Vonoprazan Triple and Dual Therapy for Helicobacter pylori Infection in the United States and Europe: Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Novel, effective treatments for Helicobacter pylori infection are needed. This study evaluated the efficacy of vonoprazan, a potassium-competitive acid blocker, vs standard treatment on H pylori eradication in the United States and Europe. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial, treatment-naïve adults with H pylori infection were randomized 1:1:1 to open-label vonoprazan dual therapy (20 mg vonoprazan twice daily; 1 g amoxicillin 3 times daily), or double-blind triple therapy twice a day (vonoprazan 20 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg; amoxicillin 1 g; clarithromycin 500 mg) for 14 days. The primary outcome was noninferiority in eradication rates in patients without clarithromycin- and amoxicillin-resistant strains (noninferiority margin = 10%). Secondary outcomes assessed superiority in eradication rates in clarithromycin-resistant infections, and in all patients. RESULTS: A total of 1046 patients were randomized. Primary outcome eradication rates (nonresistant strains): vonoprazan triple therapy 84.7%, dual therapy 78.5%, vs lansoprazole triple therapy 78.8% (both noninferior; difference 5.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.8 to 12.6; P < .001; difference -0.3%; 95% CI, -7.4 to 6.8; P = .007, respectively). Eradication rates in clarithromycin-resistant infections: vonoprazan triple therapy 65.8%, dual therapy 69.6%, vs lansoprazole triple therapy 31.9% (both superior; difference 33.9%; 95% CI, 17.7-48.1; P < .001; difference 37.7%; 95% CI, 20.5-52.6; P < .001, respectively). In all patients, vonoprazan triple and dual therapy were superior to lansoprazole triple therapy (80.8% and 77.2%, respectively, vs 68.5%, difference 12.3%; 95% CI, 5.7-18.8; P < .001; difference 8.7%; 95% CI, 1.9-15.4; P = .013). Overall frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between vonoprazan and lansoprazole regimens (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Both vonoprazan-based regimens were superior to proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy in clarithromycin-resistant strains and in the overall study population. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; NCT04167670.

Rates of Antimicrobial Resistance in Helicobacter pylori Isolates From Clinical Trial Patients Across the US and Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines recommend that proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimens with clarithromycin not be used for Helicobacter pylori infection in areas where clarithromycin resistance is ≥15%, or in patients with prior macrolide use. Up-to-date information on local resistance patterns is limited, especially in the US. Here, we report resistance rates to antibiotics commonly used to treat H. pylori from a large study conducted in the US and Europe (pHalcon-HP). METHODS: Gastric mucosal biopsies were collected from adult participants with H. pylori infection during screening. Minimum inhibitory concentrations were determined via agar dilution for clarithromycin, amoxicillin, and metronidazole, with breakpoints ≥1 µg/mL, >0.125 µg/mL, and >8 µg/mL, respectively. Resistance rates were obtained for the US and Europe, and also for US subregions and participating European countries. RESULTS: Resistance rates were established in isolates from 907 participants. Overall, 22.2% were resistant to clarithromycin, 1.2% to amoxicillin, and 69.2% to metronidazole. Resistance in the US and Europe was similar; metronidazole resistance was the most prevalent (50%-79%) and amoxicillin the least (≤5%). In all subregions, ≥15% of isolates were resistant to clarithromycin, except the UK (0/8 isolates). Among clarithromycin-resistant isolates, 75% were also metronidazole-resistant. Two US isolates were resistant to clarithromycin and amoxicillin; one of these was also metronidazole-resistant. DISCUSSION: The resistance rates observed in this study argue against the continued empiric use of proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy containing clarithromycin, per treatment guidelines, and highlight the need for antibiotic resistance surveillance and novel treatment strategies for H. pylori infection in the US and Europe.

