Esomeprazole compared with famotidine in the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome or myocardial infarction

Pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane for screening of records, data extraction and analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence.

PARTICIPANTS

Randomised controlled trials involving patients admitted to ICUs for longer than 24 hours were included.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gut Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) databases were searched from August 2017 to March 2022. The search in MEDLINE was updated in April 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the prevention of clinically important upper GI bleeding.

RESULTS

We included 123 studies with 46 996 participants. Cimetidine (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77, moderate certainty), ranitidine (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.76, moderate certainty), antacids (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.68, moderate certainty), sucralfate (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75, moderate certainty) and a combination of ranitidine and antacids (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.62, moderate certainty) are likely effective in preventing upper GI bleeding.The effect of any intervention on the prevention of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU or the hospital, duration of the stay in the ICU, duration of intubation and (serious) adverse events remains unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Several interventions seem effective in preventing clinically important upper GI bleeding while there is limited evidence for other outcomes. Patient-relevant benefits and harms need to be assessed under consideration of the patients' underlying conditions.

Optimizing antithrombotic therapy in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal disease

Balancing the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic agents in patients with gastrointestinal disorders is challenging because of the potential for interference with the absorption of antithrombotic drugs and for an increased risk of bleeding. In this Review, we address considerations for enteral antithrombotic therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease and gastrointestinal comorbidities. For those with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), we summarize a general scheme for risk stratification and clinical evidence on risk reduction approaches, such as limiting the use of concomitant medications that increase the risk of GIB and the potential utility of gastrointestinal protection strategies (such as proton pump inhibitors or histamine type 2 receptor antagonists). Furthermore, we summarize the best available evidence and potential gaps in our knowledge on tailoring antithrombotic therapy in patients with active or recent GIB and in those at high risk of GIB but without active or recent GIB. Finally, we review the recommendations provided by major medical societies, highlighting the crucial role of teamwork and multidisciplinary discussions to customize the antithrombotic regimen in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal diseases.

A network meta-analysis: evaluating the efficacy and safety of concurrent proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel therapy in post-PCI patients

Introduction

The objective of this research was to evaluate the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) associated with the use of various proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in combination with clopidogrel in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

To accomplish this, we analyzed data from randomized controlled trials and retrospective cohort studies sourced from key electronic databases. These studies specifically examined the effects of different PPIs, such as lansoprazole, esomeprazole, omeprazole, rabeprazole, and pantoprazole, when used in conjunction with clopidogrel on MACEs. The primary focus was on the differential impact of these PPIs, while the secondary focus was on the comparison of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding events in groups receiving different PPIs with clopidogrel vs. a placebo group. This study's protocol was officially registered with INPLASY (INPLASY2024-2-0009).

Results

We conducted a network meta-analysis involving 16 studies with a total of 145,999 patients. Our findings indicated that rabeprazole when combined with clopidogrel, had the lowest increase in MACE risk (effect size, 1.05, 95% CI: 0.66-1.66), while lansoprazole was associated with the highest risk increase (effect size, 1.48, 95% CI: 1.22-1.80). Esomeprazole (effect size, 1.28, 95% CI: 1.09-1.51), omeprazole (effect size, 1.23, 95% CI: 1.07-1.43), and pantoprazole (effect size, 1.38, 95% CI: 1.18-1.60) also significantly increased MACE risk. For the secondary outcome, esomeprazole (effect size, 0.30, 95% CI: 0.09-0.94), omeprazole (effect size, 0.34, 95% CI: 0.14-0.81), and pantoprazole (effect size, 0.33, 95% CI: 0.13-0.84) demonstrated an increased potential for GI bleeding prevention.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the combination of lansoprazole and clopidogrel was found to significantly elevate the risk of MACEs without offering GI protection in post-PCI patients. This study is the first network meta-analysis to identify the most effective regimen for the concurrent use of clopidogrel with individual PPIs.

Systematic Review Registration

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2024-2-0009/, identifier (INPLASY2024-2-0009).

Cost-Effectiveness of Vonoprazan Compared With Proton Pump Inhibitors in Patients Taking Low-Dose Aspirin for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Japan

BACKGROUND

Low-dose aspirin (LDA) is used to prevent recurrent cardiovascular (CV) events, but is associated with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding; concomitant use of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) reduces this risk. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of vonoprazan compared with PPIs (lansoprazole and esomeprazole) in patients taking LDA for secondary prevention of CV events.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A Markov simulation model was developed to predict the number of GI bleeding and acute CV events using 3 strategies (vonoprazan+LDA, esomeprazole+LDA, and lansoprazole+LDA), which were translated into quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. Transition probabilities and utilities were derived from the results of published literature, and medical costs were based on the Japanese National Health Insurance fee table and claims databases in 2020. Outcomes were projected over 30 years starting at age 65 years and discounted at 2% annually. Expected costs with esomeprazole 20 mg, lansoprazole 15 mg and vonoprazan 10 mg were JPY 1,225,657, JPY 943,930, and JPY 1,059,510, respectively. The QALY gain for vonoprazan vs. esomeprazole was 0.35, thus vonoprazan was dominant against esomeprazole. The QALY gain for vonoprazan vs. lansoprazole was 0.29 and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was JPY 398,551, thus, vonoprazan was more cost-effective than lansoprazole.

CONCLUSIONS

Vonoprazan is dominant or cost-effective compared with esomeprazole and lansoprazole in patients taking LDA for secondary prevention of CV events.

Influence of individual proton pump inhibitors on clinical outcomes in patients receiving clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Data are conflicting on whether proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) diminish the efficacy of clopidogrel. We investigated individual PPIs and adverse cardiovascular events in postpercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients on dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel.

METHODS

We searched Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane from inception to March 2020 to identify studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of clopidogrel added PPIs versus clopidogrel only in post-PCI patient. We extracted data from 28 studies for major adverse cardiovascular endpoints (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death, and gastrointestinal bleeding. Risk ratios (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) were pooled separately.

RESULTS

Data were extracted on 131,412 patients from the 28 studies included. Concomitant use of PPI with clopidogrel was associated with increased risk of MACE (RR 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.48; P < .001) and MI (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.25-1.64; P < .001). Random-effects meta-analyses with individual PPIs demonstrated an increased risk of MACE in those taking pantoprazole (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.07-1.61, P = .01) or lansoprazole (RR 1.35; 95% CI 1.19-1.54, P < .0001) compared with patients not on PPIs. Likewise, in adjusted analyses, the pooled HR of adjusted events for MACEs showed that the increased risk of MACEs was similar for 4 classes of PPIs but not for rabeprazole (HR: 1.32; 95% CI 0.69-2.53, P = .40).

CONCLUSION

The post-PCI patients on dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel in the PPI group were associated with higher risk of MACE and MI. Although the results for rabeprazole were not robust, it was the only PPI that did not yield a significantly increased risk of MACE.

Is There an Optimal Antiplatelet Strategy after Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease?

