Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is recommended in critically ill patients with high risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, as to patients receiving enteral feeding, the preventive effect of SUP is not well-known. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of pharmacologic SUP in enterally fed patients on stress-related GI bleeding and other clinical outcomes. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception through 30 Sep 2017. Eligible trials were RCTs comparing pharmacologic SUP to either placebo or no prophylaxis in enterally fed patients in the ICU. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias were explored. RESULTS: Seven studies (n = 889 patients) were included. There was no statistically significant difference in GI bleeding (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.31, p = 0.37) between groups. This finding was confirmed by further subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis. In addition, SUP had no effect on overall mortality (RR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.56, p = 0.14), Clostridium difficile infection (RR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.25 to 3.19, p = 0.86), length of stay in the ICU (MD 0.04 days; 95% CI, -0.79 to 0.87, p = 0.92), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.38 days; 95% CI, -1.48 to 0.72, p = 0.50), but was associated with an increased risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (RR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.27; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that in patients receiving enteral feeding, pharmacologic SUP is not beneficial and combined interventions may even increase the risk of nosocomial pneumonia.

Pattern and severity of multimorbidity among patients attending primary care settings in Odisha, India.

Multimorbidity is increasingly the primary concern of healthcare systems globally with substantial implications for patient outcomes and resource cost. A critical knowledge gap exists as to the magnitude of multimorbidity in primary care practice in low and middle income countries with available information limited to prevalence. In India, primary care forms the bulk of the health care delivery being provided through both public (community health center) and private general practice setting. We undertook a study to identify multimorbidity patterns and relate these patterns to severity among primary care attendees in Odisha state of India. A total of 1649 patients attending 40 primary care facilities were interviewed using a structured multimorbidity assessment questionnaire. Multimorbidity patterns (dyad and triad) were identified for 21 chronic conditions, functional limitation was assessed as a proxy measure of severity and the mean severity score for each pattern, was determined after adjusting for age. The leading dyads in younger age group i.e. 18-29 years were acid peptic disease with arthritis/ chronic back ache/tuberculosis /chronic lung disease, while older age groups had more frequent combinations of hypertension + arthritis/ chronic lung disease/vision difficulty, and arthritis + chronic back ache. The triad of acid peptic disease + arthritis + chronic backache was common in men in all age groups. Tuberculosis and lung diseases were associated with significantly higher age-adjusted mean severity score (poorer functional ability). Among men, arthritis, chronic backache, chronic lung disease and vision impairment were observed to have highest severity) whereas women reported higher severity for combinations of hypertension, chronic back ache and arthritis. Given the paucity of studies on multimorbidity patterns in low and middle income countries, future studies should seek to assess the reproducibility of our findings in other populations and settings. Another task is the potential implications of different multimorbidity clusters for designing care protocols, as currently the protocols are disease specific, hardly taking comorbidity into account.

Safety and tolerability of high-dose intravenous esomeprazole for prevention of peptic ulcer rebleeding.

INTRODUCTION: Efficacy of a continuous high-dose intravenous infusion of esomeprazole, followed by an oral regimen after successful endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) was established in the PUB study (ClinicalTrials. gov identifier: NCT00251979). Mortality rates and detailed safety and tolerability results from this study are reported here. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized study in patients ≥18 years with overt signs of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, following endoscopic diagnosis of a single gastric or duodenal ulcer (≥5 mm) with stigmata indicating current/ recent bleeding (Forrest class Ia, Ib, IIa, or IIb). Postendoscopic hemostasis, patients received intravenous esomeprazole (80 mg/30 minutes, then 8 mg/hour for 71.5 hours) or placebo. Postinfusion, all patients received open-label oral esomeprazole 40 mg once daily for 27 days. Mortality rates were analyzed using Fisher's exact test; other safety variables were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 767 patients were randomized; 764 comprised the safety analysis set (375 patients received esomeprazole, 389 placebo). Baseline characteristics were similar across the two treatment groups. Three deaths from the esomeprazole treatment group and eight from the placebo group occurred during the trial (0.8% versus 2.1%; P=0.22). From these 11 all-cause deaths, one (esomeprazole group; rebleeding from duodenal ulcer) occurred during the 72-hour intravenous treatment phase. Adverse event (AE) frequency was similar for the two groups over the intravenous treatment phase (esomeprazole, 39.2%; placebo, 41.9%), with gastrointestinal disorders being most commonly reported (12.3% and 19.8%, respectively). Serious AEs were mostly related to bleeding events. Infusion-site reactions (mild, transient) were reported in 4.3% of esomeprazole-treated patients versus 0.5% of placebo patients. These did not lead to treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Esomeprazole, given as a continuous high-dose intravenous infusion followed by an oral regimen after successful endoscopic therapy for PUB, was well tolerated, with no apparent safety concerns from either the high-dose intravenous treatment or oral phases.

