Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis during Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Whether proton-pump inhibitors are beneficial or harmful for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients undergoing invasive ventilation is unclear. METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we assigned critically ill adults who were undergoing invasive ventilation to receive intravenous pantoprazole (at a dose of 40 mg daily) or matching placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU) at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Multiplicity-adjusted secondary outcomes included ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and patient-important bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4821 patients underwent randomization in 68 ICUs. Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 25 of 2385 patients (1.0%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 of 2377 patients (3.5%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.47; P<0.001). At 90 days, death was reported in 696 of 2390 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group and in 734 of 2379 patients (30.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04; P = 0.25). Patient-important bleeding was reduced with pantoprazole; all other secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing invasive ventilation, pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding than placebo, with no significant effect on mortality. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; REVISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03374800.).

Peptic ulcer disease.

Annual prevalence estimates of peptic ulcer disease range between 0·12% and 1·5%. Peptic ulcer disease is usually attributable to Helicobacter pylori infection, intake of some medications (such as aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications), or being critically ill (stress-related), or it can be idiopathic. The clinical presentation is usually uncomplicated, with peptic ulcer disease management based on eradicating H pylori if present, the use of acid-suppressing medications-most often proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)-or addressing complications, such as with early endoscopy and high-dose PPIs for peptic ulcer bleeding. Special considerations apply to patients on antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents. H pylori treatment has evolved, with the choice of regimen dictated by local antibiotic resistance patterns. Indications for primary and secondary prophylaxis vary across societies; most suggest PPIs for patients at highest risk of developing a peptic ulcer, its complications, or its recurrence. Additional research areas include the use of potassium-competitive acid blockers and H pylori vaccination; the optimal approach for patients at risk of stress ulcer bleeding requires more robust determinations of optimal patient selection and treatment selection, if any. Appropriate continuation of PPI use outweighs most possible side-effects if given for approved indications, while de-prescribing should be trialled when a definitive indication is no longer present.

Family-based Helicobacter pylori infection control and management strategy and screen-and-treat strategy are highly cost-effective in preventing multiple upper gastrointestinal diseases in Chinese population at national level.

BACKGROUND: The overall benefits of the newly introduced family-based Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection control and management (FBCM) and screen-and-treat strategies in preventing multiple upper gastrointestinal diseases at national level in China have not been explored. We investigate the cost-effectiveness of these strategies in the whole Chinese population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Decision trees and Markov models of H. pylori infection-related non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD), peptic ulcer disease (PUD), and gastric cancer (GC) were developed to simulate the cost-effectiveness of these strategies in the whole 494 million households in China. The main outcomes include cost-effectiveness, life years (LY), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: When compared with no-screen strategy, both FBCM and screen-and-treat strategies reduced the number of new cases of NUD, PUD, PUD-related deaths, and the prevalence of GC, and cancer-related deaths. The costs saved by these two strategies were $1467 million and $879 million, quality-adjusted life years gained were 227 million and 267 million, and life years gained were 59 million and 69 million, respectively. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that FBCM strategy costs -$6.46/QALY and -$24.75/LY, and screen-and-treat strategy costs -$3.3/QALY and -$12.71/LY when compared with no-screen strategy. Compared to the FBCM strategy, the screen-and-treat strategy reduced the incidence of H. pylori-related diseases, added 40 million QALYs, and saved 10 million LYs, but at the increased cost of $588 million. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that screen-and-treat strategy costs $14.88/QALY and $59.5/LY when compared with FBCM strategy. The robustness of the results was also verified. CONCLUSIONS: Both FBCM and screen-and-treat strategies are highly cost-effective in preventing NUD, PUD, and GC than the no-screen strategy in Chinese families at national level. As FBCM strategy is more practical and efficient, it is expected to play a more important role in preventing familial H. pylori infection and also serves as an excellent reference for other highly infected societies.

Omeprazole taken once every other day can effectively prevent aspirin-induced gastrointestinal mucosal damage in rats.