Gastrointestinal bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a not too uncommon clinical situation and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. After initial treatment, a number of clinical decisions must be made weighing the risks of ischemic events and future bleeding. In particular, healthcare providers must carefully balance the effectiveness of antiplatelet therapy in the secondary prevention of coronary events, primarily future spontaneous myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis, against the risk of major, most commonly gastrointestinal bleeding. The first question is whether a dual antiplatelet therapy strategy is required or if a single antiplatelet agent will suffice. Then, if a single antiplatelet agent is adequate, which agent should be continued. Although there is some guidance to answer some of these questions, there are inadequate evidence-based data for others. Below, we review the various considerations and summarize our approach and rationale to manage patients who had gastrointestinal bleeding after PCI.

Gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events associated with NSAIDs

INTRODUCTION

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most prescribed pharmacological groups, especially in elderly patients.

AREAS COVERED

The main GI and CV adverse events associated with NSAID use are reviewed. Risk factors and prophylactic strategies are also covered.

EXPERT OPINION

COX-2 selective agents are safer to the GI tract but have a worst CV profile. On the contrary, naproxen seems safer for CV system, but it is one of the NSAIDs with higher GI toxicity. Co-therapy with aspirin reduces the GI benefits of COX-2 selective agents, whereas ibuprofen and naproxen may neglect the antiplatelet effect of aspirin. NSAIDs increase the risk of both upper and lower GI complications. Co-therapy with PPI reduces the risk of upper but not lower GI complications, and seems to induce dysbiosis in the small bowel, which may be implicated in the damage induced by NSAIDs. Celecoxib, a COX-2 selective agent, seems safer for both the upper and the lower GI tract. Prescription of type and dose of NSAIDs must be individualized based on the stratification of the CV and GI risk of patients.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease 2020

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) revised the third edition of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease in 2020 and created an English version. The revised guidelines consist of nine items: epidemiology, hemorrhagic gastric and duodenal ulcers, Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy, non-eradication therapy, drug-induced ulcers, non-H. pylori, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ulcers, remnant gastric ulcers, surgical treatment, and conservative therapy for perforation and stenosis. Therapeutic algorithms for the treatment of peptic ulcers differ based on ulcer complications. In patients with NSAID-induced ulcers, NSAIDs are discontinued and anti-ulcer therapy is administered. If NSAIDs cannot be discontinued, the ulcer is treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Vonoprazan (VPZ) with antibiotics is recommended as the first-line treatment for H. pylori eradication, and PPIs or VPZ with antibiotics is recommended as a second-line therapy. Patients who do not use NSAIDs and are H. pylori negative are considered to have idiopathic peptic ulcers. Algorithms for the prevention of NSAID- and low-dose aspirin (LDA)-related ulcers are presented in this guideline. These algorithms differ based on the concomitant use of LDA or NSAIDs and ulcer history or hemorrhagic ulcer history. In patients with a history of ulcers receiving NSAID therapy, PPIs with or without celecoxib are recommended and the administration of VPZ is suggested for the prevention of ulcer recurrence. In patients with a history of ulcers receiving LDA therapy, PPIs or VPZ are recommended and the administration of a histamine 2-receptor antagonist is suggested for the prevention of ulcer recurrence.

Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors with Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

There is inconsistency in the literature regarding the clinical effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) when added to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in subjects with coronary artery disease (CAD). We performed meta-analysis stratified by study design to explore these differences.

METHODS AND RESULTS

39 studies [4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 35 observational studies) were selected using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Inception-January 2018). In 221,204 patients (PPI = 77,731 patients, no PPI =143,473 patients), RCTs restricted analysis showed that PPI did not increase the risk of all-cause mortality (Risk Ratio (RR): 1.35, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.56-3.23, P = 0.50, I2 = 0), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.94, 95% CI, 0.25-3.54, P = 0.92, I2 = 56), myocardial infarction (MI) (RR: 0.97, 95% CI, 0.62-1.51, P = 0.88, I2 = 0) or stroke (RR: 1.11, 95% CI, 0.25-5.04, P = 0.89, I2 = 26). However, PPI significantly reduced the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (RR: 0.32, 95% CI, 0.20-0.52, P < 0.001, I2 = 0). Conversely, analysis of observational studies showed that PPI significantly increased the risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 1.25, 95% CI, 1.11-1.41, P < 0.001, I2 = 82), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 1.25, 95% CI, 1.03-1.52, P = 0.02, I2 = 71), MI (RR: 1.30, 95% CI, 1.16-1.47, P < 0.001, I2 = 82) and stroke (RR: 1.60, 95% CI, 1.43-1.78, P < 0.001, I2 = 0), without reducing GI bleeding (RR: 0.74, 95% CI, 0.45-1.22, P = 0.24, I2 = 79).

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis of RCTs endorsed the use of PPI with DAPT for reducing GI bleeding without worsening cardiovascular outcomes. These findings oppose the negative observational data regarding effects of PPI with DAPT.

2018 update of expert consensus statement on antiplatelet therapy in East Asian patients with ACS or undergoing PCI

East Asians are the most populous race in the world and their health status is an important global issue. Compared with Caucasian populations, East Asian patients have a different benefit/risk ratio when using antithrombotic treatment. Despite this observation, treatment strategies in East Asian patients are mostly based on the American and European guidelines. Despite a lower platelet inhibitory response to clopidogrel, East Asian patients show a similar or even a lower rate of ischemic event occurrence and higher bleeding risk compared with Caucasian patients. For potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors (ticagrelor and prasugrel), East Asian patients have shown less favorable net clinical benefits compared with Caucasian patients, which may be related to differences in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles and therapeutic zone of antiplatelet effect. This updated consensus mainly focuses on state-of-the-art and current controversies in the East Asian population. In addition, when East Asian patients are administered potent P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors, the strategies and ongoing trials to overcome the related hurdles are discussed.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Ameliorates Taste Disturbance among Patients with Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A Randomized Controlled Study

Patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) were reported to suffer from hypogeusia that affects quality of life. Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is a useful drug in the treatment of LPR, but its effect on hypogeusia is not known. We therefore assessed the effects of PPI or a histamine H2 receptor antagonist (H2 blocker) on hypogeusia among patients with LPR. Both PPI and H2 blocker could inhibit acid reflux. LPR was diagnosed with reflux finding score and reflux symptom index. The visual analogue scale (VAS) of taste disturbance symptoms and the gustatory tests were assessed before and 8 weeks after treatment with esomeprazole, a PPI (20 patients, aged 50.0 ± 1.7 years) or famotidine, a H2 blocker (20 patients, aged 47.1 ± 1.8 years). There were no significant differences in VAS scores and recognition thresholds for four basic tastes between the two groups before treatment. Only PPI therapy significantly decreased the VAS scores, suggesting the improvement of taste perception. Moreover, PPI therapy significantly decreased recognition thresholds for bitter taste in the anterior tongue (chorda tympani nerve area) and the thresholds in the posterior tongue (glossopharyngeal nerve area) for salty, sour, and bitter tastes. By contrast, H2-blocker therapy caused no significant changes of thresholds in the anterior tongue, but improved the threshold only for bitter in the posterior tongue, the value of which was however significantly higher than that in PPI group. In conclusion, PPI could ameliorate hypogeusia by improving bitter, salty, and sour tastes among patients with LPR.

