Comparison of proton pump inhibitors and histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit

Proton Pump Inhibitors Versus Histamine-2 Receptor Blockers for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis on In-hospital Mortality Among Intensive Care Unit Patients Hospitalized for Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Events: Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) commonly receive stress ulcer prophylaxis drugs, either proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor blockers (H2RBs). The goal of this research was to evaluate the impact of these drugs on mortality among ICU patients hospitalized for major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs).

METHODS

ICU patients hospitalized for MACCEs were sourced from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III database. We performed a propensity score matching analysis to match patients treated with PPIs to those treated with H2RBs for stress ulcer prophylaxis. The outcome was 90-day mortality. We used multivariable Cox regression analyses to compare the effect. Hazard ratio (HR), 95% CIs, and P values were reported from the model.

FINDINGS

From 2001 to 2012, a total of 3577 patients hospitalized for MACCEs (1997 received PPIs and 1580 received H2RBs) were admitted. The 90-day mortality was 23.7% (848/3577); it was 27% (540/1997) and 19.5% (308/1580) for PPIs and H2RBs users, respectively. The PPI group exhibited a greater 90‑day mortality in comparison to the H2RBs group (relative risk = 1.17; P = 0.036), after conditioning on potential confounder. The results remained robust in propensity score matching, sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses.

IMPLICATIONS

PPIs for stress ulcer prophylaxis were linked to an increased risk of in-hospital mortality than H2RBs in patients hospitalized for MACCEs. Further investigation of this association and validation of its clinical significance is needed.

Molecular docking, characterization, ADME/toxicity prediction, and anti-ulcer activity of new quercetin derivatives on indomethacin-induced gastric ulcer in mice

Gastric ulcer (GU) is a serious upper gastrointestinal tract disorder that affects people worldwide. The drugs now available for GU treatment have a high rate of relapses and drug interactions, as well as mild to severe side effects. As a result, new natural therapeutic medications for treating GU with fewer negative side effects are desperately needed. Because of quercetin's (QCT) diverse pharmacological effects and unique structural features, we decided to semi-synthesize new QCT derivatives and test them for antiulcer activity. Docking assays were performed on the synthesized compounds to determine their affinity for TLR-4/MD-2, MyD88/TIR, and NF-κB domains, an important inflammatory pathway involved in GU development and progression. Mice were given oral famotidine (40 mg/kg/day), QCT, QCT pentamethyl (QPM), or QCT pentaacetyl (QPA) (50 mg/kg/day) for 5 days before GU induction by a single intraperitoneal injection of indomethacin (INDO; 18 mg/kg). QPM and QPA have a stronger binding affinity for TLR-4/MD-2, MyD88/TIR and NF-κB domains than QCT. In comparison, they demonstrated the greatest reduction in ulcer score and index, gastric MDA and nitric oxide (NO) contents, MyD88 and NF-κB expressions, and gastric TLR-4 immunostaining. They also enhanced the levels of GSH, CAT, COX-1, and COX-2 in the gastric mucosa, as well as HO-1 and Nrf2 expression, with histological regression in gastric mucosal lesions, with QPA-treated mice demonstrating the best GU healing. QPA is safe against all of the target organs and adverse pathways studied, with good ADME properties. However, further in vitro experiments are necessary to demonstrate the inhibitory effects of QPM and QPA on the protein targets of interest. In addition, preclinical research on its bioavailability and safety is essential before clinical management can be undertaken. Overall, the new QPA derivative could one day serve as the basis for a new class of potential antiulcer drugs.

Assessment of adherence to the national stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines: A cross-sectional analysis

Background

Clinical guidelines support the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in patients at risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding such as those with coagulopathy, renal replacement therapy, and mechanical ventilation. Despite the observed benefits of SUP, its overuse has been highly associated with serious adverse effects.

Objective

To assess the adherence to the national SUP guidelines in a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted using electronic health records at King Fahad Specialist Hospital (KFSH), Buraydah, Saudi Arabia. We collected the data from January 1st to December 31st, 2020. Adult patients aged 18 and older who received SUP prescriptions were included. Descriptive analysis was performed to assess the adherence to the guidelines and to explore the factors associated with SUP use in a hospital-based setting.