BACKGROUND: Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) prevent aspirin-associated gastric and duodenal mucosal damage. However, long-term use of PPIs can lead to various adverse reactions, such as gastric polyps and enterochromaffin-like cell hyperplasia. Current research indicates that the abovementioned adverse reactions are mainly related to hypergastrinemia. We investigated whether low-frequency administration of omeprazole could effectively repair aspirin-induced mucosal damage and reduce the increase in gastrin levels associated with long-term use of PPIs. METHODS: Sprague‒Dawley rats were divided into four treatment groups: daily aspirin, daily aspirin and omeprazole once every day (qd), daily aspirin and omeprazole once every other day (qod), and daily aspirin and omeprazole once every three days (1/d3). After 15 days of feeding, blood samples were collected, and the stomachs of sacrificed rats were subjected to macroscopic, histological, and immunohistochemical studies. Moreover, in clinical practice, patients with peptic ulcers caused by aspirin took a standard dose of omeprazole (20 mg) every other day. Two months later, gastroscopy was performed to examine the healing of the ulcers. RESULTS: Both the omeprazole qd and omeprazole qod administrations effectively prevented aspirin-induced gastric peptic ulcers, with no significant difference between the two groups in the inhibition of parietal cell secretion of gastric acid and cell apoptosis. However, omeprazole 1/d3 failed to completely prevent aspirin-induced gastric mucosal injury. Notably, the gastrin levels, cell proliferation ability and cholecystokinin B receptor expression of the omeprazole qd group were significantly higher than those of the omeprazole qod group. In clinical work, patients with peptic ulcers caused by aspirin were given a standard dose of omeprazole every other day, and their ulcers healed after 2 months, as observed by gastroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Omeprazole administration once every other day can effectively prevent aspirin-induced peptic ulcers and reduce hypergastrinemia, which may reduce the long-term adverse effects of PPI treatment.

Pantoprazole and Vonoprazan Performed Well in Preventing Peptic Ulcer Recurrence in Low-Dose Aspirin Users.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose aspirin (LDA) administration is associated with an elevated risk of recurring peptic ulcer (PU) and gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage. AIMS: This systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of diverse medications in preventing the recurrence of PU and GI hemorrhage in patients with a history of PU receiving long-term LDA therapy. METHODS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023406550). We searched relevant studies in main databases from inception to March 2023. All statistical analyses were performed using R (version 4.1.3), with the "Gemtc" (version 1.0-1) package. The pooled risk ratio (RR), corresponding 95% credible interval (95% CrI), and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were calculated. RESULTS: 11 Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. The analysis underscored pantoprazole was the most efficacious for reducing the risk of PU recurrence (RR [95% CrI] = 0.02 [0, 0.28]; SUCRA: 90.76%), followed by vonoprazan (RR [95% CrI] = 0.03 [0, 0.19]; SUCRA: 86.47%), comparing with the placebo group. Pantoprazole also performed well in preventing GI hemorrhage (RR [95% CrI] = 0.01[0, 0.42]; SUCRA: 87.12%) compared with Teprenone. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with a history of PU receiving LDA, pantoprazole and vonoprazan might be the optimal choices to prevent PU recurrence and GI hemorrhage.

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Versus Placebo-A Blinded Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety of Two Strategies in Critically Ill Infants With Congenital Heart Disease.

OBJECTIVES: The routine use of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in infants with congenital heart disease (CHD) in the cardiac ICU (CICU) is controversial. We aimed to conduct a pilot study to explore the feasibility of performing a subsequent larger trial to assess the safety and efficacy of withholding SUP in this population (NCT03667703). DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS: Single-center, prospective, double-blinded, parallel group (SUP vs. placebo), pilot randomized controlled pilot trial (RCT) in infants with CHD admitted to the CICU and anticipated to require respiratory support for greater than 24 hours. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 (stratified by age and admission type) to receive a histamine-2 receptor antagonist or placebo until respiratory support was discontinued, up to 14 days, or transfer from the CICU, if earlier. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Feasibility was defined a priori by thresholds of screening rate, consent rate, timely drug allocation, and protocol adherence. The safety outcome was the rate of clinically significant upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding. We screened 1,426 patients from February 2019 to March 2022; of 132 eligible patients, we gained informed consent in 70 (53%). Two patients did not require CICU admission after obtaining consent, and the remaining 68 patients were randomized to SUP (n = 34) or placebo (n = 34). Ten patients were withdrawn early, because of a change in eligibility (n = 3) or open-label SUP use (n = 7, 10%). Study procedures were completed in 58 patients (89% protocol adherence). All feasibility criteria were met. There were no clinically significant episodes of UGI bleeding during the pilot RCT. The percentage of patients with other nonserious adverse events did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Withholding of SUP in infants with CHD admitted to the CICU was feasible. A larger multicenter RCT designed to confirm the safety of this intervention and its impact on incidence of UGI bleeding, gastrointestinal microbiome, and other clinical outcomes is warranted.