PPIs Are Not Responsible for Elevating Cardiovascular Risk in Patients on Clopidogrel-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are metabolized by cytochrome P450 enzymes. Contradictory results have been reported on possible complications of simultaneous PPI and clopidogrel use. Our aim was to investigate the clinical relevance of this debate with a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases were searched for human studies [randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies] using the PICO format (P: patients on clopidogrel; I: patients treated with PPI; C: patients without PPI treatment; O: cardiovascular risk). We screened eligible studies from 2009 to 2016. After study exclusions, we extracted data from 27 articles for three outcomes: major adverse cardiac event (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiovascular (CV) death. The meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017054316). Results: Data were extracted on 156,823 patients from the 27 trials included (MACE: 23, CV death: 10, MI: 14). The risks of MACE (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.06-1.396, p = 0.004) and MI (RR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.24-1.66, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the PPI plus clopidogrel group. However, subgroup analysis demonstrated that this significance disappeared in RCTs (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.76-1.28, p = 0.93) in the MACE outcome group. There was no effect of combined PPI and clopidogrel therapy on CV death outcome (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.97-1.50, p = 0.09). Conclusion: Concomitant use of PPIs and clopidogrel has been proved not to be associated with elevated cardiovascular risks according to RCTs. Based on our results, no restrictions should be applied whenever PPIs and clopidogrel are administered simultaneously.

Interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding due to stress ulcers contributes to increased morbidity and mortality in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Stress ulceration refers to GI mucosal injury related to the stress of being critically ill. ICU patients with major bleeding as a result of stress ulceration might have mortality rates approaching 48.5% to 65%. However, the incidence of stress-induced GI bleeding in ICUs has decreased, and not all critically ill patients need prophylaxis. Stress ulcer prophylaxis can result in adverse events such as ventilator-associated pneumonia; therefore, it is necessary to evaluate strategies that safely decrease the incidence of GI bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect and risk-benefit profile of interventions for preventing upper GI bleeding in people admitted to ICUs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 23 August 2017, using relevant search terms: MEDLINE; Embase; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature; and the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Disease Group Specialised Register, as published in the Cochrane Library (2017, Issue 8). We searched the reference lists of all included studies and those from relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses to identify additional studies. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal and contacted individual researchers working in this field, as well as organisations and pharmaceutical companies, to identify unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with participants of any age and gender admitted to ICUs for longer than 48 hours. We excluded studies in which participants were admitted to ICUs primarily for the management of GI bleeding and studies that compared different doses, routes, and regimens of one drug in the same class because we were not interested in intraclass effects of drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 2292 unique records.We included 129 records reporting on 121 studies, including 12 ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification.We judged the overall risk of bias of two studies as low. Selection bias was the most relevant risk of bias domain across the included studies, with 78 studies not clearly reporting the method used for random sequence generation. Reporting bias was the domain with least risk of bias, with 12 studies not reporting all outcomes that researchers intended to investigate.Any intervention versus placebo or no prophylaxisIn comparison with placebo, any intervention seems to have a beneficial effect on the occurrence of upper GI bleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.57; moderate certainty of evidence). The use of any intervention reduced the risk of upper GI bleeding by 10% (95% CI -12.0% to -7%). The effect estimate of any intervention versus placebo or no prophylaxis with respect to the occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU, duration of ICU stay, duration of intubation (all with low certainty of evidence), the number of participants requiring blood transfusions (moderate certainty of evidence), and the units of blood transfused was consistent with benefits and harms. None of the included studies explicitly reported on serious adverse events.Individual interventions versus placebo or no prophylaxisIn comparison with placebo or no prophylaxis, antacids, H2 receptor antagonists, and sucralfate were effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients. Researchers found that with H2 receptor antagonists compared with placebo or no prophylaxis, 11% less developed upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.16 to -0.06; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.70; 24 studies; 2149 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). Of ICU patients taking antacids versus placebo or no prophylaxis, 9% less developed upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.17 to -0.00; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.99; eight studies; 774 participants; low certainty of evidence). Among ICU patients taking sucralfate versus placebo or no prophylaxis, 5% less had upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.88; seven studies; 598 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). The remaining interventions including proton pump inhibitors did not show a significant effect in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients when compared with placebo or no prophylaxis.Regarding the occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia, the effects of H2 receptor antagonists (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.48; eight studies; 945 participants; low certainty of evidence) and of sucralfate (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.04; four studies; 450 participants; low certainty of evidence) were consistent with benefits and harms when compared with placebo or no prophylaxis. None of the studies comparing antacids versus placebo or no prophylaxis provided data regarding nosocomial pneumonia.H2 receptor antagonists versus proton pump inhibitorsH2 receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors are most commonly used in practice to prevent upper GI bleeding in ICU patients. Proton pump inhibitors significantly more often prevented upper GI bleeding in ICU patients compared with H2 receptor antagonists (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.83 to 4.58; 18 studies; 1636 participants; low certainty of evidence). When taking H2 receptor antagonists, 4.8% more patients might experience upper GI bleeding (95% CI 2.1% to 9%). Nosocomial pneumonia occurred in similar proportions of participants taking H2 receptor antagonists and participants taking proton pump inhibitors (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.35; 10 studies; 1256 participants; low certainty of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that antacids, sucralfate, and H2 receptor antagonists might be more effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients compared with placebo or no prophylaxis. The effect estimates of any treatment versus no prophylaxis on nosocomial pneumonia were consistent with benefits and harms. Evidence of low certainty suggests that proton pump inhibitors might be more effective than H2 receptor antagonists. Therefore, patient-relevant benefits and especially harms of H2 receptor antagonists compared with proton pump inhibitors need to be assessed by larger, high-quality RCTs to confirm the results of previously conducted, smaller, and older studies.

Aspirin and omeprazole for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients at risk for aspirin-associated gastric ulcers

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular disease is the most important cause of morbidity and mortality in the world and low-dose aspirin is considered the cornerstone of the cardiovascular disease prevention. However, low-dose aspirin use is associated with gastrointestinal adverse effects in the whole gastrointestinal tract. In this setting, co-therapy with a proton pump inhibitor is the most accepted strategy to reduce aspirin related upper gastrointestinal damage. In addition, some adverse effects have been described with proton pump inhibitors long term use. Areas covered: Low-dose aspirin related beneficial and adverse effects in cardiovascular system and gastrointestinal tract are reviewed. In addition, this manuscript summarizes current data on upper gastrointestinal damage prevention and adverse events with proton pump inhibition. Finally, we discuss the benefit/risk ratio of proton pump inhibitor use in patients at risk of gastrointestinal damage taking low-dose aspirin. Expert commentary: Nowadays, with the current available evidence, the combination of low-dose aspirin with proton pump inhibitor is the most effective therapy for cardiovascular prevention in patients at high gastrointestinal risk. However, further studies are needed to discover new effective strategies with less related adverse events.

