from study. All were managed endoscopically by injecting 5-30 ml of epinephrine (diluted 1:10000) around the ulcer crater. Cavitations or flattening of bleeding vessel and disappearance of NBVV was considered as established homeostasis. A biopsy was taken from antrum for evaluating Helicobacter pylori infection. Patient with unsuccessful endoscopic therapy were not enrolled and were referred to general surgeon. Information on demography, history of previous upper gastrointestinal bleeding, NSAID or ASA ingestion, ulcer location, bleeding stigmata and blood transfusion volume at entry were recorded in all patients. In the oral omeprazole group, the patients received 40 mg omeprazole orally twice daily for 72 hours. In intravenous omeprazole group, they received omeprazole 80 mg bolus and then 8 mg/hour infusion for 48-72 hours. Then, all patients received omeprazole 20 mg orally for 30 days. On the day of discharge Helicobacter pylori infected patients received standard regimens.

RESULTS

Figure 1 showed the primary and secondary end points.

DISCUSSION

Intravenous administration of PPIs has limitations. They are expensive, require a dedicated intravenous line, need nursing supervision and hospital admission. So, it would be reasonable to prescribe oral PPIs to patients with high risk bleeding ulcers provided that it is as effective as its intravenous counterpart. Oral PPIs have a high bioavailability. Its effect initiates one hour after ingestion and the maximal plasma concentration is achieved after 2-3 hours. However, there are few studies comparing oral and intravenous PPI in decreasing risk of rebleeding in peptic ulcer patients. More high quality randomized controlled trials are still necessary.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

researchregistry 6588.

Effect on Bleeding Prevention of an Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitor During the Fasting Period After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: a Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

No consensus has been achieved on optimal perioperative strategies for patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of an intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitor (PPI) given during the fasting period after ESD on delayed bleeding following ESD.

METHODS

This study was designed as a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in a single center. A total of 235 patients who underwent ESD for adenoma and early gastric cancer between March 2016 and September 2018 were randomized into a PPI group and placebo group. Patients were administrated intravenous pantoprazole 40 mg daily (PPI group) or placebo (placebo group) during the fasting period 48 h after ESD (from the day of ESD to the following day, 48 h). After oral feeding (48 h after ESD), oral PPI was given to both groups for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Among 235 patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and 195 in the per-protocol (PP) analysis, there was no significant difference between the PPI and control groups in major bleeding (PPI vs. placebo; 3.3% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.27) or minor bleeding (PPI vs. placebo; 7.6% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.41) after ESD. There was no significant difference in age (p = 0.28), histology (p = 0.75), tumor size (p = 0.48), or procedure time (p = 0.49) between the two groups. The only independent risk factor for major delayed bleeding was the combined use of aspirin and antiplatelet agent (OR; 12.25, 95% CI; 1.06-141.19, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of routine IV PPI during the fasting period 48 h after ESD does not reduce delayed post-ESD bleeding.

Factors Associated with Rebleeding in Patients with Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: Analysis of the Korean Peptic Ulcer Bleeding (K-PUB) Study

Background/Aims

Rebleeding is associated with mortality in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB), and risk stratification is important for the management of these patients. The purpose of our study was to examine the risk factors associated with rebleeding in patients with PUB.

Methods

The Korean Peptic Ulcer Bleeding registry is a large prospectively collected database of patients with PUB who were hospitalized between 2014 and 2015 at 28 medical centers in Korea. We examined the basic characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients in this registry. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with rebleeding.

Results

In total, 904 patients with PUB were registered, and 897 patients were analyzed. Rebleeding occurred in 7.1% of the patients (64), and the 30-day mortality was 1.0% (nine patients). According to the multivariate analysis, the risk factors for rebleeding were the presence of co-morbidities, use of multiple drugs, albumin levels, and hematemesis/hematochezia as initial presentations.

Conclusions

The presence of co-morbidities, use of multiple drugs, albumin levels, and initial presentations with hematemesis/hematochezia can be indicators of rebleeding in patients with PUB. The wide use of proton pump inhibitors and prompt endoscopic interventions may explain the low incidence of rebleeding and low mortality rates in Korea.

Initial Assessment, Risk Stratification, and Early Management of Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

Inhospital mortality from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding has improved with advances in medical and endoscopy therapy. Initial management includes resuscitation, hemodynamic monitoring, proton pump inhibitor therapy, and restrictive blood transfusion. Risk stratification scores help triage bleeding severity and provide prognosis. Upper endoscopy is recommended within 24 hours of presentation; select patients at lowest risk may be effectively treated as outpatients. Emergent endoscopy within 12 hours does not improve clinical outcomes, including mortality, rebleeding, or need for surgery, despite an increased use of endoscopic treatment. There may be a benefit to emergent endoscopy in patients with evidence of active bleeding.

Once Versus Twice-Daily Oral Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy for Prevention of Peptic Ulcer Rebleeding: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Background

After inpatient management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) due to peptic ulcer disease (PUD), oral proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy is recommended at discharge to decrease rebleeding risk and improve ulcer healing. Our aim is to determine whether once-daily oral PPI dosing at hospital discharge is associated with inferior 30-day rebleeding outcomes as compared to twice-daily dosing.

Methods

We retrospectively identified 233 patients admitted with signs and symptoms of upper GIB found to be due to PUD on upper endoscopy. After inpatient management, patients discharged on once-daily oral PPI were compared to those discharged on twice-daily therapy. We utilized propensity score matching based on Rockall scores to ensure the two groups were closely matched in terms of their baseline rebleeding risk. Primary outcome was the incidence of rebleeding within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, blood transfusion requirement, requirement for interventional radiology or surgery.

Results

Overall, 49 patients were discharged on once-daily and 184 on twice-daily PPI. Recurrent bleeding occurred in 18 patients (7.7%) within 30 days. There was no statistically significant difference in recurrent bleeding rates between once-daily (n = 7, 14.3%) as compared to twice-daily PPI (n = 11, 6%) (P = 0.053). In a 1:1 propensity score matched analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day recurrent bleeding rate between groups (14% once-daily vs. 4% twice-daily, P = 0.159). There were no differences in secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

Once-daily oral PPI dosing at hospital discharge was not associated with inferior outcomes compared to twice-daily dosing in patients hospitalized for upper GIB due to PUD.