In older patients receiving aspirin, H pylori eradication reduced hospitalization or death due to peptic ulcer bleeding at 2.5 y.

SOURCE CITATION: Hawkey C, Avery A, Coupland CAC, et al; HEAT trialists. Helicobacter pylori eradication for primary prevention of peptic ulcer bleeding in older patients prescribed aspirin in primary care (HEAT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2022;400:1597-1606. 36335970.

Helicobacter pylori eradication for primary prevention of peptic ulcer bleeding in older patients prescribed aspirin in primary care (HEAT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Peptic ulcers in patients receiving aspirin are associated with Helicobacter pylori infection. We aimed to investigate whether H pylori eradication would protect against aspirin-associated ulcer bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Helicobacter Eradication Aspirin Trial [HEAT]) at 1208 primary care centres in the UK, using routinely collected clinical data. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older who were receiving aspirin at a daily dose of 325 mg or less (with four or more 28-day prescriptions in the past year) and had a positive C13 urea breath test for H pylori at screening. Patients receiving ulcerogenic or gastroprotective medication were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a combination of oral clarithromycin 500 mg, metronidazole 400 mg, and lansoprazole 30 mg (active eradication), or oral placebo (control), twice daily for 1 week. Participants, their general practitioners and health-care providers, and the research nurses, trial team, adjudication committee, and analysis team were all masked to group allocation throughout the trial. Follow-up was by scrutiny of electronic data in primary and secondary care. The primary outcome was time to hospitalisation or death due to definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeding, and was analysed by Cox proportional hazards methods in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2011-003425-96. FINDINGS: Between Sept 14, 2012, and Nov 22, 2017, 30 166 patients had breath testing for H pylori, 5367 had a positive result, and 5352 were randomly assigned to receive active eradication (n=2677) or placebo (n=2675) and were followed up for a median of 5·0 years (IQR 3·9-6·4). Analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant departure from proportional hazards assumptions (p=0·0068), requiring analysis over separate time periods. There was a significant reduction in incidence of the primary outcome in the active eradication group in the first 2·5 years of follow-up compared with the control group (six episodes adjudicated as definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeds, rate 0·92 [95% CI 0·41-2·04] per 1000 person-years vs 17 episodes, rate 2·61 [1·62-4·19] per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] 0·35 [95% CI 0·14-0·89]; p=0·028). This advantage remained significant after adjusting for the competing risk of death (p=0·028) but was lost with longer follow-up (HR 1·31 [95% CI 0·55-3·11] in the period after the first 2·5 years; p=0·54). Reports of adverse events were actively solicited; taste disturbance was the most common event (787 patients). INTERPRETATION: H pylori eradication protects against aspirin-associated peptic ulcer bleeding, but this might not be sustained in the long term. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment.