East Asian perspective on the interaction between proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel

Both proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and clopidogrel are widely prescribed in the Asia-Pacific population. PPIs are the mainstay therapeutic agents for prophylaxis against aspirin gastropathy and for acid-related disorders including gastroesophageal reflux disease. They are also co-prescribed with oral anticoagulant agents and with dual-antiplatelet therapy for the treatment and prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding. Clopidogrel belongs to the drug class of thienopyridines and is currently the most widely prescribed oral anticoagulant agent either alone or in combination with aspirin. Platelet inhibition by clopidogrel is prone to significant inter-individual variability and is believed to be affected by several factors such as genetics and drug-drug interactions. Since it was first reported in 2009, the potential for drug-drug interactions between PPIs and clopidogrel has remained headline news, and its significance in clinical practice is the subject of an ongoing debate. For East Asian patients in particular, the clinical relevance of the interaction between PPIs and clopidogrel remains unclear because of conflicting data, as well as underrepresentation of East Asian subjects in landmark trials. Increased CYP2C19 genetic polymorphisms in individuals from Asia-Pacific countries only fuel the confusion. Recent studies in East Asian cohorts suggests that the potential of PPIs to attenuate the efficacy of clopidogrel could be minimized by the use of newer PPIs with weaker affinity for the CYP2C19 isoenzyme, namely, pantoprazole, dexlansoprazole, and rabeprazole. This review aims to help clinicians choose the most appropriate PPI for co-prescription with clopidogrel in patients from Asia-Pacific countries.

Proton pump inhibitors for preventing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug induced gastrointestinal toxicity: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are recommended for preventing gastrointestinal lesions induced by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We performed this study: (1) to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PPIs, (2) to explore the association between effectiveness and potential influential factors, and (3) to investigate the comparative effect of different PPIs.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing different classes of PPIs, or comparing PPIs with placebo, H₂ receptor antagonists or misoprostol in NSAIDs users. Both pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Analyses were based on 12,532 participants from 31 trials. PPIs were significantly more effective than placebo in reducing ulcer complications (relative risk [RR] = 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.42) and endoscopic peptic ulcers (RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.33), with no subgroup differences according to class of NSAIDs, ulcer risk, history of previous ulcer disease, Helicobacter pylori infection, or age. To prevent one ulcer complication, 10 high risk patients and 268 moderate risk patients need PPI therapy. Network meta-analysis indicated that the effectiveness of different PPIs in reducing ulcer complications and endoscopic peptic ulcers is generally similar. PPIs significantly reduced gastrointestinal adverse events and the related withdrawals compared to placebo; there is no difference in safety between different PPIs.

CONCLUSIONS

PPIs are effective and safe in preventing peptic ulcers and complications in a wide spectrum of patients requiring NSAID therapy. There is no major difference in the comparative effectiveness and safety between different PPIs.

Comparison of prophylactic effect of UGIB and effects on platelet function between PPIs and H2RAs combined with DAPT: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

We compared prophylactic effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H₂RAs) on upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) associated with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and explored this influence on platelet function.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing PPIs with H₂RAs in adults receiving DAPT were collected from PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain risk ratios (RRs) for UGIB, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), poor responders to clopidogrel and rehospitalization, and continuous data were pooled to obtain mean differences (MDs) for P2Y₁₂ reaction units (PRUs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Twelve clinical trials (n=3,301) met the inclusion criteria. Compared to H₂RAs, PPIs lessened UGIB (RR =0.16, 95% CI: 0.03–0.70), and there was no significant difference in the incidence of PRUs (MD =18.21 PRUs, 95% CI: −4.11–40.54), poor responders to clopidogrel (RR =1.21, 95% CI: 0.92–1.61), incidence of MACEs (RR =0.89, 95% CI: 0.45–1.75) or rehospitalization (RR =1.76, 95% CI: 0.79–3.92). Subgroup analysis confirmed fewer PRUs in the H₂RAs group compared to the omeprazole group (2 studies, n=189, MD =31.80 PRUs, 95% CI: 11.65–51.96). However, poor responder data for clopidogrel and MACEs might be unreliable because few studies of this kind were included.

Conclusion

Limited evidence indicates that PPIs were better than H₂RAs for prophylaxis of UGIB associated with DAPT and had no effect on platelet function. Further study is needed to confirm these observations.

Patient-centered Outcomes with Concomitant Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Other Drugs

PURPOSE

We performed a systematic review of patient-centered outcomes after the concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and other drugs.

METHODS

We searched 4 databases in July 2016 to find studies that reported mortality and morbidity after the concomitant use of PPIs and other drugs. We conducted direct meta-analyses using a random-effects model and graded the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group approach.

FINDINGS

We included data from 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 16 randomized controlled trials, and 16 observational studies that examined the concomitant use of PPIs with medications from 10 drug classes. Low-quality evidence suggests that the use of PPIs is associated with greater morbidity when administered with antiplatelet drugs, bisphosphonates, antibiotics, anticoagulants, metformin, mycophenolate mofetil, or nelfinavir. Concomitant PPIs reduce drug-induced gastrointestinal bleeding and are associated with greater docetaxel and cisplatin response rates in patients with metastatic breast cancer. For demonstrated statistically significant relative risks and benefits from concomitant PPIs, the magnitudes of the effects are small, with <100 attributable events per 1000 patients treated, and the effects are inconsistent among specific drugs. Among individual PPIs, the concomitant use of pantoprazole or esomeprazole, but not omeprazole or lansoprazole, is associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke. Clopidogrel is associated with a greater risk for myocardial infarction compared with prasugrel. Conflicting results between randomized controlled trials and observational studies and high risk for bias in the body of evidence lessened our confidence in the results.

IMPLICATIONS

Available evidence suggests a greater risk for adverse patient outcomes after the concomitant use of PPIs and medications from 9 drug classes and warns against inappropriate drug combinations.