Erythromycin Improves the Quality of Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) usually requires esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for diagnostic and-potentially-therapeutic purposes. However, blood within the gastric lumen may hinder the procedure. Administration of prokinetics like erythromycin has shown efficacy. This network meta-analysis investigates the efficacy of this intervention prior to EGD. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of Embase, PubMed/Medline, and other databases through March 8, 2022 to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prokinetic use in EGD for UGIB. We used the DerSimonian-Laird approach to pool data and compare outcomes including need for repeat endoscopy and blood transfusion. Pooled prevalence of proportional outcomes, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values were calculated. RESULTS: We included eight RCTs with four distinct intervention groups (erythromycin, placebo to erythromycin, nasogastric (NG) lavage and NG lavage + erythromycin) published between 2002 and 2020 with a total of 721 patients (mean age 60.0 ± 3.1 years; 73.2% male). The need for second look endoscopy was significantly lower with erythromycin than placebo (relative risk: 0.42, CI 0.22-0.83, p = 0.01). Using the frequentist approach, the combination of NG lavage and erythromycin (92.2) was rated highest, followed by erythromycin alone (73.1) for higher rates of empty stomach. Erythromycin was rated highest for lower need for packed red blood cell transfusion (72.8) as well as mean endoscopy duration (66.0). CONCLUSION: Erythromycin improved visualization at EGD, reduced requirements for blood transfusion and repeat EGD, and shortened hospital stay. The combination of erythromycin and NG lavage showed reduced mortality.

Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics of the Potassium-Competitive Acid Blocker Vonoprazan and the Proton Pump Inhibitor Lansoprazole in US Subjects.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of a potassium-competitive acid blocker and proton pump inhibitor in US subjects. METHODS: Healthy adults were randomized to 7-day periods of vonoprazan 20 mg once daily followed by lansoprazole 30 mg once daily or the reverse order, separated by ≥ 7 days of washout. RESULTS: Vonoprazan (N = 40) had higher proportions of 24-hour periods with intragastric pH > 4 than lansoprazole (N = 41,38) on day 1 (62.4% vs 22.6%, P < 0.0001) and day 7 (87.8% vs 42.3%, P < 0.0001). Separation in pH started ∼2.5 hours after the first dose. DISCUSSION: Vonoprazan provided more rapid and potent inhibition of intragastric acidity than lansoprazole in US subjects.

Pitfalls of Physician-Directed Treatment of Helicobacter pylori: Results from Two Phase 3 Clinical Trials and Real-World Prescribing Data.

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infects ~ 35% of Americans and can lead to serious sequelae if left untreated. Growing evidence indicates that clarithromycin-based therapies (CBT) are becoming increasingly ineffective for treating H. pylori infection. RHB-105 was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for the treatment of H. pylori infection in adults. AIMS: The primary aim of this study was to assess prescribing patterns and associated cure rates of physician-directed therapy for subjects with persistent H. pylori infection after participation in one of two Phase 3 clinical trials (ERADICATE Hp and ERADICATE Hp2). METHODS: We reviewed study reports to identify specific physician-directed regimens selected for subjects whose H. pylori infection was not eradicated. We also conducted a CYP2C19 genotype analysis of subjects who were prescribed CBT. Finally, we analyzed real-world H. pylori retail prescription data and compared these with to the physician-directed therapies in the clinical trials studies. RESULTS: Following ERADICATE Hp, CBT was prescribed for 27/31 (87%) subjects achieving a 59.3% cure rate. Following ERADICATE Hp2, CBT was prescribed for 48/94 (51%) subjects achieving a 60.4% cure rate. Rapid CYP2C19 metabolizers (2/11) had a cure rate of 18.2% with CBT. Real-world prescription data from IQVIA showed more than 80% of prescriptions for H. pylori infection were for CBT. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of CBT use persist despite sub-optimal eradication rates. Since RHB-105 does not contain clarithromycin, it can be prescribed first-line without concerns about clarithromycin resistance or CYP2C19 status. NCT03198507 & NCT01980095.

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.

Endoscopy and central reading in inflammatory bowel disease clinical trials: achievements, challenges and future developments.