Prophylactic acid suppression and enteral nutrition.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is routinely administered to critically ill patients who are at high-risk for clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding. Recent evidence however has highlighted adverse effects with acid suppressive therapy, particularly proton pump inhibitors where associations with higher mortality have been reported. Enteral nutrition may provide benefits in reducing the incidence of stress ulceration and may mitigate the need for acid suppressive therapy. This manuscript will describe the most recent evidence evaluating enteral nutrition for the provision of SUP. RECENT FINDINGS: There are limited data evaluating enteral nutrition for SUP. The available studies compare enteral nutrition with or without acid suppressive therapy rather than enteral nutrition vs. placebo. Although data exist demonstrating similar clinically important bleeding rates in patients on enteral nutrition who receive SUP vs. no SUP, these studies are underpowered for this endpoint. In the largest placebo-controlled trial conducted to date, lower bleeding rates were observed with SUP and most patients were receiving enteral nutrition. Pooled analyses had also described benefit with SUP vs. placebo and enteral nutrition did not change the impact of these therapies. SUMMARY: Although enteral nutrition may provide some benefit as SUP, existing data are not strong enough to validate their use in place of acid suppressive therapy. Clinicians should continue to prescribe acid suppressive therapy for SUP in critically ill patients who are at high risk for clinically important bleeding even when enteral nutrition is being provided.

Associated Mortality Risk of Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy for the Prevention of Stress Ulceration in Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

GOALS: The aim was to systematically evaluate risks and benefits of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the critically ill patient. BACKGROUND: Whether PPIs increase mortality in the critically ill patient remains controversial. STUDY: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with trial sequential analysis, Bayesian sensitivity analysis, and fragility index analysis. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies in 78,009 critically ill adults receiving PPIs versus any comparator were included. PPI use was associated with an increased mortality risk in all studies [19.6% PPI vs. 17.5% comparator; RR: 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.20; P =0.01], in the subgroup of RCTs (19.4% vs. 18.7%; RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.0-1.09, P =0.04), but not cohort studies (19.9% vs. 16.7%; RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.98-1.28, P =0.09). Results were maintained with a Bayesian sensitivity analysis (RR: 1.13; 95% credible interval: 1.035-1.227) and a fragility index analysis, but not sequential analysis ( P =0.16). RCTs with a higher baseline severity of illness revealed the greatest mortality risk with PPI use (32.1% PPI vs. 29.4% comparator; RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.04-1.14; P <0.001). PPI use reduced clinically important bleeding in RCTs (1.4% PPI vs. 2.1% comparator; RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.5-0.9; P =0.009) but increased bleeding in cohort studies (2.7% PPI vs. 1.2% comparator; RR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.2-3.52; P =0.009). PPI use was not associated with a lower incidence of clinically important bleeding when compared with histamine-2 receptor antagonists (1.3% vs. 1.9%; RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.28-1.25, P =0.09). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated an association between PPI use and an increased risk of mortality.

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Cardiac Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study to Analyze the Effects of SUP Cessation.

INTRODUCTION: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is an important complication among critically ill adults, especially those having cardiac surgery as management is complicated by the requirement for antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy. As a result, stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) has become routine practice in many centers, utilizing either proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor blockers (H2RBs). Recent evidence from the PEPTIC trial indicated an increase in mortality risk among cardiac surgery patients receiving PPIs compared to H2RBs. Considering these findings, alongside practical difficulties surrounding the transition to H2RBs as a prophylactic agent in New Zealand, Wellington Hospital intensive care unit elected to discontinue routine PPI use for SUP in cardiac surgery patients. A retrospective study was conducted to assess patient outcomes following the discontinuation of routine SUP. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all adult patients who underwent cardiac surgery at Wellington Hospital between February/2018 and January/2022, and divided patients into cohorts before and after the discontinuation of routine use of SUP on the 31st of January 2020. The primary outcomes were the rate of UGIB, oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) and 180-day postoperative mortality. Secondary outcomes included rates of postoperative Clostridium difficile enteritis, pneumonia, deep sternal wound infection, and length of stay of the index admission. RESULTS: The rate of UGIB statistically significantly increased since the cessation of routine SUP in January 2020 (2.4% vs 5.4%, P-value = .004). This finding was mirrored with the increased rates of OGD (1.9% vs 4.0%, P-value = .005). There were no significant changes in 180-day mortality, hospital length of stay, or any of the postoperative infective complications analyzed, pneumonia, deep sternal wound infection, or C difficile enteritis. CONCLUSION: This study suggests an association between routine use of SUP and reduced rates of clinically significant UGIB and OGD requirements in cardiac surgery patients without increasing risk of infective complications or postoperative mortality.