Quantitative assessment of the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risk-benefit of celecoxib compared to individual NSAIDs at the population level.

PURPOSE: To estimate the net cardiovascular (CV) (coronary heart disease, stroke, congestive heart failure), and gastrointestinal (GI) (peptic ulcer complications) risk-benefit public health impact of the use of celecoxib compared to non-selective NSAIDs in the arthritis population. METHODS: We applied discrete event simulation models to data from the US National Health Surveys, CV risk-prediction models from the Framingham Heart Study, and population-based studies. Models took into account the multifactorial effect of risk factors, comorbidity, and competing risk of mortality. We simulated the natural history of CV and GI disease in the U.S. arthritis population over 1 year, through the individual baseline cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risk profile. This model was modified with relative risks associated with the use of each treatment. The mean number of events was estimated for each end-point in each model: natural history, celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen. The number of events for celecoxib was compared with each NSAID. RESULTS: The evaluation included 1% of the U.S. population with arthritis. Celecoxib, when applied to 100 000 patients over 1 year, resulted in 570 (range from sensitivity analysis: 440-691), 226 (124-313), and 746 (612-868) fewer ulcer complications than diclofenac, ibuprofen, and naproxen, respectively. There were 20 (16-25), 8 (4-12), and 27 (22-32) fewer deaths from ulcer complications, respectively. No increase in cardiovascular events or all cause mortality was observed for celecoxib versus the other individual NSAIDs. CONCLUSION: Results from these simulations suggest a gastrointestinal benefit for celecoxib not offset by increased cardiovascular events or mortality. The methodology used here provides a risk-benefit assessment framework for evaluating the public heath impact of drugs.

Effect of intravenous omeprazole on recurrent bleeding after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers.

BACKGROUND: After endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers, bleeding recurs in 15 to 20 percent of patients. METHODS: We assessed whether the use of a high dose of a proton-pump inhibitor would reduce the frequency of recurrent bleeding after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers. Patients with actively bleeding ulcers or ulcers with nonbleeding visible vessels were treated with an epinephrine injection followed by thermocoagulation. After hemostasis had been achieved, they were randomly assigned in a double-blind fashion to receive omeprazole (given as a bolus intravenous injection of 80 mg followed by an infusion of 8 mg per hour for 72 hours) or placebo. After the infusion, all patients were given 20 mg of omeprazole orally per day for eight weeks. The primary end point was recurrent bleeding within 30 days after endoscopy. RESULTS: We enrolled 240 patients, 120 in each group. Bleeding recurred within 30 days in 8 patients (6.7 percent) in the omeprazole group, as compared with 27 (22.5 percent) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 3.9; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.7 to 9.0). Most episodes of recurrent bleeding occurred during the first three days, which made up the infusion period (5 in the omeprazole group and 24 in the placebo group, P<0.001). Three patients in the omeprazole group and nine in the placebo group underwent surgery (P=0.14). Five patients (4.2 percent) in the omeprazole group and 12 (10 percent) in the placebo group died within 30 days after endoscopy (P=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: After endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers, a high-dose infusion of omeprazole substantially reduces the risk of recurrent bleeding.