Results

A total of 424 patients were enrolled in this study. The median age of patients was 55.2 years old. Only 54% of patients were candidates for SUP. Internal medicine and surgery wards ranked the highest in prescribing SUP at 34.2% and 30.4%, respectively. The most common major criterion to start SUP was the concomitant use of two or more of these medications (anticoagulants, aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, and antidepressants) followed by using NSAIDs or corticosteroids by older adult patients aged (≥65 years) or have GI bleeding history at 43.2% and 21.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

The observed overuse of anti-ulcer drugs (AUD) indicates a need for greater adherence to SUP guidelines. Areas of improvement can be implemented to ensure appropriate adherence to SUP guidelines to control the costs and avoid unnecessary anti-ulcer-related adverse effects.

Prophylactic acid suppression and enteral nutrition

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is routinely administered to critically ill patients who are at high-risk for clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding. Recent evidence however has highlighted adverse effects with acid suppressive therapy, particularly proton pump inhibitors where associations with higher mortality have been reported. Enteral nutrition may provide benefits in reducing the incidence of stress ulceration and may mitigate the need for acid suppressive therapy. This manuscript will describe the most recent evidence evaluating enteral nutrition for the provision of SUP.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are limited data evaluating enteral nutrition for SUP. The available studies compare enteral nutrition with or without acid suppressive therapy rather than enteral nutrition vs. placebo. Although data exist demonstrating similar clinically important bleeding rates in patients on enteral nutrition who receive SUP vs. no SUP, these studies are underpowered for this endpoint. In the largest placebo-controlled trial conducted to date, lower bleeding rates were observed with SUP and most patients were receiving enteral nutrition. Pooled analyses had also described benefit with SUP vs. placebo and enteral nutrition did not change the impact of these therapies.

SUMMARY

Although enteral nutrition may provide some benefit as SUP, existing data are not strong enough to validate their use in place of acid suppressive therapy. Clinicians should continue to prescribe acid suppressive therapy for SUP in critically ill patients who are at high risk for clinically important bleeding even when enteral nutrition is being provided.

Common Data Model-based Analysis of Selective Leukoreduction Protocol Compliance at Three Hospitals

Background

The selective leukoreduction protocol (SLP) is limited in that patients who require it can be overlooked. We estimated SLP compliance (SLPC) using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership common data model (CDM).

Methods

Patients were classified into eight groups: pre- and post-hematology disease (A and B), pre- and post-solid organ transplantation (C and D), solid cancer (E), immunodeficiency (F), anticancer therapy (G), and cardiovascular surgery (H). We examined the red blood cell (RBC) transfusion history from three hospital datasets comprising approximately three million patients over 20 years using CDM-based analysis. SLPC was calculated as the percentage of patients who received only leukoreduced RBCs in total patients transfused RBCs.

Results

In total, 166,641 patients from three hospitals were enrolled in this study. From 2001 to 2021, SLPC in all groups, except H, tended to increase, although there were differences among the hospitals. Based on the most recent values (2017-2021), the SLPC in groups A, B, D, and G was maintained at ≥75% until 1,095 days before or after diagnosis or treatment. Groups E, F, and H had < 50% SLPC one day after diagnosis and treatment.

Conclusions

CDM analysis supports the review of large datasets for SLPC evaluation. Although SLPC tended to improve in most patient groups, additional education and monitoring are needed for groups that continue to show low SLPC.

Are Proton Pump Inhibitors More Effective Than Histamine-2-Receptor Antagonists for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

BACKGROUND

Histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H₂RAs) have been largely replaced by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) despite the inconclusive evidence concerning comparative effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of PPIs and H₂RAs on SUP in real-world setting.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to September 19, 2021. We included cohort studies comparing PPIs with H₂RAs in critically ill adult patients and explicitly reporting the outcome of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding or mortality. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess potential risk of bias. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis and only the studies with adjusted effect estimates were pooled. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to assess the overall quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

Thirteen cohort studies (N = 145 149) were eligible and 11 of them available for full texts were of low to moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis of adjusted effect estimates indicated that PPIs were associated with a significantly higher risk of GI bleeding, compared with H₂RAs (8 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-3.01, low certainty). Post hoc pooling analysis also suggested that PPIs were associated with a slightly higher risk of mortality in comparison with H₂RAs (7 studies, OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.13-1.42, low certainty).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

The systematic review of cohort studies showed that PPIs were associated with higher risks of GI bleeding and mortality, although the certainty of evidence was low. Overall, we suggest not excluding H₂RAs for SUP, while further studies are essential for elucidating the risk stratification, optimal regimen, and specific duration.