Associations between enteral nutrition and outcomes in the SUP-ICU trial: Protocol for exploratory post hoc analyses.

Critically ill patients are at risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Counter measures to minimise this risk include the use of pharmacological stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP). The effect of enteral nutrition as SUP on GI bleeding event rates is unknown. There are conflicting data describing the effect of co-administration of enteral nutrition with pharmacological SUP, and there is substantial variation in practice. We aim to conduct an exploratory post hoc analysis to evaluate the association of enteral nutrition with clinically important GI bleed rates in ICU patients included in the SUP-ICU trial, and to explore any interactions between enteral nutrition and pharmacologic SUP on patient outcomes. The SUP-ICU trial dataset will be used to assess if enteral nutrition is associated with the outcomes of interest. Extended Cox models will be used considering relevant competing events, including treatment allocation (SUP or placebo) and enteral nutrition as a daily time-varying covariate, with additional adjustment for severity of illness (SAPS II). Results will be presented as adjusted hazard ratios for treatment allocation and enteral nutrition, and for treatment allocation and enteral nutrition considering potential interactions with the other variable, all with 95% confidence intervals and p-values for the tests of interaction. All results will be considered as exploratory only. This post hoc analysis may yield important insights to guide practice and inform the design of future randomised clinical trial investigating the effect of enteral nutrition on GI bleeding.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adult patients with sepsis at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines recommend stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) for patients with sepsis who have gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding risks; however, the effect of SUP has not been specially studied in these patients. AIMS: To determine the effects of SUP versus no prophylaxis on patient-important outcomes in critically ill adult patients with sepsis who have risk factors for GI bleeding. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilised data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database. We compared those who received SUP with proton-pump inhibitors or histamine-2 receptor antagonists for ≥3 days with those who received no prophylaxis. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to make comparisons between groups with similar distributions of study variables. The primary outcome was inhospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 7744 patients were included in the analysis, with 1088 (14.0%) in the non-SUP group and 6656 (86.0%) in the SUP group. A 1:1 PSM created 866 patients in each cohort. No significant differences were noted between the two groups with regard to inhospital mortality (22.3% vs 20.4%; P = 0.379), GI bleeding (4.7% vs 6.4%; P = 0.172), pneumonia (38.9% vs 36.6%; P = 0.346), Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) (6.4% vs 8.9%; P = 0.0.057) or intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) (4.2 days vs 4.6 days; P = 0.394). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill, septic, adult patients at risk for GI bleeding, SUP showed no effect on hospital mortality, the rate of GI bleeding, pneumonia, CDI and ICU LOS.

Association Between Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and Biliary Tract Cancer Risk: A Swedish Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Biliary tract cancer is a group of highly aggressive malignant disorders, yet risk factors are poorly understood. In this study, we aim to assess whether prolonged use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) increases the risk of incident biliary tract carcinoma in a nation-wide population-based cohort in Sweden. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Using nation-wide registries, we identified all adults who received maintenance PPIs (≥180 days) according to the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register from 2005 through 2012. Data on incident biliary tract cancer were retrieved from the Swedish Cancer, Death and Outpatient Registers. Risk of biliary tract cancer in persons who received PPI treatment was compared with the general population of the corresponding age, sex, and calendar year yielding standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) with 95% CIs. Of 738,881 PPI users (median follow-up of 5.3 years), 206 (0.03%) developed gallbladder cancer and 265 (0.04%) extrahepatic and 131 (0.02%) intrahepatic bile duct cancer corresponding to SIRs of 1.58 (95% CI, 1.37-1.81), 1.77 (95% CI, 1.56-2.00), and 1.88 (95% CI, 1.57-2.23), respectively. In sensitivity analyses restricted to persons without a history of gallstones or chronic liver or pancreatic diseases, SIRs were 1.36 (95% CI, 1.17-1.57) and 1.47 (95% CI, 1.19-1.80) for extra- and intrahepatic duct cancer, respectively. The risk remained higher than the corresponding general population with ≥5 years of PPIs use, ruling out confounding by indication. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, long-term use of PPIs was associated with an increased risk of gallbladder, intrahepatic, and extrahepatic bile duct cancer compared with the general population.