Upper Gastrointestinal Toxicity Associated With Long-Term Aspirin Therapy: Consequences and Prevention

Antiplatelet therapy represents a fundamental part of preventive management for patients who are at risk of a secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) event. In most cases, the antiplatelet regimen is based on low-dose aspirin, a drug that is highly effective in reducing the incidence of CVD events, but is associated with a substantial risk of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. The dyspeptic symptoms, which can result from aspirin administration, and which may occur with or without associated ulceration and bleeding, may lead patients to discontinue therapy, thus increasing their CVD risk. For patients in whom aspirin is indicated and who are deemed to be at increased risk of upper GI events, concomitant therapy with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is currently recommended. These agents are highly effective in reducing the upper GI lesions associated with aspirin therapy and have been associated with increased aspirin adherence. However, widespread under-prescribing of PPIs and potential noncompliance with their use means that substantial numbers of patients are at unnecessary risk of upper GI toxicity and-if aspirin therapy is discontinued-CVD events. Provision of aspirin and an immediate-release PPI as a coordinated-delivery combination tablet has been shown to both reduce the risk of gastric ulcer formation and improve patient compliance. This strategy, which may ultimately reduce the incidence of CVD outcomes because of the associated reduction in GI symptoms and the potential for greater patient adherence to aspirin, warrants further investigation under both randomized controlled conditions (explanatory trials), and in real-life settings (pragmatic trials).

Impact of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel or ticagrelor on clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome

Background

There is great debate on the possible adverse interaction between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and clopidogrel. In addition, whether the use of PPIs affects the clinical efficacy of ticagrelor remains less known. We aimed to determine the impact of concomitant administration of PPIs and clopidogrel or ticagrelor on clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed data from a “real world”, international, multi-center registry between 2003 and 2014 (n = 15,401) and assessed the impact of concomitant administration of PPIs and clopidogrel or ticagrelor on 1-year composite primary endpoint (all-cause death, re-infarction, or severe bleeding) in patients with ACS after PCI.

Results

Of 9429 patients in the final cohort, 54.8% (n = 5165) was prescribed a PPI at discharge. Patients receiving a PPI were older, more often female, and were more likely to have comorbidities. No association was observed between PPI use and the primary endpoint for patients receiving clopidogrel (adjusted HR: 1.036; 95% CI: 0.903–1.189) or ticagrelor (adjusted HR: 2.320; 95% CI: 0.875–6.151) (P_interaction = 0.2004). Similarly, use of a PPI was not associated with increased risk of all-cause death, re-infarction, or a decreased risk of severe bleeding for patients treated with either clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

Conclusions

In patients with ACS following PCI, concomitant use of PPIs was not associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes in patients receiving either clopidogrel or ticagrelor. Our findings indicate it is reasonable to use a PPI in combination with clopidogrel or ticagrelor, especially in patients with a higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Impact of proton pump inhibitors on clinical outcomes in patients treated with a 6- or 24-month dual-antiplatelet therapy duration: Insights from the PROlonging Dual-antiplatelet treatment after Grading stent-induced Intimal hyperplasia studY trial

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are frequently prescribed in combination with clopidogrel, but conflicting data exist as to whether PPIs diminish the efficacy of clopidogrel. We assessed the association between PPI use and clinical outcomes for patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel plus aspirin.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the PRODIGY trial, 1,970 patients were randomized to 6- or 24-month DAPT at 30 days from index procedure. Among them, 738 patients (37.5%) received PPI (mainly lansoprazole; 90.1%) at the time of randomization. Proton pump inhibitor users were older, were most likely to be woman, had a lower creatinine clearance, presented more frequently with acute coronary syndrome, and had a higher CRUSADE bleeding score. After adjustment, the primary efficacy end point (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident) was similar between no PPI and PPI users (9.2% vs 11.5%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.051, 95% CI 0.788-1.400, P = .736). Bleeding rates did not differ between the 2 groups (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5: adjusted HR 0.996, 95% CI 0.672-1.474, P = .980). Net clinical adverse events were also similar in no PPI and PPI patients (12.9% vs 14.9%, adjusted HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.772-1.268, P = .93). Results remained consistent at sensitivity analysis when focusing on the 548 patients who remained on PPI for the whole study duration.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings suggest that the concomitant use of PPIs, when clinically indicated, in patients receiving clopidogrel is not associated with adverse clinical outcome.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease 2015

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease in 2014 and has created an English version. The revised guidelines consist of seven items: bleeding gastric and duodenal ulcers, Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy, non-eradication therapy, drug-induced ulcer, non-H. pylori, non-nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ulcer, surgical treatment, and conservative therapy for perforation and stenosis. Ninety clinical questions (CQs) were developed, and a literature search was performed for the CQs using the Medline, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases between 1983 and June 2012. The guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Therapy is initially provided for ulcer complications. Perforation or stenosis is treated with surgery or conservatively. Ulcer bleeding is first treated by endoscopic hemostasis. If it fails, surgery or interventional radiology is chosen. Second, medical therapy is provided. In cases of NSAID-related ulcers, use of NSAIDs is stopped, and anti-ulcer therapy is provided. If NSAID use must continue, the ulcer is treated with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or prostaglandin analog. In cases with no NSAID use, H. pylori-positive patients receive eradication and anti-ulcer therapy. If first-line eradication therapy fails, second-line therapy is given. In cases of non-H. pylori, non-NSAID ulcers or H. pylori-positive patients with no indication for eradication therapy, non-eradication therapy is provided. The first choice is PPI therapy, and the second choice is histamine 2-receptor antagonist therapy. After initial therapy, maintenance therapy is provided to prevent ulcer relapse.

Safety of Digestive Endoscopy following Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Background. The safety of endoscopy after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is poorly characterized. We thus performed a systematic review assessing the safety of endoscopy following ACS. Methods. Searches in EMBASE, Medline, and Web of Science identified articles for inclusion. Data abstraction was completed by two independent reviewers. Results. Fourteen retrospective studies yielded 1178 patients (mean 71.3 years, 59.0% male) having suffered an ACS before endoscopy. Patients underwent 1188 endoscopies primarily to investigate suspected gastrointestinal bleeding (81.2%). Overall, 810 EGDs (68.2%), 191 colonoscopies (16.1%), 100 sigmoidoscopies (8.4%), 64 PEGs (5.4%), and 22 ERCPs (1.9%) were performed 9.0 ± 5.2 days after ACS, showing principally ulcer disease (25.1%; 95% CI 22.2-28.3%) and normal findings (22.9%; 95% CI 20.1-26.0%). Overall, 108 peri- and postprocedural complications occurred (9.1%; 95% CI 7.6-10.9%), with hypotension (24.1%; 95% CI 17.0-32.9%), arrhythmias (8.1%; 95% CI 4.5-18.1%), and repeat ACS (6.5%; 95% CI 3.1-12.8%) as the most frequent. All-cause mortality was 8.1% (95% CI 6.3-10.4%), with 4 deaths attributed to endoscopy (<24 hours after ACS, 3.7% of all complications; 95% CI 1.5-9.1%). Conclusion. A significant proportion of possibly endoscopy-related negative outcomes occur following ACS. Further studies are required to better characterize indications, patient selection, and appropriate timing of endoscopy in this cohort.