Efficacy Comparison of Divided and Infusion Intravenous Pantoprazole Methods after Endoscopic Therapy in Patients with Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Background:

Intravenous pantoprazole administration in patients with severe bleeding under urgent endoscopic therapy is effective. Furthermore, its infusion dose is useful to control bleeding; however, it is not economical. In this study, clinical outcomes and intravenous infusion of pantoprazole after endoscopic therapy plus efficacy of infusion dosage and divided doses are compared.

Materials and Methods:

This prospective, comparative study conducted on 18 adult (>18 years) patients referred to Al Zahra Hospital for hematemesis and melena bleeding who underwent endoscopic treatment with pantoprazole which divided into two groups of forty patients. First group received intravenous infusion for 80 mg and 8 mg/h. The second group received intravenous infusion with divided doses as 40 mg twice daily for 3 days. Clinical outcomes such as rebleeding, duration of hospitalization, amount of blood transfused, and mortality within 3 days after endoscopic treatment were collected and analyzed by SPSS software (version 20) using independent t-test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test.

Results:

Duration of hospitalization in the pantoprazole infusion group was 5.42 ± 4.62 days, with three patients (7.5%) having rebleeding, and in the divided pantoprazole group was 5.90 ± 3.08 days, with four patients (10%) having rebleeding, and overall, only one person died in the divided pantoprazole group (2.5%) out of eighty patients. No significant difference was observed between two groups in terms of clinical outcomes (P > 0.05).

Conclusion:

Regarding to results, it can be stated that both methods with specified dosage had significant impact on improvement of hematemesis and melena. Furthermore, due to lower costs, low dose of pantoprazole in divided approach as 40 mg/12 h is proposed.

Value of Oral Proton Pump Inhibitors in Acute, Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are the standard medical treatment in acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVGIB). Optimal route of PPI delivery has been questioned.

AIM

The aim was to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis for the endpoints of risk of rebleeding, length of stay (LOS), surgery (ROS), mortality, and total units of blood transfused (UBT) among trials evaluating acid suppressive medications in ANVGIB.

METHODS

A total of 39 studies using IV PPI drip, IV scheduled PPI, oral PPI, H2-receptor antagonists, and placebo were identified. Network meta-analysis was used for indirect comparisons and Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods for calculation of probability superiority.

RESULTS

No difference was observed between IV PPI drip and scheduled IV PPI for mortality (relative risk=1.11; 95% credibility interval, 0.56-2.21), LOS (0.04, -0.49 to 0.44), ROS (1.27, 0.64-2.35) and risk of rebleeding within 72 hours, 1 week, and 1 month [(0.98, 0.48-1.95), (0.59, 0.13-2.03), (0.82, 0.28-2.16)]. Oral PPIs were as effective as IV scheduled PPIs and IV PPI drip for LOS (0.22, -0.61 to 0.79 and 0.16, -0.56 to 0.80) and UBT (-0.25, -1.23 to 0.65 and -0.06, -0.71 to 0.65) and superior to IV PPI drip for ROS (0.30, 0.10 to 0.78).

CONCLUSION

Scheduled IV PPIs were as effective as IV PPI drip for most outcomes. Oral PPIs were comparable to scheduled IV for LOS and UBT and superior to IV PPI drip for ROS. Conclusions should be tempered by low frequency endpoints such as ROS, but question the need for IV PPI drip in ANVGIB.

Comparing intravenous and oral proton pump inhibitor therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers following endoscopic management: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has been demonstrated for bleeding peptic ulcers but the route of administration remains controversial. Several studies have demonstrated that high-dose oral PPIs are as effective as intravenous PPIs in reducing recurrent bleeding. However, current guidelines recommend intravenous PPIs after endoscopic treatment. Previous data based on numbers that were too small to enable a firm conclusion to be reached suggested that oral and intravenous PPIs had equivalent efficacy. We undertook a meta-analysis to compare oral and intravenous PPIs in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers after endoscopic management.

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, between 1990 and February 2016, to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy of PPIs administered by different routes. Nine RCTs, involving 1036 patients, were analysed. Outcomes were: recurrent bleeding, blood transfusion requirement, duration of hospital stay, a need for repeat endoscopy, surgery and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the rebleeding rates [odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60, 1.46; P = 0.77], need for surgery (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.25, 2.40; P = 0.65), need for repeat endoscopy (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39, 1.21; P = 0.19), need for blood transfusion [(MD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.26, 0.19; P = 0.76], duration of hospital stay (MD -0.61, 95% CI -1.45, 0.23; P = 0.16) or 30-day mortality (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.27, 2.43; P = 0.84) according to the route of administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral PPIs represent better value for money, with clinical efficacy equivalent to intravenous PPIs.

Is the era of intravenous proton pump inhibitors coming to an end in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers? Meta-analysis of the published literature

AIMS

Oral and intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are equipotent in raising gastric pH. However, it is not known whether oral PPIs can replace intravenous PPIs in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare oral and intravenous PPIs among patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. A search of all major databases and relevant journals from inception to April 2015, without a restriction on languages, was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 859 patients from seven randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Similar pooled outcome measures were demonstrated between the two groups in terms of oral PPIs vs. intravenous PPIs in the rate of recurrent bleeding within the 30-day follow-up period [risk ratio = 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.58, 1.39; P = 0.62; I(2)  = 0%). In terms of the rate of mortality, both oral and intravenous PPIs showed similar outcomes, and the pooled risk ratio was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.29, 2.71; P = 0.82; I(2)  = 0%). Likewise, no significant difference was detected in the need for blood transfusion and length of hospital stay; the pooled mean differences were -0.14 (95% CI: -0.39, 0.12; P = 0.29; I(2)  = 32%) and -0.60 (95% CI: -1.42, 0.23; P = 0.16; I(2)  = 79%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that oral PPIs are a feasible, safe alternative to intravenous PPIs in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, and may be able to replace intravenous PPIs as the treatment of choice in these patients.

Diagnosis and therapy of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is defined as bleeding proximal to the ligament of Treitz in the absence of oesophageal, gastric or duodenal varices. The clinical presentation varies according to the intensity of bleeding from occult bleeding to melena or haematemesis and haemorrhagic shock. Causes of UGIB are peptic ulcers, Mallory-Weiss lesions, erosive gastritis, reflux oesophagitis, Dieulafoy lesions or angiodysplasia. After admission to the hospital a structured approach to the patient with acute UGIB that includes haemodynamic resuscitation and stabilization as well as pre-endoscopic risk stratification has to be done. Endoscopy offers not only the localisation of the bleeding site but also a variety of therapeutic measures like injection therapy, thermocoagulation or endoclips. Endoscopic therapy is facilitated by acid suppression with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. These drugs are highly effective but the best route of application (oral vs intravenous) and the adequate dosage are still subjects of discussion. Patients with ulcer disease are tested for Helicobacter pylori and eradication therapy should be given if it is present. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have to be discontinued if possible. If discontinuation is not possible, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in combination with PPI have the lowest bleeding risk but the incidence of cardiovascular events is increased.