Central reading, that is, independent, off-site, blinded review or reading of imaging endpoints, has been identified as a crucial component in the conduct and analysis of inflammatory bowel disease clinical trials. Central reading is the final step in a workflow that has many parts, all of which can be improved. Furthermore, the best reading algorithm and the most intensive central reader training cannot make up for deficiencies in the acquisition stage (clinical trial endoscopy) or improve on the limitations of the underlying score (outcome instrument). In this review, academic and industry experts review scoring systems, and propose a theoretical framework for central reading that predicts when improvements in statistical power, affecting trial size and chances of success, can be expected: Multireader models can be conceptualised as statistical or non-statistical (social). Important organisational and operational factors, such as training and retraining of readers, optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy, video quality, optimal or at least acceptable read duration times and other quality control matters, are addressed as well. The theory and practice of central reading and the conduct of endoscopy in clinical trials are interdisciplinary topics that should be of interest to many, regulators, clinical trial experts, gastroenterology societies and those in the academic community who endeavour to develop new scoring systems using traditional and machine learning approaches.

Role of routine second-look endoscopy in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Studies evaluating the role of routine second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) have reported conflicting results. This meta-analysis evaluates the usefulness of routine second-look endoscopy in these patients. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to September 15, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine second-look endoscopy with no planned second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of PUD. Our outcomes of interest were recurrent bleeding, mortality, need for surgery, and mean number of units of blood transfused. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference with 95% CIs. Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to ascertain the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 9 RTCs comprising 1452 patients; 726 patients underwent planned/routine second-look endoscopy and 726 did not. We found no significant difference in recurrent bleeding (RR, .79; 95% CI, .51-1.23), need for surgery (RR, .58; 95% CI, .29-1.15), mortality (RR, .69; 95% CI, .33-1.45), or mean number of units of blood transfused (standardized mean difference, -.06; 95% CI, -.19 to .07). Quality of evidence ranged from low to moderate based on the GRADE framework. CONCLUSIONS: Single endoscopy with complete endoscopic hemostasis is not inferior to routine second-look endoscopy in reducing the risk of recurrent bleeding, mortality, or need for surgery in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of PUD.

Efficacy and safety of supplemental intravenous lidocaine for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Some studies have shown that intravenous (IV) lidocaine reduces the dose requirement of propofol in GI endoscopic procedures. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of IV lidocaine and propofol compared with propofol alone in GI endoscopic procedures. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to October 13, 2020, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the role of IV propofol and lidocaine with IV propofol plus placebo for sedation in endoscopic procedures. Our outcomes of interest were the differences in total dose of propofol administered, procedure time, and intraoperative adverse events. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. Data were analyzed using a random effect model. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework to ascertain the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 5 randomized controlled trials with 318 patients. We found that the total dose of propofol administered was significantly lower in the lidocaine group than the control group (SMD, -0.76; 95% CI, -1.09 to -0.42). We found no significant difference in procedure time (SMD, 0.16; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.57) or adverse events (risk ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35-1.03) between the groups. There was moderate to substantial heterogeneity in the data. Quality of evidence based on the GRADE framework ranged from low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality of evidence suggests that IV lidocaine decreases the dose of propofol administered for GI endoscopic procedures.

Estimate of Refractory Reflux Disease in the United States: Economic Burden and Associated Clinical Characteristics.