Economic and health impacts of Helicobacter pylori eradication strategy for the treatment of peptic ulcer disease: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most peptic ulcer cases are associated with Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection or the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). H. pylori eradication therapy is recommended for the treatment of H. pylori-positive peptic ulcers. We aimed to assess and validate the cumulative economic and health effects of H. pylori eradication strategy for the treatment of peptic ulcers compared with PPI therapy strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a cohort state-transition model for H. pylori eradication strategy and PPI therapy strategy over a lifetime horizon from a healthcare payer perspective. We targeted two hypothetical cohorts of H. pylori-positive patients with gastric and duodenal ulcers aged 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80. The main outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life expectancy life-years (LYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, ulcer recurrence cases, and ulcer-associated deaths. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, H. pylori eradication strategy was less costly with greater benefits than PPI therapy strategy in all age groups. Cost-effectiveness was not sensitive to any variables in all age groups. Sensitivity analyses showed strong robustness of the results. From 2000 to 2020, H. pylori eradication strategy saved US$14.07 billion over a lifetime, increased 8.65 million QALYs and 1.23 million LYs over a lifetime, and prevented 551,298 ulcer recurrence cases and 59,465 ulcer-associated deaths, compared with PPI therapy strategy. CONCLUSIONS: H. pylori eradication strategy not only has contributed significantly to preventing ulcer recurrence and reducing ulcer-associated deaths but also has resulted in great cost savings. All over the world, H. pylori eradication strategy is likely to have yielded a comparable magnitude of economic and health benefits, depending on the epidemiology of H. pylori-related peptic ulcers and the healthcare environment in each country.

Are Proton Pump Inhibitors More Effective Than Histamine-2-Receptor Antagonists for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies.

BACKGROUND: Histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) have been largely replaced by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) despite the inconclusive evidence concerning comparative effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of PPIs and H2RAs on SUP in real-world setting. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to September 19, 2021. We included cohort studies comparing PPIs with H2RAs in critically ill adult patients and explicitly reporting the outcome of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding or mortality. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess potential risk of bias. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis and only the studies with adjusted effect estimates were pooled. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to assess the overall quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Thirteen cohort studies (N = 145 149) were eligible and 11 of them available for full texts were of low to moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis of adjusted effect estimates indicated that PPIs were associated with a significantly higher risk of GI bleeding, compared with H2RAs (8 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-3.01, low certainty). Post hoc pooling analysis also suggested that PPIs were associated with a slightly higher risk of mortality in comparison with H2RAs (7 studies, OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.13-1.42, low certainty). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The systematic review of cohort studies showed that PPIs were associated with higher risks of GI bleeding and mortality, although the certainty of evidence was low. Overall, we suggest not excluding H2RAs for SUP, while further studies are essential for elucidating the risk stratification, optimal regimen, and specific duration.

NSAIDs, gastrointestinal toxicity and inflammatory bowel disease. / AINE, toxicidad gastrointestinal y enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal.

Non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are currently one of the most widely used drugs. The use of NSAIDs is associated with gastrointestinal toxicity, affecting both upper gastrointestinal tract (peptic ulcer disease) and lower gastrointestinal tract (NSAID-induced enteropathy). NSAIDs use has been associated with an increased risk of clinical relapse in inflammatory bowel disease patients. In this article, we review the upper and lower gastrointestinal toxicity of NSAIDs, with a focus on the risks and specific data of these drugs in inflammatory bowel disease patients, giving recommendations for its appropriate use in the clinical practice. Although evidence is scarce, short-term use of NSAIDs appears to be safe, and the data available suggest that selective COX-2 inhibitors are the safer option. NSAIDs should be avoided as long-term treatment or with high doses, especially in patients with active inflammation.