Proton pump inhibitors therapy vs H2 receptor antagonists therapy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding after endoscopy: A meta-analysis

AIM: To compare the therapeutic effects of proton pump inhibitors vs H₂ receptor antagonists for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients after successful endoscopy.

METHODS: We searched the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed for randomized controlled trials until July 2014 for this study. The risk of bias was evaluated by the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and all of the studies had acceptable quality. The main outcomes included mortality, re-bleeding, received surgery rate, blood transfusion units and hospital stay time. These outcomes were estimated using odds ratios (OR) and mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI). RevMan 5.3.3 software and Stata 12.0 software were used for data analyses.

RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials involving 1283 patients were included in this review; 678 subjects were in the proton pump inhibitors (PPI) group and the remaining 605 subjects were in the H₂ receptor antagonists (H₂RA) group. The meta-analysis results revealed that after successful endoscopic therapy, compared with H₂RA, PPI therapy had statistically significantly decreased the recurrent bleeding rate (OR = 0.36; 95%CI: 0.25-0.51) and receiving surgery rate (OR = 0.29; 95%CI: 0.09-0.96). There were no statistically significant differences in mortality (OR = 0.46; 95%CI: 0.17-1.23). However, significant heterogeneity was present in both the numbers of patients requiring blood transfusion after treatment [weighted mean difference (WMD), -0.70 unit; 95%CI: -1.64 - 0.25] and the time that patients remained hospitalized [WMD, -0.77 d; 95%CI: -1.87 - 0.34]. The Begg’s test (P = 0.283) and Egger’s test (P = 0.339) demonstrated that there was no publication bias in our meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION: In patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy, compared with H₂RA, PPI may be a more effective therapy.

Consensus on control of risky nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in Taiwan with National Health Insurance

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To compose upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) consensus from a nationwide scale to improve the control of UGIB, especially for the high-risk comorbidity group.

METHODS

The steering committee defined the consensus scope to cover preendoscopy, endoscopy, postendoscopy, and overview from Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) assessments for UGIB. The expert group comprised thirty-two Taiwan experts of UGIB to conduct the consensus conference by a modified Delphi process through two separate iterations to modify the draft statements and to vote anonymously to reach consensus with an agreement ≥80% for each statement and to set the recommendation grade.

RESULTS

The consensus included 17 statements to highlight that patients with comorbidities, including liver cirrhosis, end-stage renal disease, probable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes, are at high risk of peptic ulcer bleeding and rebleeding. Special considerations are recommended for such risky patients, including raising hematocrit to 30% in uremia or acute myocardial infarction, aggressive acid secretory control in high Rockall scores, monitoring delayed rebleeding in uremia or cirrhosis, considering cycloxygenase-2 inhibitors plus PPI for pain control, and early resumption of antiplatelets plus PPI in coronary artery disease or stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus comprises recommendations to improve care of UGIB, especially for high-risk comorbidities.

Meta-analysis: comparison of oral vs. intravenous proton pump inhibitors in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of adjuvant use of intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) after endoscopic therapy has been proved in peptic ulcer bleeding patients, but the efficacy of oral PPIs is uncertain.

AIM

To compare the clinical outcomes of oral PPIs vs. intravenous PPIs in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

Prospective randomised controlled trials were systematically searched from OVID databases until June 2012. Trials comparing oral and intravenous PPIs among patients with peptic ulcer bleeding were included. Recurrent bleeding, length of hospitalisation, blood transfusion, requirement of surgery and mortality were measured. The risk of bias, study quality and heterogeneity were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Six randomised trials from 2006 to 2011 were included. A total of 615 patients were randomly assigned to receive oral PPIs (n = 302) or intravenous PPIs (n = 313). The mean age was 60 years and 71.1% was male. No significant difference between oral and intravenous PPIs was observed regarding recurrent bleeding (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.56-1.50), mean volume of blood transfused (-0.02 unit, 95% CI: -0.29-0.24 unit), requirement of surgery (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.19-3.61) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.29-2.71). The duration of hospital stay in days was significantly shortened in those using oral PPIs (-0.74 day, 95% CI: -1.10 day to -0.39 day).

CONCLUSION

Oral PPIs demonstrate a similar effectiveness to intravenous PPIs among patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, but the results were combined from open-labelled trials with limited sample size. A large double-blind non-inferiority trial is required to better assess the role of oral PPIs.

Polymorphisms and the Pocketbook: The Cost-Effectiveness of Cytochrome P450 2C19 Genotyping in the Eradication ofHelicobacter pyloriInfection Associated with Duodenal Ulcer

The clinical outcome of duodenal ulcer treated with proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based, anti-Helicobacter pylori (H.p.) regimens varies according to cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) genotype. CYP2C19 genotypes differ markedly in peoples of Pacific Rim descent compared with another ethnicity. The authors sought to determine the specific impact that these factors have on the cost-effectiveness of duodenal ulcer management. Their model consisted of two patient cohorts with Helicobacter pylori and duodenal ulcer, trichotomized into CYP2C19 homozygous extensive metabolizers (EMs), heterozygous EMs, and poor metabolizers (PMs), altering the anti-H.p. regimen in the genotyped cohort only. The authors took the perspective of a third-party payer, and the denominator was ulcer episode prevented. In the reference case, the use of CYP2C19 genotyping prior to initiating anti-H.p. therapy was dominant (costs were saved with each ulcer episode prevented) in all geographic regions of the United States. The subsequent break-even analysis showed a range of 89.20 dollars to 118.96 dollars--from Hawaii to the Midwest, respectively--required to eliminate the cost-savings from each genotype test performed. Using probabilities most unfavorable to genotyping, the variation of peoples with Pacific Rim origins from 0% to 100% altered the cost-effectiveness from 495 dollars to 2125 dollars per ulcer event prevented, respectively. The results suggest that treatment decisions for H.p. infection that are based on a patient's CYP2C19 genotype decreases expenses for health plans implementing testing. This analysis provides an economic basis to support recent calls to expand this technology into routine clinical care to prevent toxicity of narrow therapeutic index drugs.

