Randomised clinical trial: high-dose vs. standard-dose proton pump inhibitors for the prevention of recurrent haemorrhage after combined endoscopic haemostasis of bleeding peptic ulcers

Common gastrointestinal drug-drug interactions in geriatrics and the importance of careful planning

INTRODUCTION

Polypharmacy, which uses multiple medications to treat chronic illnesses, is common among elderly patients. However, it can lead to drug interactions, especially with gastrointestinal (GI) medicines that are extensively used. These drug interactions can have severe consequences and pose a significant challenge to healthcare providers. Therefore, it is crucial to identify the underlying mechanisms of these interactions and develop strategies to minimize medication errors.

AREAS COVERED

We analyzed databases on GI illnesses common in older adults, including GERD, peptic ulcer disease, IBS, IBD, constipation, and diarrhea. Our research identified noteworthy drug interactions and utilized major electronic databases such as USFDA, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar until 15 May 202315 May 2023, along with a review of reference lists.

EXPERT OPINION

Aging can affect how the body processes drugs, leading to an increased risk of drug interactions. Therefore, healthcare professionals must carefully evaluate a patient's medical history and health condition to design personalized treatment plans.

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.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on De-Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most commonly used medications in the world. Developed for the treatment and prevention of acid-mediated upper gastrointestinal conditions, these agents are being used increasingly for indications where their benefits are less certain. PPI overprescription imposes an economic cost and contributes to polypharmacy. In addition, PPI use has been increasingly linked to a number of adverse events (PPI-associated adverse events [PAAEs]). Therefore, de-prescribing of PPIs is an important strategy to lower pill burden while reducing real costs and theoretical risks. The purpose of this clinical update was to provide Best Practice Advice (BPA) statements about how to approach PPI de-prescribing in ambulatory patients.

METHODS

Our guiding principle was that, although PPIs are generally safe, patients should not use any medication when there is not a reasonable expectation of benefit based on scientific evidence or prior treatment response. Prescribers are responsible for determining whether PPI use is absolutely or conditionally indicated and, when uncertainty exists, to incorporate patient perspectives into PPI decision making. We collaboratively outlined a high-level "process map" of the conceptual approach to de-prescribing PPIs in a clinical setting. We identified the following 3 key domains that required BPA guidance: documentation of PPI indication; identifying suitable candidates for consideration of de-prescribing; and optimizing successful de-prescribing. Co-authors drafted 1 or more potential BPAs, supported by literature review, for each domain. All co-authors reviewed, edited, and selected or rejected draft BPAs for inclusion in the final list submitted to the American Gastroenterological Association Governing Board. Because this was not a systematic review, we did not carry out a formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: All patients taking a PPI should have a regular review of the ongoing indications for use and documentation of that indication. This review should be the responsibility of the patient's primary care provider. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: All patients without a definitive indication for chronic PPI should be considered for trial of de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Most patients with an indication for chronic PPI use who take twice-daily dosing should be considered for step down to once-daily PPI. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Patients with complicated gastroesophageal reflux disease, such as those with a history of severe erosive esophagitis, esophageal ulcer, or peptic stricture, should generally not be considered for PPI discontinuation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Patients with known Barrett's esophagus, eosinophilic esophagitis, or idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis should generally not be considered for a trial of de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: PPI users should be assessed for upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk using an evidence-based strategy before de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Patients at high risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding should not be considered for PPI de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Patients who discontinue long-term PPI therapy should be advised that they may develop transient upper gastrointestinal symptoms due to rebound acid hypersecretion. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: When de-prescribing PPIs, either dose tapering or abrupt discontinuation can be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: The decision to discontinue PPIs should be based solely on the lack of an indication for PPI use, and not because of concern for PAAEs. The presence of a PAAE or a history of a PAAE in a current PPI user is not an independent indication for PPI withdrawal. Similarly, the presence of underlying risk factors for the development of an adverse event associated with PPI use should also not be an independent indication for PPI withdrawal.

Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common reason for emergency hospital admission. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce gastric acid production and are used to manage upper GI bleeding. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of proton pump inhibitors initiated before endoscopy in people with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in people with acute upper GI bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings to October 2008, for the previous versions of this review, and in April 2018, October 2019, and 3 June 2021 for this update. We also contacted experts in the field and searched trial registries and references of trials for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with a PPI (oral or intravenous) versus control treatment with either placebo, histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or no treatment, prior to endoscopy in hospitalised people with uninvestigated upper GI bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes assessed at 30 days were: mortality (our primary outcome), rebleeding, surgery, high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage (active bleeding, non-bleeding visible vessel or adherent clot) at index endoscopy, endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy, time to discharge, blood transfusion requirements and adverse effects. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs comprising 2223 participants. No new studies have been published after the literature search performed in 2008 for the previous version of this review. Of the included studies, we considered one to be at low risk of bias, two to be at unclear risk of bias, and three at high risk of bias. Our meta-analyses suggest that pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce mortality (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.70; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce rebleeding (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.06; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). In addition, pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce the need for surgery (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.26; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may not reduce the proportion of participants with high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pre-endoscopic PPI use likely reduces the need for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to determine the effect of pre-endoscopic PPI use on blood transfusions (2 studies; meta-analysis not possible; very low-certainty evidence) and time to discharge (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There was no substantial heterogeneity amongst trials in any analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy for upper GI bleeding likely reduces the requirement for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether pre-endoscopic PPI treatment increases, reduces or has no effect on other clinical outcomes, including mortality, rebleeding and need for surgery. Further well-designed RCTs that conform to current standards for endoscopic haemostatic treatment and appropriate co-interventions, and that ensure high-dose PPIs are only given to people who received endoscopic haemostatic treatment, regardless of initial randomisation, are warranted. However, as it may be unrealistic to achieve the optimal information size, pragmatic multicentre trials may provide valuable evidence on this topic.

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.

High- versus low-dose proton pump inhibitors post endoscopic hemostasis in hemodialysis cases with peptic ulcer bleeding

Post-endoscopic hemostasis treatment is not adequately addressed in high-risk patients on regular hemodialysis (HD) with emergency peptic ulcer bleeding. This study aimed to compare post-endoscopic high- versus low-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for peptic ulcer bleeding in patients undergoing regular HD. This prospective study comprised 200 patients on regular hemodialysis having emergency peptic ulcer bleeding confirmed at endoscopy and managed with endoscopic hemostasis. Half of the patients received high-dose intensive regimen and the other half received the standard regimen. Patients who were suspected to have recurrent bleeding underwent a second endoscopy for bleeding control. The primary outcome measure was rate of recurrent bleeding during period of hospitalization that was detected through second endoscopy. Rebleeding occurred in 32 patients ; 15 in the High-Dose Cohort and 17 in the Low-Dose Control (p = 0.700). No significant differences between the two dose cohorts regarding the time of rebleeding (p = 0.243), endoscopic hemostasis mode (p = 1.000), and need for surgery (p = 0.306). The highdose regimen Inhospital mortality in high-dose group was 9.0% compared to 8.0% in the low-dose group (p = 0.800). Apart from the pre-hemostatic Forrest classification of ulcers, there were no significant differences between patients with re-bleeding ulcers (n=32) and those with non-rebleeding (n=168). Rebleeding was more common in class Ia, i.e. spurting bleeders (p < 0.001). Endoscopic hemostasis followed by the standard low-dose PPI regimen of 40 mg daily IV boluses is safe and effective option for bleeding peptic ulcers in the high-risk patients under regular hemodialysis.

Comparison of the effect of clarithromycin triple therapy with or without N-acetylcysteine in the eradication of Helicobacter pylori: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Whether adjunctive N-acetylcysteine (NAC) may improve the efficacy of triple therapy in the first-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection remains unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of 14-day triple therapy with or without NAC for the first-line treatment of H. pylori.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2018, 680 patients with H. pylori infection naïve to treatment were enrolled in this multicenter, open-label, randomized trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive triple therapy with NAC [NAC-T14, dexlansoprazole 60 mg four times daily (q.d.); amoxicillin 1 g twice daily (b.i.d.), clarithromycin 500 mg b.i.d., NAC 600 mg b.i.d.] for 14 days, or triple therapy alone (T14, dexlansoprazole 60 mg q.d.; amoxicillin 1 g b.i.d., clarithromycin 500 mg b.i.d.) for 14 days. Our primary outcome was the eradication rates by intention to treat (ITT). Antibiotic resistance and CYP2C19 gene polymorphism were determined.