PPI versus Histamine H2 Receptor Antagonists for Prevention of Upper Gastrointestinal Injury Associated with Low-Dose Aspirin: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This study compared proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) for prevention of low-dose aspirin (LDA)-related gastrointestinal (GI) erosion, ulcer and bleeding. Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and WanFang Data were searched from the date of their establishment to December 31, 2013. Randomized controlled trials comparing PPIs and H2RAs for prevention of GI injury associated with low-dose aspirin (LDA) were collected. Two reviewers independently abstracted studies and patient characteristics and appraised study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. We included nine RCTs involving 1047 patients. The meta-analysis showed that PPIs were superior to H2RAs for prevention of LDA-associated GI erosion/ulcer [odds ratio (OR=0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.16-0.50] and bleeding (OR=0.28, 95% CI: 0.14-0.59). In conclusion, PPIs were superior to H2RAs for prevention of LDA-related GI erosion/ulcer and bleeding. Higher quality, large, multicenter RCTs are needed to demonstrate the preventive effect of the two acid-suppressive drugs.

Proton pump inhibitors in prevention of low-dose aspirin-associated upper gastrointestinal injuries

AIM: To determine the preventive effect and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in low-dose aspirin (LDA)-associated gastrointestinal (GI) ulcers and bleeding.

METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register from inception to December 2013, and checked conference abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect of PPIs in reducing adverse GI events (hemorrhage, ulcer, perforation, or obstruction) in patients taking LDA. The preventive effects of PPIs were compared with the control group [taking placebo, a cytoprotective agent, or an H₂ receptor antagonist (H₂RA)] in LDA-associated upper GI injuries. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software.

RESULTS: We evaluated 8780 participants in 10 RCTs. The meta-analysis showed that PPIs decreased the risk of LDA-associated upper GI ulcers (OR = 0.16; 95%CI: 0.12-0.23) and bleeding (OR = 0.27; 95%CI: 0.16-0.43) compared with control. For patients treated with dual anti-platelet therapy of LDA and clopidogrel, PPIs were able to prevent the LDA-associated GI bleeding (OR = 0.36; 95%CI: 0.15-0.87) without increasing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR = 1.00; 95%CI: 0.76-1.31). PPIs were superior to H₂RA in prevention of LDA-associated GI ulcers (OR = 0.12; 95%CI: 0.02-0.65) and bleeding (OR = 0.32; 95%CI: 0.13-0.79).

CONCLUSION: PPIs are effective in preventing LDA-associated upper GI ulcers and bleeding. Concomitant use of PPI, LDA and clopidogrel did not increase the risk of MACE.

Conflicting results between randomized trials and observational studies on the impact of proton pump inhibitors on cardiovascular events when coadministered with dual antiplatelet therapy: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Discordant results have been reported on the effects of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for cardiovascular outcomes. We conducted a systematic review comparing the effectiveness and safety of concomitant use of PPIs and DAPT in the postdischarge treatment of unstable angina/non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched for clinical studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 1995 to 2012. Reviewers screened and extracted data, assessed applicability and quality, and graded the strength of evidence. We performed meta-analyses of direct comparisons when outcomes and follow-up periods were comparable. Thirty-five studies were eligible. Five (4 randomized controlled trials and 1 observational) assessed the effect of omeprazole when added to DAPT; the other 30 (observational) assessed the effect of PPIs as a class when compared with no PPIs. Random-effects meta-analyses of the studies assessing PPIs as a class consistently reported higher event rates in patients receiving PPIs for various clinical outcomes at 1 year (composite ischemic end points, all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, stroke, revascularization, and stent thrombosis). However, the results from randomized controlled trials evaluating omeprazole compared with placebo showed no difference in ischemic outcomes, despite a reduction in upper gastrointestinal bleeding with omeprazole.

CONCLUSIONS

Large, well-conducted observational studies of PPIs and randomized controlled trials of omeprazole seem to provide conflicting results for the effect of PPIs on cardiovascular outcomes when coadministered with DAPT. Prospective trials that directly compare pharmacodynamic parameters and clinical events among specific PPI agents in patients with unstable angina/non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction treated with DAPT are warranted.

Epidemiology and diagnosis of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common gastroenterological emergency. A vast majority of these bleeds have nonvariceal causes, in particular gastroduodenal peptic ulcers. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, low-dose aspirin use, and Helicobacter pylori infection are the main risk factors for UGIB. Current epidemiologic data suggest that patients most affected are older with medical comorbidit. Widespread use of potentially gastroerosive medications underscores the importance of adopting gastroprotective pharamacologic strategies. Endoscopy is the mainstay for diagnosis and treatment of acute UGIB. It should be performed within 24 hours of presentation by skilled operators in adequately equipped settings, using a multidisciplinary team approach.

Endoscopic management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding

This review discusses the indications, technical aspects, and comparative effectiveness of the endoscopic treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding caused by peptic ulcer. Pre-endoscopic considerations, such as the use of prokinetics and timing of endoscopy, are reviewed. In addition, this article examines aspects of postendoscopic care such as the effectiveness, dosing, and duration of postendoscopic proton-pump inhibitors, Helicobacter pylori testing, and benefits of treatment in terms of preventing rebleeding; and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelet agents, and oral anticoagulants, including direct thrombin and Xa inhibitors, following acute peptic ulcer bleeding.

Comparison of proton pump inhibitor and histamine-2 receptor antagonist in the prevention of recurrent peptic ulcers/erosions in long-term low-dose aspirin users: a retrospective cohort study

Background. Proton pump inhibitor and histamine-2 receptor antagonist can prevent aspirin-related ulcers/erosions but few studies compare the efficacy of these two agents. Aims. We evaluated the efficacy of omeprazole and famotidine in preventing recurrent ulcers/erosions in low-dose aspirin users. Methods. The 24-week clinical outcomes of the patients using low-dose aspirin for cardiovascular protection with a history of ulcers/erosions and cotherapy of omeprazole or famotidine were retrospectively reviewed. The incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms, recurrent ulcers/erosions, erosive esophagitis, gastrointestinal bleeding, and thromboembolic events was analyzed. Results. A total of 104 patients (famotidine group, 49 patients; omeprazole group, 55 patients) were evaluated. Famotidine group had more gastrointestinal symptoms episodes than omeprazole group (46.9% versus 23.6%, P = 0.01). Fifteen famotidine group patients and 5 omeprazole group patients had recurrent ulcers/erosions (30.6% versus 9.1%, P = 0.005). Lanza scale was significantly lower in omeprazole group than in famotidine group (1.2 ± 0.7 versus 1.7 ± 1.1, P = 0.008). Only 1 famotidine group patient had ulcer bleeding. The incidences of erosive esophagitis and thromboembolic events were comparable between both groups. Conclusions. Omeprazole was superior to famotidine with less gastrointestinal symptoms and recurrent ulcers/erosions in patients using 24-week low-dose aspirin. The risk of erosive esophagitis, gastrointestinal bleeding, and thromboembolic events was similar between both groups.