Prospective randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of omeprazole and famotidine in preventing delayed bleeding and promoting ulcer healing after endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are generally used to prevent delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and to heal the artificial ulcers. However, it remains controversial whether PPIs or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H(2) RAs) are more effective in preventing delayed bleeding after ESD. We prospectively compared the effects of omeprazole and famotidine in preventing delayed bleeding and promoting artificial ulcer healing after ESD.

METHODS

A total of 158 patients (155 early gastric cancers and three adenomas) were randomly assigned to the PPI group (omeprazole 20 mg/day) or H(2) RA group (famotidine 40 mg/day) in a prospective randomized controlled trial. The primary end point was the incidence of hematemesis, melena, and/or a decrease in hemoglobin level of 2 g/dL or more requiring endoscopic hemostatic treatment. ESD-induced ulcer healing and changes in ulcer size were also compared at 6 weeks after ESD as a secondary end point.

RESULTS

Of the 158 patients, two were excluded from analysis because they had been treated with a PPI before the present study. Accordingly, data from 77 PPI and 79 H(2) RA subjects were included for analysis. Delayed bleeding after ESD occurred in 6.5% of subjects (PPI group) and in 6.3% (H(2) RA group); there was no significant difference between the two groups. Likewise, the two groups were not significantly different with respect to ulcer stage or ulcer size reduction rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitors are not superior to H(2) RAs for the prevention of delayed bleeding or the healing of artificially induced ulcers after ESD.

Oral versus intravenous proton pump inhibitors in preventing re-bleeding for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy

BACKGROUND

High dose intravenous proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding has been recommended as adjuvant therapy. Whether oral proton pump inhibitor can replace intravenous proton pump inhibitor in this setting is unknown. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of oral and intravenous proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

Patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy were randomly assigned as oral lansoprazole or intravenous esomeprazole group. Primary outcome of the study was re-bleeding rate within 14 days. Secondary outcome included hospital stay, volume of blood transfusion, surgical intervention and mortality within 1 month.

RESULTS

From April 2010 to Feb 2011, 100 patients were enrolled in this study. The re-bleeding rates were 4% (2/50) in the intravenous group and 4% (2/50) in the oral group. There was no difference between the two groups with regards to the hospital stay, volume of blood transfusion, surgery or mortality rate. The mean duration of hospital stay was 1.8 days in the oral lansoprazole group and 3.9 days in the intravenous esomeprazole group (p > 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving oral proton pump inhibitor have a shorter hospital stay. There is no evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes between oral and intravenous PPI treatment. However, the study was not powered to prove equivalence or non-inferiority. Future studies are still needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01123031.

Comparison of adjuvant therapies by an H2-receptor antagonist and a proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic treatment in hemostatic management of bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers

AIM

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is often associated with a higher risk of serious blood loss. Both H2-receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors are commonly given intravenously for endoscopic hemostatic therapies. We compared the effects of a H2-receptor antagonist (famotidine) and a proton pump inhibitor (omeprazole) injected during the early phase (the first 3 days) on cessation of bleeding and prevention of its recurrence in patients who underwent endoscopic therapy for gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who were hospitalized at our clinic with bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers and underwent endoscopic therapy were randomly assigned to receive injections of famotidine, omeprazole, or both. Injection of acid suppressants was switched on the fourth day to the oral administration of omeprazole continued for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Over a 25-month period, 116 patients were enrolled. The overall success rate for endoscopic hemostasis was 115/116 (99.1%). The success rate of hemostasis and prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding by type of acid suppressant following endoscopic hemostasis was 39/40 (97.5%) for Group 1 (3-day omeprazole administration), 35/37 (94.6%) for Group 2 (3-day famotidine administration), and 38/39 (97.4%) for Group 3 (1-day famotidine and then 2-day omeprazole administration), yielding an overall rate of 112/116 (96.6%). No significant difference in the hemostatic effect was observed among the groups. There were also no differences in the duration of hospital days and the number of fasting days between the three groups.

CONCLUSION

Famotidine and omeprazole injected during the early phase of a bleeding ulcer may have similar effects to an adjuvant therapy for preventing rebleeding from endoscopically treated upper gastrointestinal bleeding in Japanese patients.

Pantoprazole for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding and prevention of rebleeding

Adding proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to endoscopic therapy has become the mainstay of treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding, with current consensus guidelines recommending high-dose intravenous (IV) PPI therapy (IV bolus followed by continuous therapy). However, whether or not high-dose PPI therapy is more effective than low-dose PPI therapy is still debated. Furthermore, maintaining pH ≥ 4 appears to prevent mucosal bleeding in patients with acute stress ulcers; thus, stress ulcer prophylaxis with acid-suppressing therapy has been increasingly recommended in intensive care units (ICUs). This review evaluates the evidence for the efficacy of IV pantoprazole, a PPI, in preventing ulcer rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, and in controlling gastric pH and protecting against upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in high-risk ICU patients. The review concludes that IV pantoprazole provides an effective option in the treatment of upper GI bleeding, the prevention of rebleeding, and for the prophylaxis of acute bleeding stress ulcers.

Clinical outcomes and risk factors of rebleeding following endoscopic therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage

Background/Aims

Rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NGIH) is the most important predictive factor of mortality. We evaluated the risk factors of rebleeding in patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for the NGIH.

Methods

Between January 2003 and January 2007, 554 bleeding events in 487 patients who underwent endoscopic therapy for NGIH were retrospectively enrolled. We reviewed the clinicoendoscopical characteristics of patients with rebleeding and compared them with those of patients without rebleeding.

Results

The incidence of rebleeding was 21.7% (n=120). In the multivariate analysis, initial hemoglobin level ≤9 g/dL (p=0.002; odds ratio [OR], 2.433), inexperienced endoscopist with less than 2 years of experience in therapeutic endoscopy (p=0.001; OR, 2.418), the need for more 15 cc of epinephrine (p=0.001; OR, 2.570), injection therapy compared to thermal and injection therapy (p=0.001; OR, 2.840), and comorbidity with chronic renal disease (p=0.004; OR, 2.908) or liver cirrhosis (p=0.010; OR, 2.870) were risk factors for rebleeding following endoscopic therapy.

Conclusions

Together with patients with low hemoglobin level at presentation, chronic renal disease, liver cirrhosis, the need for more 15 cc of epinephrine, or therapy done by inexperienced endoscopist were risk factors for the development of rebleeding.

