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.

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.

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.

Perioperative Interventions to Prevent Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Marginal Ulcers After Bariatric Surgery - an International Experts' Survey.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to survey international experts in metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) to improve and consolidate perioperative interventions to prevent gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and marginal ulcers (MU) after MBS. BACKGROUND: Very important long-term complications after MBS include GERD, Barrett's esophagus, and MU. Prevention might be fundamental to reduce the incidence, severe complications, and the increasing number of revisional bariatric surgeries. METHODS: An international scientific team designed an online confidential questionnaire with 45 multiple-choice questions. The survey was sent to 110 invited experts and 96 of them (from 41 different countries) participated from 21 July 2022 to 4 September 2022. RESULTS: Most experts (≥ 90%) prescribe postoperative acid suppression agents after MBS. Life-long proton pump inhibitors prophylaxis in smokers with avoidance of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are recommended by most of the experts (66%, 73%) after any type of gastric bypass. Two-thirds of experts (69%) perform Helicobacter pylori eradication prior to MBS. Two-thirds of experts (68%) routinely perform EGD and biopsy before MBS. Follow-up esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and timing threshold for revisional and conversional MBS were variable among experts. CONCLUSION: This expert survey underlines important perioperative interventions that reached a two-thirds consensus among MBS international experts. Variability in follow-up EGD, approach to complication management, and thresholds for revisional and conversional MBS emphasize the need for further researches and consensus guidelines.

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.

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.

Pharmacist-Initiated De-Prescribing Efforts Reduce Inappropriate Continuation of Acid-Suppression Therapy Initiated in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES: Stress ulcer prophylaxis initiated for intensive care unit (ICU)-specific indications is often continued upon transfer or discharge despite lack of indication. This quality improvement initiative aimed to achieve a 25% reduction from baseline in ICU-initiated acid suppression therapy prescriptions by May 2021. METHODS: This initiative was conducted in adult ICU patients at Boston Medical Center from July 2020 through May 2021. A multidisciplinary approach to de-prescribing was utilized, including the implementation of formalized stress ulcer prophylaxis criteria and an electronic handoff tool used to identify patients appropriate for assessment of acid suppression therapy continuation post-ICU stay. The primary outcome measure was the number of discharge prescriptions for ICU-initiated acid suppression therapy. Secondary endpoints included incidence of de-prescribing workflow failures, percentage of acid suppression therapy discharge prescriptions with inappropriate indications, and incidence of stress ulcer-related gastrointestinal bleeding. RESULTS: A 55% decrease in ICU-initiated acid suppression therapy discharge prescriptions occurred after implementing the multidisciplinary workflow. The decrease was sustained for 28 weeks through the completion of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a pharmacist-initiated electronic handoff tool along with provider education and creation of formalized stress ulcer prophylaxis criteria may reduce the number of ICU-initiated acid suppression therapy prescriptions inadvertently or inappropriately continued at discharge.

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.

Which ICU patients need stress ulcer prophylaxis?

Critically ill patients are at an increased risk for developing stress ulcers of the mucosa of the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Bleeding from stress ulcers was previously associated with a longer stay in the intensive care unit and an increased risk of death. Thus, most patients admitted to the intensive care unit receive stress ulcer prophylaxis. However, there is a growing concern that acid-suppression drugs may be associated with increased frequency of nosocomial pneumonia and Clostridioides difficile infection. In this article, the authors address controversies regarding stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients and provide guidance for its appropriate use in this setting.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis for critically ill children: routine use needs to be re-examined.

INTRODUCTION: Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is commonly used in Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs). However, strong evidence for this practice is lacking and there is a dire need for paediatric randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our aim was to assess the usefulness of SUP with omeprazole in critically ill children. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled open-label trial, including 144 children admitted into a PICU with a paediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (pSOFA) score of less than 16. We randomly allocated patients to SUP with omeprazole or no SUP. The primary outcome was development of upper gastrointestinal bleeding or nosocomial infection. RESULTS: The incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding was 27.1%, but clinically significant bleeding developed in only 5.6% of patients. We did not find a significant difference in the incidence of bleeding between the prophylaxis and control groups (27.8% vs 26.4%; P = .85). We also did not find a significant difference between the groups in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) (9.6% vs 8.3%; P = .77). The incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) was higher in the prophylaxis group compared to the control group (30.6% vs 12.5%; P = .014). None of the patients developed Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea. We did not find significant differences in mortality, length of PICU stay or duration of mechanical ventilation. Mechanical ventilation was an independent predictor of bleeding (OR, 6.4; 95%CI, 2.73-14.9). CONCLUSION: In PICU patients with mild to moderate organ dysfunction, omeprazole does not seem to be useful for prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding while at the same time increasing the risk of CLABSI. Thus, we recommend restricting SUP to mechanically ventilated children.