Fixed-dose ibuprofen/famotidine: a review of its use to reduce the risk of gastric and duodenal ulcers in patients requiring NSAID therapy

A fixed-dose combination of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ibuprofen and the histamine H(2) receptor antagonist famotidine (ibuprofen/famotidine; DUEXIS(®)) is now available for the symptomatic treatment of arthritic symptoms and to reduce the risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulcers in patients who require ibuprofen therapy. The gastroprotective efficacy of oral ibuprofen/famotidine 800/26.6 mg three times daily in patients requiring NSAID therapy for inflammatory conditions and/or pain was evaluated in two 24-week, well-designed trials (REDUCE-1 and -2). According to the post-adjudication analysis of these studies, ibuprofen/famotidine significantly reduced the life table estimated rate of gastric ulcers (primary endpoint of REDUCE-1) but not upper GI ulcers (i.e. gastric or duodenal ulcers) [primary endpoint of REDUCE-2] compared with ibuprofen alone. When life table estimated rates of secondary endpoints were assessed, significantly fewer recipients of the fixed-dose combination than of ibuprofen alone developed upper GI ulcers or duodenal ulcers in REDUCE-1, whereas the between-group difference in gastric ulcers and duodenal ulcers was considered to be nonsignificant in REDUCE-2 because of hierarchical testing. However, in a prespecified pooled analysis of REDUCE-1 and -2, the rate of upper GI ulcers as well as each of the upper GI ulcer components was significantly lower with ibuprofen/famotidine than with ibuprofen. Ibuprofen/famotidine was generally well tolerated, with a tolerability profile consistent with those established for the individual agents.

Safe prescription recommendations for non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: consensus document ellaborated by nominated experts of three scientific associations (SER-SEC-AEG)

This article outlines key recommendations for the appropriate prescription of non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to patients with different musculoskeletal problems. These recommendations are based on current scientific evidence, and takes into consideration gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety issues. The recommendations have been agreed on by experts from three scientific societies (Spanish Society of Rheumatology [SER], Spanish Association of Gastroenterology [AEG] and Spanish Society of Cardiology [SEC]), following a two-round Delphi methodology. Areas that have been taken into account encompass: efficiency, cardiovascular risk, gastrointestinal risk, liver risk, renal risk, inflammatory bowel disease, anemia, post-operative pain, and prevention strategies. We propose a patient management algorithm that summarizes the main aspects of the recommendations.

[Antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid: approaches to reducing the frequency of gastrointenstinal adverse reactions]

Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is highly effective in preventing cardiovascular events, but associated with increased risk for digestive adverse reactions. The paper provides an update on the epidemiology, mechanisms, and risk factors of esophagogastroduodeno- and enteropathies during long-term low-dose ACA therapy. It outlines the key principles of their prevention.

Multidisciplinary management strategies for acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

The modern management of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is centred on endoscopy, with recourse to interventional radiology and surgery in refractory cases. The appropriate use of intervention to optimize outcomes is reviewed.

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken of PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials between January 1990 and April 2013 using validated search terms (with restrictions) relevant to upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

RESULTS

Appropriate and adequate resuscitation, and risk stratification using validated scores should be initiated at diagnosis. Coagulopathy should be corrected along with blood transfusions, aiming for an international normalized ratio of less than 2·5 to proceed with possible endoscopic haemostasis and a haemoglobin level of 70 g/l (excluding patients with severe bleeding or ischaemia). Prokinetics and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can be administered while awaiting endoscopy, although they do not affect rebleeding, surgery or mortality rates. Endoscopic haemostasis using thermal or mechanical therapies alone or in combination with injection should be used in all patients with high-risk stigmata (Forrest I-IIb) within 24 h of presentation (possibly within 12 h if there is severe bleeding), followed by a 72-h intravenous infusion of PPI that has been shown to decrease further rebleeding, surgery and mortality. A second attempt at endoscopic haemostasis is generally made in patients with rebleeding. Uncontrolled bleeding should be treated with targeted or empirical transcatheter arterial embolization. Surgical intervention is required in the event of failure of endoscopic and radiological measures. Secondary PPI prophylaxis when indicated and Helicobacter pylori eradication are necessary to decrease recurrent bleeding, keeping in mind the increased false-negative testing rates in the setting of acute bleeding.

CONCLUSION

An evidence-based approach with multidisciplinary collaboration is required to optimize outcomes of patients presenting with acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Mechanisms of aspirin resistance

Aspirin is integral to the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease and acts to impair the development of platelet-mediated atherothromboembolic events by irreversible inhibition of platelet cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1). Inhibition of this enzyme prevents the synthesis of the potent pro-aggregatory prostanoid thromboxane A2. A large number of patients continue to experience atherothromboembolic events despite aspirin therapy, so-called 'aspirin treatment failure', and this is multifactorial in aetiology. Approximately 10% however do not respond appropriately to aspirin in a phenomenon known as 'aspirin resistance', which is defined by various laboratory techniques. In this review we discuss the reasons for aspirin resistance in a systematic manner, starting from prescription of the drug and ending at the level of the platelet. Poor medication adherence has been shown to be a cause of apparent aspirin resistance, and may in fact be the largest contributory factor. Also important is high platelet turnover due to underlying inflammatory processes, such as atherosclerosis and its complications, leading to faster regeneration of platelets, and hence of COX-1, at a rate that diminishes the efficacy of once daily dosing. Recent developments include the identification of platelet glycoprotein IIIa as a potential biomarker (as well as possible underlying mechanism) for aspirin resistance and the discovery of an anion efflux pump that expels intracellular aspirin from platelets. The absolute as well as relative contributions of such factors to the phenomenon of aspirin resistance are the subject of continuing research.

Pharmacokinetic drug interaction profile of omeprazole with adverse consequences and clinical risk management

BACKGROUND

Omeprazole, a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), is widely used for the treatment of dyspepsia, peptic ulcer, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and functional dyspepsia. Polypharmacy is common in patients receiving omeprazole. Drug toxicity and treatment failure resulting from inappropriate combination therapy with omeprazole have been reported sporadically. Systematic review has not been available to address the pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction (DDI) profile of omeprazole with adverse consequences, the factors determining the degree of DDI between omeprazole and comedication, and the corresponding clinical risk management.

METHODS

Literature was identified by performing a PubMed search covering the period from January 1988 to March 2013. The full text of each article was critically reviewed, and data interpretation was performed.

RESULTS

Omeprazole has actual adverse influences on the pharmacokinetics of medications such as diazepam, carbamazepine, clozapine, indinavir, nelfinavir, atazanavir, rilpivirine, methotrexate, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, clopidogrel, digoxin, itraconazole, posaconazole, and oral iron supplementation. Meanwhile, low efficacy of omeprazole treatment would be anticipated, as omeprazole elimination could be significantly induced by comedicated efavirenz and herb medicines such as St John's wort, Ginkgo biloba, and yin zhi huang. The mechanism for DDI involves induction or inhibition of cytochrome P450, inhibition of P-glycoprotein or breast cancer resistance protein-mediated drug transport, and inhibition of oral absorption by gastric acid suppression. Sometimes, DDIs of omeprazole do not exhibit a PPI class effect. Other suitable PPIs or histamine 2 antagonists may be therapeutic alternatives that can be used to avoid adverse consequences. The degree of DDIs associated with omeprazole and clinical outcomes depend on factors such as genotype status of CYP2C19 and CYP1A2, ethnicity, dose and treatment course of precipitant omeprazole, pharmaceutical formulation of object drug (eg, mycophenolate mofetil versus enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium), other concomitant medication (eg, omeprazole-indinavir versus omeprazole-indinavir-ritonavir), and administration schedule (eg, intensified dosing of mycophenolate mofetil versus standard dosing).