Pharmacologic therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

There are many clinical outcome measures for evaluation of the effectiveness of a pharmacologic agent in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). As a preemptive treatment, it should reduce the need for emergency endoscopy and endoscopic intervention, facilitate the efficient identification of the bleeding source and, hence, shorten procedure time and reduce the risk of procedure-related complications. As an effective adjunctive therapy after endoscopic hemostasis, it should reduce the incidence of recurrent bleeding and the need to repeat endoscopic hemostasis. This article provides an overview of different pharmacologic agents that have been used in the management of UGIB.

Intravenous esomeprazole: a pharmacoeconomic profile of its use in the prevention of recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding

Intravenous esomeprazole (Nexium®) is approved in Europe for the prevention of rebleeding following therapeutic endoscopy for acute bleeding gastric or duodenal ulcers. In a pivotal clinical trial, patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and high-risk stigmata who received intravenous esomeprazole for 72 hours following endoscopic haemostatic therapy were significantly less likely than those receiving intravenous placebo to experience recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding at days 3, 7 and 30. In addition, the need for repeat endoscopic haemostatic therapy, the total amount of blood transfused and the number of additional hospital days required because of rebleeding were significantly lower in intravenous esomeprazole recipients than in intravenous placebo recipients. All patients received oral esomeprazole for 27 days following intravenous study drug administration. Intravenous esomeprazole was generally well tolerated in the pivotal trial, with infusion-site reactions being among the most commonly reported adverse events. Two pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted from a healthcare payer perspective used decision-tree models with 30-day time horizons to examine the cost effectiveness and cost utility of intravenous esomeprazole in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers who had undergone endoscopic haemostatic therapy. With regard to the incremental cost per bleed averted, intravenous esomeprazole was predicted to be dominant in Spain and cost effective in Sweden and the US compared with no intravenous esomeprazole. Efficacy results and resource utilization data from the pivotal clinical trial were inputted into this model, and the results of the analysis were generally robust to plausible variations in key variables. In the cost-utility analysis, which was conducted in the UK and is available as an abstract and poster, esomeprazole was considered to be the most cost-effective treatment alternative, compared with omeprazole or pantoprazole. For this analysis, clinical outcomes data were obtained from a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison (given the absence of head-to-head trial data), and utility values were proxied from the literature. In conclusion, intravenous esomeprazole prevents peptic ulcer rebleeding in patients who have undergone endoscopic haemostatic therapy. Pharmacoeconomic analyses support the use of intravenous esomeprazole following endoscopic haemostatic therapy in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and high-risk stigmata.

Comparison of infusion or low-dose proton pump inhibitor treatments in upper gastrointestinal system bleeding

BACKGROUND

The most effective schedule of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration following endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding ulcers remains uncertain.

AIM

To compare the treatment effects of continuous infusion and low-dose esomeprazole therapies in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

METHODS

This prospective clinical study compared continuous infusion of esomeprazole (80 mg bolus followed by 8 mg∕h continuous infusion for 72 h) and low-dose esomeprazole (40 mg twice daily IV) treatments in GI bleeding patients with peptic ulcer presenting a high risk of re-bleeding, who were administered a successful endoscopic homeostasis. The primary end point was the occurrence of re-bleeding during hospitalization and within one month of discharge. Secondary outcomes were defined as duration of hospitalization, need of transfusion, surgical treatment, and mortality rate. After 72 h, both groups were switched to oral esomeprazole therapy for one-month.

RESULTS

A hundred thirty-two subjects were enrolled. Re-bleeding occurred in 11 (16.7%) patients in the infusion therapy group and in 12 (18.2%) patients in the low-dose group (P=0.819) within the first 72 h. No patient experienced re-bleeding in the first month following discharge. There was no statistical significant difference between the two groups in terms of transfusion need, durations of hospitalization, need for surgery and mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

PPI infusion therapy following endoscopic hemostasis treatment was not found superior to low-dose PPI therapy in the terms of re-bleeding, need of surgery and mortality.

Intravenous proton pump inhibitors for peptic ulcer bleeding: Clinical benefits and limits

Peptic ulcer bleeding is a common disease and recurrent bleeding is an independent risk factor of mortality. Infusion with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) prevents recurrent bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy. A gastric acidic environment of less than pH 5.4 alters coagulation function and activates pepsin to disaggregate platelet plugs. Gastric acid is secreted by H⁺, K⁺-ATPase, naming the proton pump. This update review focuses on the mechanism and the role of PPIs in the clinical management of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. An intravenous omeprazole bolus followed by high-dose continuous infusion for 72 h after successful endoscopic therapy can prevent the recurrent bleeding. In the Asian, however, the infusion dosage can possibly be diminished whilst preserving favorable control of the intragastric pH and thereby still decreasing rates of recurrent bleeding. Irrespective of the infusion dosage of PPIs, rates of recurrent bleeding remain high in patients with co-morbidities. Because recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding may be prolonged in those with co-morbidities, a low-dose infusion of IV PPIs for up to 7-day may result in better control of recurrent bleeding of peptic ulcers. Due to the inter-patient variability in CYP2C19 genotypes, the infusion form of new generation PPIs, such as esomeprazole, should be promising for the prevention of recurrent bleeding. This article offers a comprehensive review of clinical practice, highlighting the indication, the optimal dosage, the duration, and the potential limitation of PPIs infusion for peptic ulcer bleeding.

Esomeprazole for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is the most common cause of acute bleeding in the upper GI tract. The incidence of peptic ulcer bleeding has slowly decreased and endoscopic treatment options have improved; nevertheless, it remains a very common condition with a 7-15% mortality. Acidic environments have a negative effect on hemostasis. Therefore, acid inhibitors have been applied in the adjuvant treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding, both in preventing rebleeding and in treating the underlying cause. This requires profound acid suppressive therapy aiming for a rapid onset of effect and a persistent intragastric pH above 6. This can only be achieved by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Esomeprazole is the S-isomer of omeprazole, and the first PPI to consist of only the active isomer. A number of studies have compared esomeprazole with other PPIs, demonstrating a faster and more persistent increase in intragastric pH with the use of esomeprazole than with other agents. Continuous high-dose intravenous treatment with esomeprazole decreases rebleeding, surgery, transfusion rates and hospital days in peptic ulcer bleeding.