RESULTS

The ITT analysis demonstrated H. pylori eradication rates in NAC-T14 and T14 were 81.7% [276/338, 95% confidence interval (CI): 77.5-85.8%] and 84.3% (285/338, 95% CI 80.4-88.2%), respectively. In 646 participants who adhered to their assigned therapy, the eradication rates were 85.7% and 88.0% with NAC-T14 and T14 therapies, respectively. There were no differences in compliance or adverse effects. The eradication rates in subjects with clarithromycin-resistant, amoxicillin-resistant, or either clarithromycin/amoxicillin resistant strains were 45.2%, 57.9%, and 52.2%, respectively, for NAC-T14, and were 66.7%, 76.9%, and 70.0%, respectively, for T14. The efficacy of NAC-T14 and T14 was not affected by CYP2C19 polymorphism.

CONCLUSION

Add-on NAC to triple therapy was not superior to triple therapy alone for first-line H. pylori eradication [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02249546].

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.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is associated with increased recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding risk

BACKGROUND

The association between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and the risk of recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) remains unclear. In this study, we compared the risk of recurrent PUB between patients with and those without COPD.

METHODS

Using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, we first selected patients newly diagnosed with PUB in 2002-2009. Two groups comprising 13,732 COPD cases and 13,732 non-COPD matched controls were created using propensity score matching, thereby making the differences in basic demographics, medication use, and disease conditions between the two groups negligible. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate the risk of recurrent PUB during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

The cumulative recurrence rate of PUB was significantly higher in the patients with COPD than in the non-COPD matched controls (2years: 10.8% vs 9.3%; 6years: 18.3% vs 15.7%, P all <0.05), with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.26, P<0.001) and 1.19 (95% CI, 1.12-1.26, P<0.001) within 2-year and 6-year follow-ups, respectively. Patients with COPD using steroids were at a marginally higher risk of recurrent PUB than those who did not use steroids. Multivariate stratified analysis revealed similar results in many subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of recurrent PUB is higher in patients with COPD than in patients without COPD.

The Indications, Applications, and Risks of Proton Pump Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are the most effective drugs for inhibiting gastric acid secretion. They have been in clinical use for more than 25 years, In 2014, 3.475 billion daily defined doses (DDD) of PPI were prescribed in Germany. This high number alone calls for a critical analysis of the spectrum of indications for PPI and their potential adverse effects.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases, with particular emphasis on randomized, prospective multicenter trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and meta-analyses.

RESULTS

The inhibition of gastric acid secretion with PPI is successfully used for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease and of gastric and duodenal ulcers, for the secondary prevention of gastroduodenal lesions that have arisen under treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetylsalicylic acid, and for the prevention of recurrent hemorrhage from ulcers after successful endoscopic hemostasis. PPI are given along with practically all antibiotic regimens for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection. The number of prescriptions for PPI has risen linearly over the past 25 years. As there has been no broadening of indications, one may well ask whether the current, extensive use of PPI is justified. There is evidence that patients taking PPI are at greater risk for fractures. Moreover, the vitamin B12 level should be checked occasionally in all patients taking PPI.

CONCLUSION

PPI are among the more effective drugs for the treatment of diseases associated with gastric acid. In view of their cost and potential adverse effects, they should only be prescribed for scientifically validated indications.

Are higher doses of proton pump inhibitors better in acute peptic bleeding?

Although there is broad consensus about the benefits of proton pump inhibitors in acute upper peptic bleeding, there is still controversy over their optimal dosing. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified six systematic reviews including 27 randomized trials addressing this question. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded high-dose proton pump inhibitors probably result in little or no difference in re-bleeding rate or mortality. The risk/benefit and cost/benefit balance probably favor use of low-doses.