GOALS: To update the estimate of the prevalence of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the United States, and to assess the clinical and economic differences between patients with and without refractory GERD. BACKGROUND: GERD affects 18% to 28% of the US population, with nearly 40% of GERD patients presenting with refractory symptoms despite ongoing therapy. STUDY: Retrospective analysis of the IBM MarketScan databases between January 2011 and June 2018. Inclusion criteria were prescription fill and subsequent refill of a proton pump inhibitor or H2-receptor antagonist (earliest claim=index date), diagnosis of GERD 60 days preceding and/or following index, continuous insurance enrolment for 12 months preceding/following index, and absence of prior GERD diagnosis or GERD medication. We derived refractory GERD symptom scores for all patients on the basis of a previously published algorithm. Health care costs and comorbidities were assessed for all patients and compared between those with and without refractory GERD. RESULTS: In total, 399,017 GERD patients qualified for the study; 103,654 (26%) met our definition of having indications of refractory GERD symptoms. Patients with refractory GERD symptoms reported significantly higher rates of hiatal hernia (25.1% vs. 5.9%), esophagitis (37.3% vs. 11.8%), esophageal stricture (11.3% vs. 1.5%), and dysphagia (26.8% vs. 7.1%; P<0.01 for each). The refractory GERD symptoms cohort incurred ~$10,000 greater health care costs per patient per year compared with patients without refractory GERD symptoms ($26,057±$58,948 vs. $15,285±$39,307; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Refractory GERD symptoms were associated with a substantial increase in health care costs. Treatments aimed at improving refractory GERD symptoms may mitigate symptom burden, potentially reducing health care expenditure.

Efficacy of empiric esophageal dilation in patients with non-obstructive dysphagia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Empiric esophageal dilation is frequently performed for non-obstructive dysphagia. Studies evaluating its efficacy have reported conflicting results. In this meta-analysis, we have evaluated the efficacy of esophageal dilation in the management of non-obstructive dysphagia. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to 26 May 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated the role of empiric esophageal dilation for non-obstructive dysphagia. Our outcomes of interest were clinical success (improvement in dysphagia after dilation) and difference in post-operative dysphagia score between groups. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used GRADE framework to ascertain the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 4 studies (3 RCTs and one observational) with 243 patients; there were 133 treated with empiric dilation and 110 controls. We found no significant difference in clinical success (OR (95% CI) 1.91 (0.89, 4.08)) or post-procedure dysphagia score between groups (SMD (95% CI) 0.38 (-0.37, 1.14)). Our findings remained consistent on subgroup analysis including RCTs only. Quality of evidence ranged from low to very low based on GRADE framework. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis does not support the use of empiric esophageal dilation in patients with non-obstructive dysphagia. More studies are required to confirm these findings.

PPIs and GI Cancers: Impeached But Likely to Be Acquitted.

In this edition of the journal, there is an important nested case-control study from investigators at Kaiser Permanente, Northern California. Proton pump inhibitor exposure for 10 or more years was not associated with any increased risk of gastric cancer. Small observed increased risks of colorectal, hepatocellular, and pancreatic cancers with 10 or more years of exposure are likely to have been spurious. If proton pump inhibitors were to be impeached on the basis of gastrointestinal cancer risk, they are likely to be subsequently acquitted.

No Association Linking Short-Term Proton Pump Inhibitor Use to Dementia: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has been associated with a wide variety of potentially serious adverse effects including a possible increased risk of dementia. Studies evaluating this association have reached divergent conclusions. We aimed to evaluate this proposed association further and to assess the quality of the evidence in its support. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for studies examining a link between PPI use and dementia, up to February 2019. Studies reporting summary results as hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model for meta-analyses. Methodological quality of individual observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the overall quality of evidence rated as per the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified and included 11 observational studies comprising 642,949 subjects; 64% were women. Most studies were short-term ranging from 5 to 10 years. There were 158,954 PPI users and 483,995 nonusers. For studies summarizing data as adjusted HR, pooled HR for all causes of dementia was 1.10 (0.88-1.37); for Alzheimer dementia only, it was 1.06 (0.72-1.55). For studies summarizing data as adjusted OR, pooled OR for all causes of dementia was 1.03 (0.84-1.25) and for Alzheimer dementia only 0.96 (0.82-1.11). Per Newcastle-Ottawa scale assessment, 10 studies were of high quality and 1 was of moderate quality. By applying GRADE methodology, quality of evidence for both outcomes was very low. DISCUSSION: We found no evidence to support the proposed association between PPI use and an increased risk of dementia. PPI use among patients who have a valid indication for it, should not be curtailed because of concerns about dementia risk.

Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the role of tranexamic acid in acute upper GI bleeding (UGIB) have reported conflicting results. In this systematic review, we have evaluated the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in UGIB. METHODS: We searched several databases from inception to June 6, 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared tranexamic acid and placebo in UGIB. Our outcomes of interest were mortality, rebleeding, all thromboembolic events, venous thromboembolic events, need for transfusion, endoscopic intervention and surgery. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed effect model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs comprising 14,100 patients. We found no significant difference in mortality, pooled RR (95% CI) 0.87 (0.74-1.01), rebleeding, pooled RR (95% CI) 0.90 (0.79-1.02), need for surgery, pooled RR (95% CI) 0.86 (0.73-1.02), need for transfusion, pooled RR (95% CI) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) or thromboembolic events, RR (95% CI) 1.16 (0.87-1.56) between treatments. We found an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events with tranexamic acid, pooled RR (95% CI) 1.94 (1.23-3.05). Certainty of evidence based on the GRADE framework for the different outcomes ranged from low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Tranexamic acid does not improve outcomes in UGIB and may increase the risk of venous thromboembolic events.

Inpatient Outcomes for Gastrointestinal Bleeding Associated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

GOALS: The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of inpatient outcomes of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) related to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: With all-cause mortality increasing in patients undergoing PCIs, outcomes for GIB associated with PCI may be adversely impacted. STUDY: Using the National Inpatient Sample (2007 to 2012), we performed a nested case-control study assessing inpatient outcomes including incidence and mortality for PCI-related GIB hospitalizations. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine significant predictors for GIB incidence and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 9332 (1.2%) of PCI hospitalizations were complicated by GIB with the age-adjusted incidence rate increasing 13% from 2007 (11.3 GIB per 1000 PCI) to 2012 (12.8). Patients ≥75 years of age experienced the steepest incline in GIB incidence, which increased 31% during the study period. Compared with non-GIB patients, mean length of stay (9.4 d vs. 3.3 d) and median cost of care ($29,236 vs. $17,913) was significantly higher. Significant demographic risk factors for GIB included older age and comorbid risk factors included gastritis or duodenitis, and Helicobacter pylori infection.In total, 1044 (11%) of GIB patients died during hospitalization with the GIB mortality rate increasing 30% from 2007 (95 deaths per 1000 GIB) to 2012 (123). Older age had the strongest association with inpatient mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient incidence and mortality for PCI-related GIB has been increasing particularly with a large increase in incidence among older patients. A multidisciplinary approach focused on risk-stratifying patients may improve preventable causes of GIB.

Complications of Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy.

Safety issues associated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have recently attracted widespread media and lay attention. Gastroenterologists are frequently asked about the appropriateness of PPI therapy for specific patients. Furthermore, some patients may have had PPI therapy discontinued abruptly or inappropriately due to safety concerns. Faced with such a wide variety of potentially serious adverse consequences, prescribers need to evaluate the evidence objectively to discern the likelihood that any reported association might actually be causal. Here, we review many of the proposed adverse consequences of PPI therapy and apply established criteria for the determination of causation. We also consider the potential contribution of residual confounding in many of the reported studies. Evidence is inadequate to establish causal relationships between PPI therapy and many of the proposed associations. Residual confounding related to study design and the overextrapolation of quantitatively small estimates of effect size have probably led to much of the current controversy about PPI safety. In turn, this has caused unnecessary concern among patients and prescribers. The benefits of PPI therapy for appropriate indications need to be considered, along with the likelihood of the proposed risks. Patients with a proven indication for a PPI should continue to receive it in the lowest effective dose. PPI dose escalation and continued chronic therapy in those unresponsive to initial empiric therapy is discouraged.

H. pylori and Barrett's Esophagus: Implications for Populations and Practice.

In this edition of the American Journal of Gastroenterology, Wang and colleagues report the results of an analysis of six different case-control studies examining the relationship between Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection and Barrett's esophagus. They present a cogent argument that there is an inverse association between these two that is mediated via GERD. This is broadly consistent with previous reports. While further establishing this inverse association, the findings should not materially influence our routine clinical practice regarding GERD or H. pylori infection.