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that omeprazole is one of the most widely prescribed drugs internationally, clinical professionals should enhance clinical risk management on adverse DDIs associated with omeprazole and ensure safe combination use of omeprazole by rationally prescribing alternatives, checking the appropriateness of physician orders before dispensing, and performing therapeutic drug monitoring.

Esomeprazole and aspirin fixed combination for the prevention of cardiovascular events

Low dose aspirin therapy plays a fundamental role in both the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. Although the evidence using low dose aspirin for secondary prevention is well-established, the decision to use aspirin for primary prevention is based on an evaluation of the patient’s risk of cardiovascular events compared to their risk of adverse events, such as bleeding. In addition to the risk of bleeding associated with long term aspirin administration, upper gastrointestinal side effects, such as dyspepsia often lead to discontinuation of therapy, which places patients at an increased risk for cardiovascular events. One option to mitigate adverse events and increase adherence is the addition of esomeprazole to the medication regimen. This review article provides an evaluation of the literature on the concomitant use of aspirin and esomeprazole available through February 2013. The efficacy, safety, tolerability, cost effectiveness, and patient quality of life of this regimen is discussed. A summary of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between aspirin and esomeprazole, as well as other commonly used cardiovascular medications are also reviewed. The addition of esomeprazole to low dose aspirin therapy in patients at high risk of developing gastric ulcers for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, significantly reduced their risk of ulcer development. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggested that esomeprazole did not affect the pharmacokinetic parameters or the antiplatelet effects of aspirin. Therefore, for those patients who are at a high risk of developing a gastrointestinal ulcer, the benefit of adding esomeprazole likely outweighs the risks of longer term proton pump inhibitor use, and the combination can be recommended. Administering the two agents separately may also be more economical. On the other hand, for those patients at lower risk of developing a gastrointestinal ulcer, both the additional risk and cost make the inclusion of a proton pump inhibitor unwarranted.

Risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality associated with concomitant use of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors in elderly patients

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of concomitant use of clopidogrel and PPIs in a national sample of elderly Medicare beneficiaries (age ≥65 years).

METHODS

A nested case-control design was employed. A cohort of Medicare beneficiaries who initiated clopidogrel and did not have any gap of ≥30 days between clopidogrel fills between July 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008 was identified from a 5% national sample of Medicare claims data. Within this cohort, cases (beneficiaries who experienced any major cardiovascular event [MCE] [acute myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery bypass graft, or percutaneous coronary intervention] or all-cause mortality) and controls (beneficiaries who did not experience any MCE or all-cause mortality) were identified from inpatient and outpatient claims. Cases and controls were matched on age and the time to first clopidogrel fill. Conditional logistic regression was performed on the matched sample to evaluate the association between concomitant use of clopidogrel and PPIs and adverse health outcomes (MCEs and all-cause mortality).

RESULTS

A total of 43,159 clopidogrel users were identified. Among them, 15,415 (35.7%) received clopidogrel and a PPI concomitantly at any time during the study period, 3502 (8.1%) experienced a MCE, 7306 (17.1%) died, and a total of 9908 (22.8%) experienced the primary composite outcome (any MCE or all-cause mortality) during follow-up. The odds ratio (OR) for the primary composite outcome was 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18-1.35). Secondary analyses indicated that elderly patients using clopidogrel and a PPI concomitantly were more likely to experience all-cause mortality (OR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.29-1.53) as compared to those receiving clopidogrel only, but not MCEs (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.95-1.18).

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant use of clopidogrel and PPIs was associated with a slightly increased risk of all-cause mortality but not MCEs.

Adherence to the preventive strategies for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug- or low-dose aspirin-induced gastrointestinal injuries

As the aging of the population advances, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or low-dose aspirin (LDA) is increasing. Their use is accompanied by a risk of serious complications, such as hemorrhage or perforation of the gastrointestinal tract. Therefore, gastroprotective strategies upon the prescription of NSAIDs/LDA are outlined in several guidelines or recommendations. Because all NSAIDs including cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors have cardiovascular (CV) toxicity, recent guidelines are based on not only GI risks but also CV risks of NSAID users. Assessment of the adherence to evidence-based guidelines or recommendations for the safe prescription of NSAIDs/LDA in clinical practice is an important issue. Here, we summarize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the preventive effects of antisecretory drugs for NSAID- or LDA-induced peptic ulcers. Then, we describe preventive strategies upon the prescription of NSAIDs/LDA outlined in several guidelines or recommendations, and describe studies on adherence and outcomes of adherence to these preventive strategies. Finally, we discuss strategies to increase the adherence rate, and changing pattern of GI events associated with NSAIDs/LDA. In Japan, the preventive strategies upon the prescription of NSAIDs/LDA are expected to spread rapidly because the use of proton pump inhibitors for the prevention of recurrence of NSAID- or LDA-induced peptic ulcers and the use of COX-2 for the palliation of acute pain were recently approved under the national health insurance system. Further studies on adherence to the preventive strategies and the outcomes of adherence, which include both GI events and CV events, in the Japanese population are required.

Statements of the Malaysian Society of Gastroenterology & Hepatology and the National Heart Association of Malaysia task force 2012 working party on the use of antiplatelet therapy and proton pump inhibitors in the prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding

The working party statements aim to provide evidence and guidelines to practising doctors on the use of antiplatelet therapy and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in patients with cardiovascular risk as well as those at risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Balancing the GI and cardiovascular risk and benefits of antiplatelet therapy and PPIs may sometimes pose a significant challenge to doctors. Concomitant use of anti-secretory medications has been shown to reduce the risk of GI bleeding but concerns have been raised on the potential interaction of PPIs and clopidogrel. Many new data have emerged on this topic but some can be confusing and at times controversial. These statements examined the supporting evidence in four main areas: rationale for antiplatelet therapy, risk factors of GI bleeding, PPI-clopidogrel interactions and timing for recommencing antiplatelet therapy after GI bleeding, and made appropriate recommendations.

State-of-the-art management of acute bleeding peptic ulcer disease

The management of patients with non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding has evolved, as have its causes and prognosis, over the past 20 years. The addition of high-quality data coupled to the publication of authoritative national and international guidelines have helped define current-day standards of care. This review highlights the relevant clinical evidence and consensus recommendations that will hopefully result in promoting the effective dissemination and knowledge translation of important information in the management of patients afflicted with this common entity.