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

High dose esomeprazole as an anti-inflammatory agent in sepsis: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is caused by dysregulated immune responses due to infection and still presents high mortality rate and limited efficacious therapies, apart from antibiotics. Recent evidence suggests that very high dose proton pump inhibitors might regulate major sepsis mediators' secretion by monocytes, which might attenuate excessive host reactions and improve clinical outcomes. This effect is obtained with doses which are approximately 50 times higher than prophylactic esomeprazole single daily administration and 17 times higher than the cumulative dose of a three day prophylaxis. We aim to perform a randomized trial to investigate if high dose esomeprazole reduces organ dysfunction in patients with sepsis or septic shock.

METHODS

This study, called PPI-SEPSIS, is a multicenter, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial on critically ill septic patients admitted to the emergency department or intensive care unit. A total of 300 patients will be randomized to receive high dose esomeprazole (80 mg bolus followed by 12 mg/h for 72 h and a second 80 mg bolus 12 h after the first one) or equivolume placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%), with 1:1 allocation. The primary endpoint of the study will be mean daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score over 10 days. Secondary outcomes will include antibiotic-free days, single organ failure severity, intensive care unit-free days at day 28, and mortality.

DISCUSSION

This trial aims to test the efficacy of high dose esomeprazole to reduce acute organ dysfunction in patients with septic shock.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with the trial identification NCT03452865 in March 2018.

Esomeprazole Alleviates Cisplatin Resistance by Inhibiting the AKT/mTOR Pathway in Ovarian Cancer Cells

Purpose

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal malignancy in gynecology. Due to limited treatment strategies and platinum resistance, newer drugs and therapeutic options are needed. Esomeprazole (ESO) has been reported to have multiple anticancer activities in preclinical and clinical research. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the anticancer effects of esomeprazole on ovarian cancer and its underlying molecular mechanisms.

Methods

CCK-8 and 5-ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine (EdU) assays were used to detect cell viability and proliferation. The Transwell assay was used to evaluate cell migration and invasion capacity. Flow cytometry was used to detect cell apoptosis. Western blotting and immunofluorescence were used to detect protein expression.

Results

ESO effectively inhibited the cell viability, proliferation, invasion, migration, and induced apoptosis of ovarian cancer cells in a concentration-dependent manner. Treatment with ESO decreased the expression of c-MYC, SKP2, E2F1, N-cadherin, vimentin, and matrix metalloproteinase 2 (MMP2), while it increased E-cadherin, caspase3, p53, BAX, and cleaved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) expression, and downregulated the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway. Furthermore, ESO combined with cisplatin showed synergistic effects in inhibiting proliferation, invasion, and migration of cisplatin-resistant ovarian cancer cells. The mechanism may be related to the increased inhibition of c-MYC, epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), and the AKT/mTOR signaling pathway and enhanced the upregulation of the pro-apoptotic protein BAX and cleaved PARP levels. Moreover, ESO combined with cisplatin synergistically upregulated the expression of the DNA damage marker γH2A.X.

Conclusion

ESO exerts multiple anticancer activities and has a synergistic effect in combination with cisplatin on cisplatin-resistant ovarian cancer cells. This study provides a promising strategy to improve chemosensitivity and overcome resistance to cisplatin in ovarian cancer.

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.

Dexlansoprazole and Esomeprazole Do Not Affect Bone Homeostasis in Healthy Postmenopausal Women

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Epidemiological studies have associated proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy with osteoporotic fractures, but it is not clear if PPIs directly cause osteoporosis. We evaluated the effect of dexlansoprazole and esomeprazole on bone turnover, bone mineral density (BMD), true fractional calcium absorption (TFCA), serum and urine levels of minerals, and levels of parathyroid hormone (PTH) in healthy postmenopausal women.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, multicenter, double-blind study of 115 healthy, postmenopausal women (45 to 75 years of age) from November 4, 2010, through August 7, 2014. Women were randomly assigned to groups given dexlansoprazole (60 mg), esomeprazole (40 mg), or placebo daily for 26 weeks. We measured plasma levels of procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) and C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX) at 0 (baseline), 13, and 26 weeks. Primary outcomes were percent change in P1NP and CTX between weeks 0 and 26. We also measured changes in serum and urine levels of mineral, BMD, PTH (all subjects), and TFCA (n = 30).

RESULTS

Between baseline and week 26, there were no significant within-group differences in markers of bone turnover; there was a nonsignificant increase in CTX levels in the dexlansoprazole group (0.12 ng/mL). The esomeprazole and dexlansoprazole groups had significantly increased levels of P1NP (18.2% and 19.2%, respectively) and CTX (22.0% and 27.4%, respectively) at week 26 compared with the placebo group, although these values remained within normal ranges. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in serum or urine levels of minerals, BMD, or PTH at week 26. PPI therapy did not reduce TFCA.

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective study of postmenopausal women, we found significant increases in markers of bone turnover in women given PPI therapy compared with women given placebo, but levels remained within the normal reference range. We found no significant differences among groups in changes in BMD, PTH, serum or urine levels of minerals, or TFCA. Our findings indicate that 26 weeks of treatment with a PPI has no clinically meaningful effects on bone homeostasis. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT01216293.

Value of Oral Proton Pump Inhibitors in Acute, Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are the standard medical treatment in acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVGIB). Optimal route of PPI delivery has been questioned.

AIM

The aim was to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis for the endpoints of risk of rebleeding, length of stay (LOS), surgery (ROS), mortality, and total units of blood transfused (UBT) among trials evaluating acid suppressive medications in ANVGIB.

METHODS

A total of 39 studies using IV PPI drip, IV scheduled PPI, oral PPI, H2-receptor antagonists, and placebo were identified. Network meta-analysis was used for indirect comparisons and Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods for calculation of probability superiority.

