Short-term treatment of prepyloric ulcer. Comparison of sucralfate and cimetidine

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease 2015

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease in 2014 and has created an English version. The revised guidelines consist of seven items: bleeding gastric and duodenal ulcers, Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy, non-eradication therapy, drug-induced ulcer, non-H. pylori, non-nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ulcer, surgical treatment, and conservative therapy for perforation and stenosis. Ninety clinical questions (CQs) were developed, and a literature search was performed for the CQs using the Medline, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases between 1983 and June 2012. The guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Therapy is initially provided for ulcer complications. Perforation or stenosis is treated with surgery or conservatively. Ulcer bleeding is first treated by endoscopic hemostasis. If it fails, surgery or interventional radiology is chosen. Second, medical therapy is provided. In cases of NSAID-related ulcers, use of NSAIDs is stopped, and anti-ulcer therapy is provided. If NSAID use must continue, the ulcer is treated with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or prostaglandin analog. In cases with no NSAID use, H. pylori-positive patients receive eradication and anti-ulcer therapy. If first-line eradication therapy fails, second-line therapy is given. In cases of non-H. pylori, non-NSAID ulcers or H. pylori-positive patients with no indication for eradication therapy, non-eradication therapy is provided. The first choice is PPI therapy, and the second choice is histamine 2-receptor antagonist therapy. After initial therapy, maintenance therapy is provided to prevent ulcer relapse.

Sclerotherapy-associated esophageal ulcers: lessons from a double-blind, randomized comparison of sucralfate suspension versus placebo

We undertook a double-blind randomized trial to assess whether sucralfate suspension would accelerate healing of sclerotherapy-associated esophageal ulcers. Consecutive patients who underwent sclerotherapy were evaluated. Patients were prospectively endoscoped 4 days (range, 3 to 5 days) after sclerotherapy. Those with ulcers greater than 5 mm in diameter were randomized to receive sucralfate suspension, 4 g/day (10 ml four times a day), or placebo. Endoscopic evaluations were done weekly for the 4 weeks of therapy. Nineteen patients survived long enough to be evaluated; complete ulcer healing was scored as success. Nine patients (13 ulcers) received sucralfate and 10 patients (17 ulcers) received placebo. At the end of 4 weeks, 78% of ulcers in sucralfate-treated patients had healed compared with 40% in the placebo group (p = not significant). Large ulcers were found to heal more slowly (p = 0.03, life table analysis) and small ulcers were disproportionally represented in patients receiving sucralfate (67% compared with 40% in the placebo group). When ulcer size was taken into account, the possible drug advantage disappeared; ulcer size appears to be a major determinant of rate of healing of sclerotherapy-associated esophageal ulcers. A large multicenter trial will be required to identify whether sucralfate accelerates postsclerotherapy esophageal ulcer healing.

Two daily doses of sucralfate or cimetidine in the healing of gastric ulcer. A comparative randomized study

A double-blind, randomized study compared the healing of gastric ulcer during a twice-daily regimen of 2 g sucralfate or 400 mg cimetidine. The patients received the tablets one-half hour before breakfast and one-half hour before bedtime. The study included 76 patients with endoscopically proven gastric ulcer. Patients with ulcers less than 3 cm from the pyloric ring and patients with ulcers less than 3 mm in diameter were excluded from the study. Sixty-four patients completed the study. Healing was endoscopically assessed at four-week intervals for 12 weeks. After four, eight, and 12 weeks, the healing rates for cimetidine were 55, 81, and 94 percent, respectively; the healing rates for sucralfate were 52, 79, and 91 percent, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the two regimens. At 12 weeks, the risk of overlooking a difference in favor of one of the two dosage regimens was less than 20 percent. The results suggest that 2 g sucralfate twice daily is as effective in the healing of gastric ulcer as 400 mg cimetidine twice daily.

Relapse rate of healed duodenal, prepyloric, and gastric ulcers treated either with sucralfate or cimetidine

A multicenter double-blind study was designed to compare the relapse rates of peptic ulcers after initial healing with a cytoprotective agent and a histamine (H2)-receptor antagonist. Patients with endoscopically verified prepyloric or duodenal ulcers were treated with cimetidine 400 mg twice daily or sucralfate 1 g four times daily for a maximum of eight weeks; gastric ulcers were treated for up to 12 weeks. Patients with healed ulcers were followed up to 12 months, during which time anti-ulcer medication was not permitted. Control endoscopy was performed two to four and nine to 11 months after healing and at the time of symptomatic relapse. A total of 258 patients were followed for 12 months; of these, 143 had been previously treated with cimetidine and 115 had been treated with sucralfate. The relapse rates and the median time to relapse did not differ between the two groups. After 12 months, 71 percent of the previously cimetidine-treated patients and 68 percent of the sucralfate-treated patients had experienced a relapse. Smoking significantly increased the relapse rate and shortened the time to relapse in the total study population and among cimetidine-treated patients; it had no such effect in the sucralfate-treated group.