Prophylactic acid suppressants in patients with primary neurologic injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Neurocritical care patients are at risk of stress-induced gastrointestinal ulceration. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill adults admitted with a primary neurologic injury. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SUP with histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to placebo/no prophylaxis, as well as to each other. The primary outcome was in-ICU gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Predefined secondary outcomes were all-cause 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), nosocomial pneumonia, and other complications. RESULTS: We identified 14 relevant trials enrolling 1036 neurocritical care patients; 11 trials enrolling 930 patients were included in the meta-analysis. H2RAs resulted in a lower incidence of GIB as compared to placebo or no prophylaxis (Risk ratio [RR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.30-0.58; p < 0.001); PPIs with a lower risk of GIB compared to placebo/no prophylaxis (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59; p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in GIB comparing PPIs with H2RAs (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.26-1.06; p = 0.07; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: In neurocritical care patients, the overall high or unclear risk of bias of individual trials, the low event rates, and modest sample sizes preclude strong clinical inferences about the utility of SUP.

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.

The effects of pantoprazole vs. placebo on 1-year outcomes, resource use and employment status in ICU patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding: a secondary analysis of the SUP-ICU trial.

PURPOSE: Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), including proton pump inhibitors, is widely used in the attempt to prevent this. In this secondary analysis of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit (SUP-ICU) trial, we assessed 1-year outcomes in the pantoprazole vs. placebo groups. METHODS: In the SUP-ICU trial, 3298 acutely admitted ICU patients at risk of GI bleeding were randomly allocated, stratified for site, to pantoprazole or placebo. In this secondary analysis, we assessed clinically important GI bleedings in ICU and 1-year mortality, health care resource use (e.g. readmission with GI bleeding, use of home care and general practitioner), health care costs, and employment status for the Danish participants using registry data. RESULTS: Among the 2099 Danish participants, 2092 had data in the registries; 1045 allocated to pantoprazole and 1047 to placebo. The number of clinically important GI bleedings in ICU was 1.9 percentage points [95% CI 0.3-3.5] lower in the pantoprazole group vs. the placebo group, but none of the 1-year outcomes differed statistically significantly between groups, including total health care costs (€1954 [- 2992 to 6899]), readmission with GI bleeding (- 0.005 admissions [- 0.016 to 0.005]), 1-year mortality (- 0.013 percentage points [- 0.051 to 0.026]), and employment (- 0.178 weeks [- 0.390 to 0.034]). CONCLUSION: Among ICU patients at risk of GI bleeding, pantoprazole reduced clinically important GI bleeding in ICU, but this did not translate into a reduction in 1-year mortality, health care resource use or improvements in employment status.

Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors versus histamine-2 receptor blockers in the cardiac surgical population: insights from the PEPTIC trial.

OBJECTIVES: The comparative effectiveness and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) versus histamine-2 receptor blockers for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the cardiac surgical intensive care unit population is uncertain. Although the Proton Pump Inhibitors versus Histamine-2 Receptor Blockers for Ulcer Prophylaxis Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit (PEPTIC) trial reported a higher risk of mortality in the PPI arm with no difference in gastrointestinal bleeding, detailed information on surgical variables and clinically relevant surgical subgroups was not available. METHODS: The analysis included all Canadian cardiac surgery patients enrolled in the PEPTIC trial. Data were electronically linked using unique patient identifiers to a clinical information system. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, gastrointestinal bleeding, Clostridium difficile infections, ventilator-associated conditions and length of stay. RESULTS: We studied 823 (50.6%) randomized to PPIs and 805 (49.4%) to histamine-2-receptor blockers. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no differences in hospital mortality [PPI: 4.3% vs histamine-2 receptor blockers: 4.8%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.70], gastrointestinal bleeding (3.9% vs 4.8%, aOR 1.09, 95% CI 0.66-1.81), C. difficile infections (0.9% vs 0.1%, aOR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02-1.59), ventilator-associated conditions (1.6% vs 1.7%, aOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-1.00) or median length of stay (9.2 vs 9.8 days, adjusted risk ratio 1.06, 85% CI 0.99-1.13). No significant treatment differences were observed among subgroups of interest or per-protocol populations. CONCLUSIONS: In a secondary analysis of cardiac surgery patients enrolled in the PEPTIC trial in Canada, no differences in effectiveness or safety were observed between use of PPIs and histamine-2 receptor blockers for stress ulcer prophylaxis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: anzctr.org.au identifier: ACTRN12616000481471.

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.