Pantoprazole in Patients at Risk for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Prophylaxis for gastrointestinal stress ulceration is frequently given to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but its risks and benefits are unclear. METHODS: In this European, multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned adults who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition (i.e., an unplanned admission) and who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding to receive 40 mg of intravenous pantoprazole (a proton-pump inhibitor) or placebo daily during the ICU stay. The primary outcome was death by 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 3298 patients were enrolled; 1645 were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group and 1653 to the placebo group. Data on the primary outcome were available for 3282 patients (99.5%). At 90 days, 510 patients (31.1%) in the pantoprazole group and 499 (30.4%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.13; P=0.76). During the ICU stay, at least one clinically important event (a composite of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or myocardial ischemia) had occurred in 21.9% of patients assigned to pantoprazole and 22.6% of those assigned to placebo (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.11). In the pantoprazole group, 2.5% of patients had clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, as compared with 4.2% in the placebo group. The number of patients with infections or serious adverse reactions and the percentage of days alive without life support within 90 days were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult patients in the ICU who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, mortality at 90 days and the number of clinically important events were similar in those assigned to pantoprazole and those assigned to placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; SUP-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02467621 .).

Reassessing the Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Histamine-2 Antagonists in Critically Ill Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the associations of stress ulcer prophylaxis with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, nosocomial pneumonia (NP), mortality, and length of stay in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in the English language assessing the effects of proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2 receptor antagonists on patients in the PICU published before October 2018 from the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. A random-effects Mantel-Haenszel risk difference (MHRD) model was used to pool all the selected studies for meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were the incidences of GI bleeding and NP. Secondary outcomes included mortality and length of PICU stay. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (4 RCTs and 13 observational studies) with a total of 340 763 patients were included. The overall incidence of GI bleeding was 15.2%. There was no difference in the risk of GI bleeding based on stress ulcer prophylaxis status (MHRD, 5.0%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 11.0%; I2 = 62%). There was an increased risk of NP in patients who received stress ulcer prophylaxis compared with those who did not (MHRD, 5.3%; 95% CI, 3.5%-7.0%; I2 = 0%). An increased risk of mortality was seen in patients receiving stress ulcer prophylaxis (MHRD, 2.1%; 95% CI, 2.0%-2.2%; I2 = 0%), although this association was no longer found when 1 large study was removed in a sensitivity analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in length of PICU stay between the groups (standardized mean difference, 0.42 days; 95% CI, -0.16 to 1.01 days; I2 = 89.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Stress ulcer prophylaxis does not show a clear benefit in reducing GI bleeding or length of PICU stay. Observational studies suggest an increased risk of NP and mortality with stress ulcer prophylaxis, which remains to be validated in clinical trials.

Proton pump inhibitor use among patients at risk of peptic ulcer bleeding: a nationwide register-based study.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors reduce the risk of peptic ulcer bleeding in patients at risk. The knowledge about the extent of gastroprotection in patients at increased risk and factors associated with prophylactic treatment is limited. AIMS: (1) to analyze the extent of gastroprotective undertreatment in patients using aspirin/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and (2) to analyze which patient characteristics are associated with proton pump inhibitor prophylaxis among those at increased ulcer bleeding risk. METHODS: A Danish nationwide register-based study. Based on a risk stratification model we identified citizens at increased ulcer bleeding risk and analyzed the proportion concomitantly treated with proton pump inhibitors. Further, we analyzed associations between use of ulcer prophylaxis and comorbidity and socioeconomic characteristics. RESULTS: Some 44.4% of the high-risk patients were concomitantly treated with proton pump inhibitors. In the crude analyses cohabiting, having a high educational level and a high income were significantly associated with lower odds of being treated with proton pump inhibitors. When adjusting for medication use, age, sex and comorbidity the associations were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: There is room for improvement in the extent of ulcer prophylaxis but no clear social gradient in under prescribing of gastroprotection. With the substantial risk-reducing possibility concomitant proton pump inhibitor use could save numerous patients from ulcer bleeding each year. Our study calls for increased awareness of peptic ulcer bleeding risk and dissemination of knowledge to clinicians about risk factors for gastrointestinal hemorrhage and the risk reducing potential of co-prescribing proton pump inhibitors to patients at risk.