A randomized controlled trial comparing two different dosages of infusional pantoprazole in peptic ulcer bleeding

AIM

The optimal dosage of proton pump inhibitor in bleeding peptic ulcers remains controversial. The aim was to compare the clinical effectiveness of two doses of infusional pantoprazole in peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

Peptic ulcer patients (n= 120) with bleeding stigmata were enrolled after successful endoscopic therapy. After an initial bolus injection of 80 mg pantoprazole, patients were randomized to receive continuously infused pantoprazole at either 192 mg day(-1) or 40 mg every 6 h (i.e. 160 mg day(-1)) for 3 days. Clinical outcomes between the two groups within 14 days were compared, with 14-day recurrent bleeding regarded as the primary end-point.

RESULTS

Both groups (n= 60 each) were well matched in demographic and clinical factors upon entry. Bleeding totally recurred in 11 (9.2%) patients, with six (10%) in the 192 mg day(-1) group and five (8.3%) in the 160 mg day(-1) group (relative risk of bleeding recurrence between two treatments 1.2; 95% CI 0.39, 3.72). All secondary outcomes between the two groups were similar, including the amount of blood transfusion (mean 1179 ml vs. 1203 ml, P > 0.1), hospital stay (mean 9.5 days vs. 9.9 days, P > 0.1), need for surgery (n= 1 vs. n= 0, P > 0.1), and mortality (n= 1 vs. n= 0, P > 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Following endoscopic haemostasis, infusional pantoprazole at either 192 mg day(-1) or 40 mg every 6 h appear similar.

Predictors of rebleeding and mortality in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Patients with bleeding ulcers can have recurrent bleeding and mortality after endoscopic therapy. Risk stratification is important in the management of the initial patient triage. The aim of this study is to identify the clinical and laboratory risk factors for recurrent bleeding and mortality.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted in 390 consecutive patients with bleeding peptic ulcers and high-risk endoscopic stigmata, e.g., active bleeding, a non-bleeding visible vessel, adherent blood clot, and hemorrhagic dot. We tested 13 available variables for association with recurrent bleeding and 15 were tested for association with mortality. A logistic regression model was used to identify individual correlates associated with these adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

Bleeding recurred in 46 patients (11.8%) within 3 days and 21 patients (5.4%) had in-hospital mortality. In the full-factor analysis model, the incidence of recurrent bleeding was significantly higher in five of the 13 investigated variables and mortality was significantly higher in two of the 15 variables. In the final analysis model, significant risk factors for recurrent bleeding within 3 days, with adjusted odds ratios (OR), were in-hospital bleeding (OR 3.3), initial hemoglobin level<10 g/dl (OR 3.3) and ulcer>or=2 cm (OR 2.0). In-hospital bleeding was the only independent risk factor for mortality (OR 8.3).

CONCLUSION

The study emphasizes the role of ulcer size, anemia and in-hospital bleeding as the determining high-risk predictors for adverse outcomes for bleeding peptic ulcers.

Effectiveness comparison of endoscopic methods of non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding treatment

INTRODUCTION

In every case of upper gastrointestinal bleeding suspicion, an endoscopic examination ought to be performed as a matter of urgency. Finding active bleeding, a visible non-bleeding vessel or a lesion with an adherent clot should be followed by application of an available method of endoscopic therapy. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of various endoscopic treatment techniques such as epinephrine injections, coagulation methods and mechanical methods in the treatment of non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty cases of non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding were analysed in terms of the effectiveness of the above-mentioned procedures used in monotherapy or in combination therapy comprising epinephrine injections and clips application. The choice of the applied procedure depended on morphological features and location of the bleeding source, the patient's general condition, as well as technical equipment and manual skills of the endoscopy staff.

RESULTS

The study confirmed the effectiveness of endoscopic treatment of non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding applying the above-mentioned methods. In most patients, this treatment enabled traumatic surgical intervention to be avoided; it was required in only 3 (5%) out of 60 patients with confirmed upper gastrointestinal bleeding. With the first endoscopy, haemostasis was achieved in 47 cases (78.3%) and the second endoscopy, performed due to bleeding recurrence, was successful in the remaining 10 cases (16.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

In non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding, urgent diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy should be the first-line management. If the lesion that is the source of bleeding is possible to localize, the endoscopic techniques should be applied. Among the endoscopic procedures used in monotherapy, clips appeared to be the most effective, their effectiveness being comparable to combination therapy. In bleeding from extensive lesions, coagulation methods are considered to be the most efficacious.

WITHDRAWN: Proton pump inhibitor treatment for acute peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in peptic ulcer (PU) bleeding yield conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of PPIs in acute bleeding from PU using evidence from RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2004), EMBASE (1980 to November 2004), proceedings of major meetings to November 2004, and reference lists of articles. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of PPI treatment (oral or intravenous) compared with placebo or H(2)-receptor antagonist (H(2)RA) in acute bleeding from PU.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data independently, assessed study validity, summarised studies and undertook meta-analysis. The influence of study characteristics on the outcomes was examined by subgroup analyses and meta-regression.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTs comprising 4373 participants in total were included. Statistical heterogeneity was found among trials for rebleeding (P = 0.04), but not for all-cause mortality (P = 0.24) or surgery (P = 0.45). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality rates between PPI and control treatment; pooled rates were 3.9% on PPI versus 3.8% on control (odds ratio (OR) 1.01; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.40). PPIs significantly reduced rebleeding compared to control; pooled rates were 10.6% with PPI versus 17.3% with control treatment (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.65). PPI treatment significantly reduced surgery compared with control; pooled rates were 6.1% on PPI versus 9.3% on control (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78). There was no evidence to suggest that results on mortality and rebleeding were dependent on study quality, route of PPI administration, type of control treatment or application of initial endoscopic haemostatic treatment. PPIs significantly reduced surgery compared with placebo but not when compared with H(2)RA. There was no evidence to suggest that study quality, route of PPI administration or application of initial endoscopic haemostatic treatment influenced results on surgery. PPI treatment appeared more efficacious in studies conducted in Asia compared to studies conducted elsewhere. All-cause mortality was reduced only in Asian studies; reductions in rebleeding and surgery were quantitatively greater in Asian studies. Among patients with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessel, PPI treatment reduced mortality (OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.91), rebleeding and surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PPI treatment in PU bleeding reduces rebleeding and surgery compared with placebo or H(2)RA, but there is no evidence of an overall effect on all-cause mortality.

