A comparison of simplified lansoprazole suspension administered nasogastrically and pantoprazole administered intravenously: effects on 24-h intragastric pH

Evaluation of Different Lansoprazole Formulations for Nasogastric or Orogastric Administration

Background

Critically ill patients who require treatment with proton pump inhibitors are often unable to swallow solid dosage forms and have nasogastric (NG) or orogastric (OG) tube placement. Many of these patients will need medications in a liquid dosage form for easy administration. The aim of this study was to determine which extemporaneous preparation of lansoprazole is least likely to cause NG or OG tube blockage.

Methods

Lansoprazole capsules, oral disintegrating tablets, and packets were each dissolved in apple juice, cranberry juice, orange juice, ginger ale, water, and 8.4% sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3). The resulting suspension was individually passed through an 18-French NG tube and collected in a graduated cylinder. The tubes were then inspected for clots. The amount of drug retrieved from the cylinder was rated as none, partial, or complete. The physical consistency and pH changes of the suspension were assessed for stability at 0, 2, 5, 10, and 15 minutes.

Results

Complete drug retrieval and no clots were observed when any of the lansoprazole dosage forms were mixed with 8.4% NaHCO3or when the disintegrating tablet was mixed in any of the solutions. The pH of each admixture remained fairly constant over 15 minutes, but the packet-in-water combination showed a significant lowering in pH immediately after mixing.

Conclusion

The use of NaHCO3to make suspension for any lansoprazole formulation is associated with the least likelihood of tube blockage or pH variations. Thus, it may be the preferred delivery vehicle for NG/OG administration of lansoprazole, unless the Solutab is available.

Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Safety of Multiple-Infusion Ilaprazole in Healthy Chinese Subjects

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Ilaprazole is a novel proton pump inhibitor that provides effective and long lasting inhibition of intragastric acid secretion. The objectives of this study were to investigate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of intravenous ilaprazole after multiple administrations in healthy Chinese subjects.

METHODS

This was an open-label and multiple-dose clinical study. Ten healthy Chinese subjects received 10 mg ilaprazole infusion once daily for 5 days. Helicobacter pylori status was examined. Blood samples were collected and intragastric pH was recorded for 24 h. Safety was assessed throughout the study.

RESULTS

There was no accumulation after multiple administrations. The mean steady-state half-life and clearance were comparable to those following single administration. Ilaprazole provided sustainable and significant intragastric pH control in terms of percentage time at pH >4, pH >6 within 24 h and mean 24-h pH values. The pH value within 24 h was affected by Helicobacter pylori infection in subjects with continuous infusion. Intravenous ilaprazole was safe and there were no serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous ilaprazole provided stable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics at a dose of 10 mg once daily for 5 days, and was well tolerated in healthy subjects.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous ilaprazole in healthy subjects after single ascending doses

1. Ilaprazole is a novel proton pump inhibitor and this is the first study to investigate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of intravenous ilaprazole in healthy volunteers. 2. In this open-label, single-dose, randomized and four-period crossover study, 16 healthy Chinese subjects received ilaprazole 5, 10 or 20 mg intravenously, or 10 mg orally. Serial blood and urine samples were collected and intragastric pH was recorded within 24 h. The percentage time of intragastric pH > 6 was the major index. Safety was assessed throughout the study. 3. Plasma exposure of intravenous ilaprazole increased proportionally over the dose of 5-20 mg. Clearance and volume of distribution were independent of dose. Ilaprazole was not eliminated through urine and the absolute bioavailability was 55.2%. For the intravenous dose of 5, 10, 20 mg, and oral dose of 10 mg, the mean percentages time of intragastric pH > 6 were 47.3%, 52.8%, 68.2% and 47.5%, respectively. 4. Ilaprazole showed linear pharmacokinetics over the dose of 5-20 mg. Intravenous ilaprazole provided rapid onset of action and the potency of effect were exhibited in a dose-dependent manner. Intravenous ilaprazole was safe and well tolerated except for elevated activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and prothrombin time (PT).

Off-Label Use of Gastrointestinal Medications in the Intensive Care Unit

Purpose:

Determine the level of evidence supporting off-label gastrointestinal (GI) medication use and identify the medication class and indication whereby off-label use was most common.