Independent risk factors of 30-day outcomes in 1264 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding in the USA: large ulcers do worse

BACKGROUND

Predictors of worse outcomes (rebleeding, surgery and death) of peptic ulcer bleeds (PUBs) are essential indicators because of significant morbidity and mortality rates of PUBs. However those have been infrequently reported since changes in medical therapy (PPI, proton pump inhibitors) and application of newer endoscopic haemostatic technique.

AIMS

To determine: (i) independent risk factors for 30-day rebleeding, surgery, and death and (ii) whether ulcer size is an independent predictor of major outcomes in patients with severe PUB after successful endoscopic haemostasis and treatment with optimal medical (high dose IV PPI) vs. prior treatment (high dose IV histamine 2 antagonists - H2RAs).

METHODS

A large prospectively followed population of patients hospitalised with severe PUBs between 1993 and 2011 at two US tertiary care academic medical centres, stratified by stigmata of recent haemorrhage (SRH) was studied. Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, independent risk factors for each outcome (rebleeding, surgery and death) up to 30 days were analysed. Effects for medical treatment (H2RA patients 1993-2005 vs. PPIs 2006-2011) were also analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 1264 patients were included. For ulcers ≥10 mm, the odds of 30-day rebleeding increased 6% per each 10% increase in ulcer size (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10, P = 0.0053). Other risk factors for 30-day rebleeding were major SRH, in-patient start of bleeding, and prior GI bleeding. Major SRH and ulcer size≥10 mm were predictors of 30-day surgery. Risk factors for 30-day death were major SRH, in-patient bleeding, and any initial platelet transfusion or fresh frozen plasma transfusion ≥2 units. Among patients with major SRH and out-patient start of bleeding, larger ulcer size was also a risk factor for death (OR 1.08 per 10% increase in ulcer size, 95% CI 1.02-1.14, P = 0.0095). Ulcer size was a significant independent variable for both time periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Ulcer size is a risk factor for worse outcomes after PUB and should be carefully recorded at initial endoscopy to improve patient triage and management.

Guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has compiled a set of guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding using evidence-based methods. The major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. As a result, these guidelines mainly focus on peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, although bleeding from other causes is also overviewed. From the epidemiological aspect, in recent years in Japan, bleeding from drug-related ulcers has become predominant in comparison with bleeding from Helicobacter pylori (HP)-related ulcers, owing to an increase in the aging population and coverage of HP eradication therapy by national health insurance. As for treatment, endoscopic hemostasis, in which there are a variety of methods, is considered to be the first-line treatment for bleeding from almost all causes. It is very important to precisely evaluate the severity of the patient's condition and stabilize the patient's vital signs with intensive care for successful endoscopic hemostasis. Additionally, use of antisecretory agents is recommended to prevent rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, especially for gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. Eighteen statements with evidence and recommendation levels have been made by the JGES committee of these guidelines according to evidence obtained from clinical research studies. However, some of the statements that are supported by a low level of evidence must be confirmed by further clinical research.

Management of Patients with Rebleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is a common emergency. Management of ulcer bleeding requires prompt risk stratification, initiation of pharmacotherapy, and timely evaluation for endoscopy. Although endoscopy can achieve primary hemostasis in more than 90% of peptic ulcer bleeding, rebleeding may occur in up to 15% of patients after therapeutic endoscopy and is associated with heightened mortality. Early identification of high-risk patients for rebleeding is important. Depending on bleeding severity and center availability, patients with rebleeding may be managed by second endoscopy, transarterial angiographic embolization, or surgery. This article reviews the current management of peptic ulcers with an emphasis on rebleeding.

High Dose Proton Pump Inhibitor Infusion Versus Bolus Injection for the Prevention of Bleeding After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

A high dose of continuous intravenous infusion of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is the standard treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding. The optimal dose for the prevention of bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is unclear.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to determine whether stronger acid suppression more effectively prevents bleeding and high risk ulcer stigma (HRS) after gastric ESD.

METHODS

A total of 273 patients who underwent ESD were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: the continuous infusion group and the bolus injection group. Second-look endoscopy was performed on the following day after ESD. The incidences and risk factors of HRS identified by second-look endoscopy and delayed bleeding were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the incidences of HRS and delayed bleeding between two treatment groups. The incidence of HRS was 15.8 % (43/273) and the gross morphology (flat or depressed) was identified as a significant factor associated with HRS. The incidence of delayed bleeding was 8.4 % (23/273) and the gross morphology (flat) and the presence of submucosal invasive cancer were identified as the associated risk factors for delayed bleeding.