Role of proton pump inhibitors in the management of peptic ulcer bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is a serious medical problem with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic therapy significantly reduces further bleeding, surgery and mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers and is now recommended as the first hemostatic modality for these patients. The efficacy of large-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in reducing re-bleeding after endoscopic therapy has been supported by evidence derived from randomized controlled trials. It may be premature to recommend small-dose intravenous injection PPI after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with bleeding ulcers. An updated systematic review shows that PPI therapy before endoscopy significantly reduces the proportion with major stigmata and requirement for endoscopic therapy at index endoscopy. Some studies show that there is no significant difference between oral and intravenous PPIs in raising intragastric pH. However, clinical data is lacking in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding to date.

Gastric acid inhibition in the treatment of peptic ulcer hemorrhage

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding from peptic ulcer disease is a common clinical event, resulting in considerable patient morbidity and significant health care costs. Inhibiting gastric acid secretion is a key component in improving clinical outcomes, including reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements, and surgery. Raising intragastric pH promotes clot stability and reduces the influences of gastric acid and pepsin. Patients with high-risk stigmata for ulcer bleeding (arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, and adherent clots) benefit significantly from and should receive high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) after successful endoscopic hemostasis. For patients with low-risk stigmata (flat spots or clean ulcer base), oral PPI therapy alone is sufficient. For oozing bleeding (an intermediate risk finding), successful endoscopic hemostasis and oral PPI are recommended. Using intravenous PPIs before endoscopy appears to reduce the frequency of finding high-risk stigmata on later endoscopy, but has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes. High-dose oral PPIs may be as effective as intravenous infusion in achieving positive clinical outcomes, but this has not been documented by randomized studies and its cost-effectiveness is unclear.

How evidence-based are current guidelines for managing patients with peptic ulcer bleeding?

Current guidelines for managing ulcer bleeding state that patients with major stigmata should be managed by dual endoscopic therapy (injection with epinephrine plus a thermal or mechanical modality) followed by a high dose intravenous infusion of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). This paper aims to review and critically evaluate evidence supporting the purported superiority of a continuous infusion over less intensive regimens of PPIs administration and the need for adding a second hemostatic endoscopic procedure to epinephrine injection. Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library were performed. There is strong evidence for an incremental benefit of PPIs over H2-receptor antagonists or placebo for the outcome of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding following endoscopic hemostasis. However, the benefit of PPIs is unrelated to either the dosage (intensive vs standard regimen) or the route of administration (intravenous vs oral). There is significant heterogeneity among the 15 studies that compared epinephrine with epinephrine plus a second modality, which might preclude the validity of reported summary estimates. Studies without second look endoscopy plus re-treatment of re-bleeding lesions showed a significant benefit of adding a second endoscopic modality for hemostasis, while studies with second-look and re-treatment showed equal efficacy between endoscopic mono and dual therapy. Inconclusive experimental evidence supports the current recommendation of the use of dual endoscopic hemostatic means and infusion of high-dose PPIs as standard therapy for patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. Presently, the combination of epinephrine monotherapy with standard doses of PPIs constitutes an appropriate treatment for the majority of patients.

Use of intravenous proton-pump inhibitors in a teaching hospital practice

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate intravenous proton-pump inhibitor (IV PPI) prescribing in a single academic teaching hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective pilot study of 107 patients in a single United States military teaching hospital was conducted over a 1-month period. Clinical data were collected and analyzed for demographic features, prior medication use, admission hemoglobin level, service prescribing the IV PPI, indication for IV PPI, IV PPI treatment duration, gastroenterology consultant use, endoscopic findings, and blood products given. Indications for use were compared with current established guidelines to determine appropriate usage.

RESULTS

A total of 683 doses of IV pantoprazole were prescribed over a 1-month period. Seventy-six patients (71%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 62-79%) who received IV PPIs did not meet the criteria for an appropriate indication for use. Ninety-nine patients in the study (93%; 95% CI, 86-96%) met criteria for an acceptable dosage given. The most common appropriate indication given was stress ulcer prophylaxis in a high-risk setting (13%; 95% CI, 8-21%) with appropriate use of this indication 45% of the time (95% CI, 29-62%). IV PPIs were appropriately prescribed most often by the medical intensive care unit (66.7%; 95% CI, 43-84%) and least often by the surgical wards services (16%; 95% CI, 7-33%). No discernable indication was given in 52% of cases (95% CI, 43-62%), and patients were not actually nil per os in 46% of these instances (95% CI, 34-59%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous PPI prescribing habits in this military hospital facility are poor. A multifaceted approach including physician/pharmacist education, IV PPI ordering templates, and a consensus medical position statement from a major gastroenterological or prominent medical association may lead to more appropriate use.

Efficacy of an intravenous proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic therapy with epinephrine injection for peptic ulcer bleeding in patients with uraemia: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and uraemia are prone to re-bleeding.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of an intravenous proton pump inhibitor in treating peptic ulcer bleeding in patients with uraemia and those without uraemia.

METHODS

High-risk peptic ulcer bleeding patients received endoscopic therapy with epinephrine (adrenaline) injection plus intravenous omeprazole (40 mg bolus followed by 40 mg infusion every 12 h) for 3 days. Re-bleeding, volume of blood transfusion, hospital stay, need for surgery, and mortality were analysed.

RESULTS

The uraemic group had similar 7-day re-bleeding rate (6/42, 14.29% vs. 6/46, 13.04%, P = 0.865) to that of non-uraemic patients, but more re-bleeding episodes beyond 7 days (4/42, 9.52% vs. 0/46, 0%, P = 0.032, OR [95% CI] = 1.105 [1.002-1.219]) and all-cause mortality (4/42 vs. 0/46 P = 0.032, OR [95% CI] = 1.105 [1.002-1.219]). The uraemic group also had more units of blood transfusion after endoscopic therapy (mean +/- s.d. 4.33 +/- 3.35 units vs. 2.15 +/- 1.65 units, P < 0.001), longer hospital stay (mean +/- s.d. 8.55 +/- 8.12 days vs. 4.11 +/- 1.60 days, P < 0.001) and complications during hospitalization (9/42 vs. 0/46, P = 0.001, OR [95% CI] = 1.273 [1.087-1.490]).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic therapy with epinephrine injection plus an intravenous proton pump inhibitor can offer protection against early re-bleeding in uraemic patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, but has a limited role beyond 7 days.