RESULTS

No difference was observed between IV PPI drip and scheduled IV PPI for mortality (relative risk=1.11; 95% credibility interval, 0.56-2.21), LOS (0.04, -0.49 to 0.44), ROS (1.27, 0.64-2.35) and risk of rebleeding within 72 hours, 1 week, and 1 month [(0.98, 0.48-1.95), (0.59, 0.13-2.03), (0.82, 0.28-2.16)]. Oral PPIs were as effective as IV scheduled PPIs and IV PPI drip for LOS (0.22, -0.61 to 0.79 and 0.16, -0.56 to 0.80) and UBT (-0.25, -1.23 to 0.65 and -0.06, -0.71 to 0.65) and superior to IV PPI drip for ROS (0.30, 0.10 to 0.78).

CONCLUSION

Scheduled IV PPIs were as effective as IV PPI drip for most outcomes. Oral PPIs were comparable to scheduled IV for LOS and UBT and superior to IV PPI drip for ROS. Conclusions should be tempered by low frequency endpoints such as ROS, but question the need for IV PPI drip in ANVGIB.

The Indications, Applications, and Risks of Proton Pump Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (2015, Nanchang, China)

Acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVUGIB) is one of the most common medical emergencies in China and worldwide. In 2009, we published the "Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding" for the patients in China; however, during the past years numerous studies on the diagnosis and treatment of ANVUGIB have been conducted, and the management of ANVUGIB needs to be updated. The guidelines were updated after the databases including PubMed, Embase and CNKI were searched to retrieve the clinical trials on the management of ANVUGIB. The clinical trials were evaluated for high-quality evidence, and the advances in definitions, diagnosis, etiology, severity evaluation, treatment and prognosis of ANVUGIB were carefully reviewed, the recommendations were then proposed. After several rounds of discussions and revisions among the national experts of digestive endoscopy, gastroenterology, radiology and intensive care, the 2015 version of "Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding" was successfully developed by the Chinese Journal of Internal Medicine, National Medical Journal of China, Chinese Journal of Digestion and Chinese Journal of Digestive Endoscopy. It shall be noted that although much progress has been made, the clinical management of ANVUGIB still needs further improvement and refinement, and high-quality randomized trials are required in the future.

Cost-effectiveness analysis: stress ulcer bleeding prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors, H2 receptor antagonists

OBJECTIVES

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) present varying pharmacological efficacy in preventing stress ulcer bleeding (SUB) in intensive care units. The literature also reports disparate rates of ventilator-assisted pneumonia (VAP) as side effects of these treatments. We compared the cost-effectiveness of these two prophylactic pharmacological options.

METHODS

We constructed a decision tree with a 60-day time horizon for patients at high risk for developing SUB, receiving either PPIs or H2RAs. For each treatment strategy, patients could be in one of three states of health: SUB, VAP, or no complication. Contemporary, clinically relevant probabilities were obtained from a broad literature search. Costs were estimated by using a representative US countrywide database. A third-party payer perspective was adopted. Cost-effectiveness and univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Probabilities of SUB and VAP were 1.3% and 10.3% for PPIs versus 6.6% and 10.3% for H2RAs, respectively. Lengths of stay and per diem costs were 24 days and US $2764 for SUB, 42 days and US $3310 for VAP, and 14 days and US $2993 for patients without complications. Average costs per no complication were US $58,700 for PPIs and US $63,920 for H2RAs. The H2RA strategy was dominated by PPIs. Sensitivity analysis showed that these findings were sensitive to VAP rates but PPIs remain cost-effective. The acceptability curve shows the stability of the probabilistic results according to varying willingness-to-pay values.

CONCLUSION

PPI prophylaxis is the most efficient prophylactic strategy in patients at high risk of developing SUB when compared with using H2RAs.

Intravenous esomeprazole: a pharmacoeconomic profile of its use in the prevention of recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding

Intravenous esomeprazole (Nexium®) is approved in Europe for the prevention of rebleeding following therapeutic endoscopy for acute bleeding gastric or duodenal ulcers. In a pivotal clinical trial, patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and high-risk stigmata who received intravenous esomeprazole for 72 hours following endoscopic haemostatic therapy were significantly less likely than those receiving intravenous placebo to experience recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding at days 3, 7 and 30. In addition, the need for repeat endoscopic haemostatic therapy, the total amount of blood transfused and the number of additional hospital days required because of rebleeding were significantly lower in intravenous esomeprazole recipients than in intravenous placebo recipients. All patients received oral esomeprazole for 27 days following intravenous study drug administration. Intravenous esomeprazole was generally well tolerated in the pivotal trial, with infusion-site reactions being among the most commonly reported adverse events. Two pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted from a healthcare payer perspective used decision-tree models with 30-day time horizons to examine the cost effectiveness and cost utility of intravenous esomeprazole in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers who had undergone endoscopic haemostatic therapy. With regard to the incremental cost per bleed averted, intravenous esomeprazole was predicted to be dominant in Spain and cost effective in Sweden and the US compared with no intravenous esomeprazole. Efficacy results and resource utilization data from the pivotal clinical trial were inputted into this model, and the results of the analysis were generally robust to plausible variations in key variables. In the cost-utility analysis, which was conducted in the UK and is available as an abstract and poster, esomeprazole was considered to be the most cost-effective treatment alternative, compared with omeprazole or pantoprazole. For this analysis, clinical outcomes data were obtained from a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison (given the absence of head-to-head trial data), and utility values were proxied from the literature. In conclusion, intravenous esomeprazole prevents peptic ulcer rebleeding in patients who have undergone endoscopic haemostatic therapy. Pharmacoeconomic analyses support the use of intravenous esomeprazole following endoscopic haemostatic therapy in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and high-risk stigmata.