CONCLUSION

The incidences of delayed bleeding and HRS identified by second-look endoscopy were not affected by PPI infusion methods. Flat or depressed morphologic lesions and submucosal invasive cancer should be closely monitored.

Effect of omeprazole dose, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, and smoking on repair mechanisms in acute peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) is a major cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The effect of omeprazole on mucosal repair is unknown.

AIMS

We studied the effect of omeprazole, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, and smoking on PUB.

METHODS

There were 43 PUB patients who received regular or high dose of omeprazole for 72 h. Biopsies from antrum and corpus were taken before and after treatment. Biopsy samples from 20 celiac disease patients worked as controls. The expression of Ki-67, Bcl-2, COX-2, Hsp27, and Hsp70 was analyzed from patients and controls.

RESULTS

Bcl-2 expression in PUB patients was lower than in controls. However, Bcl-2 increased significantly from 5.0 (SD 4.5) to 9.1 % (SD 6.7), p = 0.0004, in the antrum after omeprazole. In univariate analysis, a high omeprazole dose caused a more profound increase in Ki-67 expression in the corpus: 35.3 % (SD 54.8) than a regular dose: -10.1 % (SD 40.6), p = 0.022. In multivariate analysis, Ki-67 decreased significantly in the corpus between the pre- and posttreatment period (p = 0.011), while a high omeprazole dose (p = 0.0265), the use of NSAIDs (p = 0.0208), and smoking (p = 0.0296) significantly increased Ki-67 expression. Bcl-2 in the corpus increased significantly (p = 0.0003) after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that Bcl-2 may be an important factor in the pathogenesis of a peptic ulcer and PUB. In addition, high-dose omeprazole increased the expression of Ki-67, which may enhance the healing process of a peptic ulcer.

Intermittent vs continuous proton pump inhibitor therapy for high-risk bleeding ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Current guidelines recommend an intravenous bolus dose of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) followed by continuous PPI infusion after endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers. Substitution of intermittent PPI therapy, if similarly effective as bolus plus continuous-infusion PPI therapy, would decrease the PPI dose, costs, and resource use.

OBJECTIVE

To compare intermittent PPI therapy with the currently recommended bolus plus continuous-infusion PPI regimen for reduction of ulcer rebleeding.

DATA SOURCES

Searches included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases through December 2013; US and European gastroenterology meeting abstracts from 2009 to 2013; and bibliographies of systematic reviews.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of patients with endoscopically treated high-risk bleeding ulcers (active bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, and adherent clots) comparing intermittent doses of PPIs and the currently recommended regimen (80-mg intravenous bolus dose of a PPI followed by an infusion of 8 mg/h for 72 hours).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Duplicate independent data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were performed. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model or a random effects model if statistical heterogeneity was present.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was rebleeding within 7 days; additional predefined outcomes included rebleeding within 3 and 30 days, need for urgent intervention, mortality, red blood cell transfusion, and length of hospital stay. The primary hypothesis, defined before initiation of the literature review, was that intermittent use of PPIs was noninferior to bolus plus continuous infusion of PPIs, with the noninferiority margin predefined as an absolute risk difference of 3%.

RESULTS

The risk ratio of rebleeding within 7 days for intermittent vs bolus plus continuous infusion of PPIs was 0.72 (upper boundary of 1-sided 95% CI, 0.97) and the absolute risk difference was -2.64% (upper boundary of 1-sided 95% CI, -0.28%, which is well below the predefined noninferiority margin of 3%). Risk ratios for rebleeding within 30 days and 3 days, mortality, and urgent interventions were less than 1 and mean differences for blood transfusion and hospital length of stay were less than 0, indicating that no summary estimate showed an increased risk with intermittent therapy. The upper boundaries of 95% CIs for absolute risk differences were less than 1.50% for all predefined rebleeding outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Intermittent PPI therapy is comparable to the current guideline-recommended regimen of intravenous bolus plus a continuous infusion of PPIs in patients with endoscopically treated high-risk bleeding ulcers. Guidelines should be revised to recommend intermittent PPI 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.