Intravenous proton pump inhibitors: an evidence-based review of their use in gastrointestinal disorders

Conditions requiring inhibition of acid secretion, such as gastro-oesophageal reflux disease or peptic ulcers, are very common and their prevalence is expected to rise as they are seen predominantly in the elderly. The general basis of treatment with antisecretory agents is to maintain gastric pH >4 for a substantial proportion of the 24-hour cycle. Among the drugs available to inhibit acid secretion, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been shown to have the best benefit-risk ratio and have been used widely. Intravenous administration of a PPI provides gastric acid suppression faster than oral administration does. Whereas some indications for the use of intravenous PPIs are widely known, mostly for acute management of peptic ulcer bleeding, there are some controversies surrounding their use in other conditions such as stress-induced mucosal damage. There is still a need to define the best schedule for intravenous PPI administration (i.e. bolus infusion or constant infusion), the optimal time to switch from intravenous to oral administration and the choice of which agent is best. In most of the clinical scenarios where PPIs are recommended, they can be administered via either oral or enteral routes, unless the patient is nil by mouth. Since there are no head-to-head comparisons of the different intravenous PPIs available worldwide (omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole and esomeprazole), the rule might be to choose the drug with the best proven efficacy in each specific condition. Indeed, the key difference between them, the ability to reach and to maintain a threshold gastric pH, might not necessarily translate into clinically significant differences.

Intravenous pantoprazole as an adjuvant therapy following successful endoscopic treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested that proton pump inhibitors are efficacious in preventing rebleeding when administered immediately after endoscopic treatments. However, there are limited clinical outcome data on the use of intravenous pantoprazole.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of intravenous pantoprazole after successful endoscopic treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding using evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and several Chinese databases up to July 2008 were searched. RCTs that compared the relative effectiveness of intravenous pantoprazole with placebo, H2 receptor antagonist or other agents for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding who were pretreated with successful endoscopic therapies were retrieved.

RESULTS

Five RCTs comprising a total of 821 participants were included in the final meta-analysis. Overall, there were significant differences in ulcer rebleeding (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.53; pooled rates were 4.7% for pantoprazole and 15.0% for control), surgical intervention (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.83; pooled rates were 1.4% in pantoprazole group versus 6.5% in control) and total length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference -1.53; 95% CI -1.91 to -1.16), but not on mortality (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.81; pooled mortality rates were 1.9% for pantoprazole versus 2.8% for control) and blood transfusion requirements (weighted mean difference -0.53; 95% CI for random effects -1.04 to -0.02) when compared with control treatments. A series of subgroup analyses supported the results from the main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous administration of pantoprazole after endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding reduces rates of ulcer rebleeding, surgical intervention and overall duration of hospital stay, but not mortality and blood transfusion requirements compared with placebo, H2 receptor antagonist or somatostatin.

The role of proton pump inhibitors in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Pre-endoscopic administration of PPIs in patients with nonvariceal upper GI bleeding is still of controversial efficacy. It downstages the severity of the endoscopic signs of recent bleeding and may reduce the requirement for endoscopic hemostatic therapy at index endoscopy. However, there is no evidence of an effect on mortality, rebleeding, or surgical intervention rates. In contrast, the efficacy of PPIs in endoscopically diagnosed peptic ulcer bleeding is supported by high-quality evidence from numerous RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs. PPIs compared with H2RAs or placebo consistently reduce rebleeding rates regardless of dose, route of administration, application or not of endoscopic hemostatic treatment, and geographic location. Surgical intervention rates and the need for further endoscopic hemostatic treatment are also reduced by PPI treatment, although the results are not as robust as those for rebleeding. There is no evidence of an overall effect of PPI treatment on all-cause mortality. However, all-cause mortality is reduced among patients with high-risk endoscopic signs and among trials that had been conducted in Asia. The optimal dose and route of PPI administration has yet to be determined.

Clinical trial: intravenous pantoprazole vs. ranitidine for the prevention of peptic ulcer rebleeding: a multicentre, multinational, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Controlled pantoprazole data in peptic ulcer bleeding are few.

AIM

To compare intravenous (IV) pantoprazole with IV ranitidine for bleeding ulcers.

METHODS

After endoscopic haemostasis, 1256 patients were randomized to pantoprazole 80 mg+8 mg/h or ranitidine 50 mg+13 mg/h, both for 72 h. Patients underwent second-look endoscopy on day 3 or earlier, if clinically indicated. The primary endpoint was an overall outcome ordinal score: no rebleeding, rebleeding without/with subsequent haemostasis, surgery and mortality. The latter three events were also assessed separately and together.

RESULTS

There were no between-group differences in overall outcome scores (pantoprazole vs. ranitidine: S0: 91.2 vs. 89.3%, S1: 1.5 vs. 2.5%, S2: 5.4 vs. 5.7%, S3: 1.7 vs. 2.1%, S4: 0.19 vs. 0.38%, P = 0.083), 72-h clinically detected rebleeding (2.9% [95% CI 1.7, 4.6] vs. 3.2% [95% CI 2.0, 4.9]), surgery (1.9% [95% CI 1.0, 3.4] vs. 2.1% [95% CI 1.1, 3.5]) or day-3 mortality (0.2% [95% CI 0, 0.09] vs. 0.3% [95% CI 0, 1.1]). Pantoprazole significantly decreased cumulative frequencies of events comprising the ordinal score in spurting lesions (13.9% [95% CI 6.6, 24.7] vs. 33.9% [95% CI 22.1, 47.4]; P = 0.01) and gastric ulcers (6.7% [95% CI 4, 10.4] vs. 14.3% [95% CI 10.3, 19.2], P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes amongst pantoprazole and ranitidine-treated patients were similar; pantoprazole provided benefits in patients with arterial spurting and gastric ulcers.

Management of Αcute Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Drugs, Endoscopic Hemostasis, or Both?

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains one of the most frequent and emergent conditions in everyday clinical practice and a challenge for doctors. Peptic ulcer is responsible for more than half of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and is the most frequent cause of serious non-variceal bleeding. Despite progress in diagnosis and management in these patients, the recurrence of bleeding remains an important problem. Several drugs and endoscopic techniques, alone or in combination, have been evaluated in many studies and there is presently enough experience in terms of their efficacy. Endoscopic hemostasis is more effective than any other therapeutic intervention in the treatment of patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. In patients with high risk of rebleeding spots, the combination of endoscopic hemostasis with high dose proton pump inhibitors is the most effective strategy to reduce bleeding recurrences and the need for surgery.