State-of-the-art management of acute bleeding peptic ulcer disease

The management of patients with non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding has evolved, as have its causes and prognosis, over the past 20 years. The addition of high-quality data coupled to the publication of authoritative national and international guidelines have helped define current-day standards of care. This review highlights the relevant clinical evidence and consensus recommendations that will hopefully result in promoting the effective dissemination and knowledge translation of important information in the management of patients afflicted with this common entity.

Peptic ulcer bleeding in patients with or without cirrhosis: different diseases but the same prognosis?

BACKGROUND

Physiopathology and prognosis of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) have never been described in cirrhotic patients.

AIM

To assess risk factors and outcome of PUB in two groups of patients with PUB with or without cirrhosis.

METHODS

We included prospectively all patients with PUB referred to our ICU of Hepatology and Gastroenterology between January 2008 and March 2011. All patients were treated according to international recommendations. Diagnosis of cirrhosis was based on clinical, biological and morphological exams. Aetiologies, characteristics and outcomes of PUB were compared in cirrhotic vs. noncirrhotic patients.

RESULTS

A total of 203 patients with PUB were included prospectively. Twenty-nine patients had cirrhosis (group Cirr+), and 174 patients had no cirrhosis (group Cirr-). Demographic data were similar between the two groups except for age and alcohol consumption. Aetiology of cirrhosis was alcohol in 97% of cirrhotic patients. Characteristics of PUB were not different between the two groups. Ninety-three per cent of patients with cirrhosis had endoscopic portal hypertension. Aetiology of PUB was different between the group Cirr+ and Cirr- (Helicobacter pylori = 10.3% vs. 48.8%, P < 0.0001; NSAID's = 17.2% vs. 54.0%, P < 0.0001; idiopathic PUB = 79.3% vs. 23.8%, P < 0.0001). Outcome was comparable concerning re-bleeding (7.0% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.31), need for arterial embolisation (10.3 vs. 8.6%, P = 0.76), need for salvage surgery (0 vs. 1.7%, P = 0.31) and mortality (3.0% vs. 1.1%, P = 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Physiopathology of PUB seems to be different in patients with cirrhosis. In cirrhotic patients, PUB occurs almost only in alcoholics. In our series, prognosis was similar to general population. PUB in cirrhosis might be related to portal hypertension and/or alcohol.

Intravenous non-high-dose pantoprazole is equally effective as high-dose pantoprazole in preventing rebleeding among low risk patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer after initial endoscopic hemostasis

BACKGROUND

Many studies have shown that high-dose proton-pumps inhibitors (PPI) do not further reduce the rate of rebleeding compared to non-high-dose PPIs but we do not know whether intravenous non-high-dose PPIs reduce rebleeding rates among patients at low risk (Rockall score < 6) or among those at high risk, both compared to high-dose PPIs. This retrospective case-controlled study aimed to identify the subgroups of these patients that might benefit from treatment with non-high-dose PPIs.

METHODS

Subjects who received high dose and non-high-dose pantoprazole for confirmed acute PU bleeding at a tertiary referral hospital were enrolled (n = 413). They were divided into sustained hemostasis (n = 324) and rebleeding groups (n = 89). The greedy method was applied to allow treatment-control random matching (1:1). Patients were randomly selected from the non-high-dose and high-dose PPI groups who had a high risk peptic ulcer bleeding (n = 104 in each group), and these were then subdivided to two subgroups (Rockall score ≥ 6 vs. < 6, n = 77 vs. 27).

RESULTS

An initial low hemoglobin level, serum creatinine level, and Rockall score were independent factors associated with rebleeding. After case-control matching, the significant variables between the non-high-dose and high-dose PPI groups for a Rockall score ≥ 6 were the rebleeding rate, and the amount of blood transfused. Case-controlled matching for the subgroup with a Rockall score < 6 showed that the rebleeding rate was similar for both groups (11.1% in each group).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous non-high-dose pantoprazole is equally effective as high-dose pantoprazole when treating low risk patients with a Rockall sore were < 6 who have bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata after endoscopic hemostasis.