Materials and Methods:

This prospective, multicentered observational study evaluated all medication orders written in 37 intensive care units (ICUs) in the United States, over a 24-hour period. All medications classified as “GI” according to a national reference were identified. The class and indication whereby off-label use was most prominent were determined and the level of evidence was described.

Results:

There were 774 orders from 363 patients and 63% (489 of 774) were considered off-label. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) accounted for most of the off-label usage (55% [271 of 489]), followed by laxatives (16% [77 of 489]) and histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs; 15% [71 of 489]). When prescribed, 99% (271 of 274) of PPIs, 99% (71 of 72) of H2RAs, and 79% (30 of 38) of promotility agents were off-label. Stress ulcer prophylaxis (100% [309 of 309]), GI bleeding (100% [18 of 18]), and gastric motility (88% [30 of 34]) were the most common off-label indications. The most common strength of recommendation and level of evidence for off-label use was indeterminate (58% [282 of 489]) and none (57% [280 of 489]), respectively.

Conclusion:

The PPIs are the most widely used off-label medications in the ICU. Stress ulcer prophylaxis is the most common indication. The level of evidence supporting off-label GI medication use is poor.

Inhibitory effects of intravenous lansoprazole 30 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg twice daily on intragastric acidity in healthy Chinese volunteers: a randomized, open-labeled, two-way crossover study

BACKGROUND

Until now there has been no study that directly compares the effect of lansoprazole and pantoprazole administered intravenously on intragastric acidity. The aim of this study is to compare the effect of lansoprazole (30 mg) and pantoprazole (40 mg) administered intravenously on gastric acidity.

MATERIAL/METHODS

Helicobacter pylori-negative healthy volunteers were recruited in this open-label, randomized, two-way crossover, single centre study. Lansoprazole at 30 mg or pantoprazole at 40 mg was intravenously administered twice daily for 5 consecutive days with at least a 14-day washout interval. Twenty-four-hour intragastric pH was continuously monitored on days 1 and 5 of each dosing period.

RESULTS

Twenty-five volunteers completed the 2 dosing periods. The mean intragastric pH values were higher in subjects treated with lansoprazole than those with pantoprazole on both day 1 (6.41 ± 0.14 vs. 5.49 ± 0.13, P=0.0003) and day 5 (7.09 ± 0.07 vs. 6.64 ± 0.07, P=0.0002). Significantly higher percentages of time with intragastric pH >4 and pH >6 were found in the subjects treated with lansoprazole than those with pantoprazole on day 1 (pH >4, 87.12 ± 4.55% vs. 62.28 ± 4.15%, P=0.0012; pH >6, 62.12 ± 4.12% vs. 47.25 ± 3.76%, P=0.0216) and pH >6 on day 5 (76.79 ± 3.77% vs. 58.20 ± 3.77%, P=0.0025).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous lansoprazole produces a longer and more potent inhibitory effect on intragastric acidity than does intravenous pantoprazole.

Use of clinical simulation centers in health professions schools for patient-centered research

INTRODUCTION

Professional practice assessment research performed in clinical simulation centers is a research method that also creates opportunity for multidisciplinary investigator collaboration.

METHODS

Nursing and pharmacy school clinical simulation laboratories at the University of Utah were used to conduct time-and-motion (TM) studies of medication dispensing and administration. Time data were then used to determine personnel and supply costs associated with different medication dosage forms and delivery methods. A case study from a completed research project describes the use of TM and activity-based costing analyses to assess medication preparation and administration time and cost differences related to three proton pump inhibitor dosage forms. Standardized doses were prepared by pharmacists or technicians and subsequently administered by nurses to a mannequin in the simulation center by seven different administration scenarios. Simulation scenarios were developed in a manner that held the independent variables constant, so that time and cost differences between dosage forms and administrations methods could be quantified.

RESULTS

A detailed example of one approach to use of simulation centers for TM studies and activity-based costing analyses is provided. The advantages of isolating processes of interest from the day-to-day complexity of patient care are shown. Results illustrate how simulations based on professional school simulation centers may be used to assess health care processes at the microlevel with potential for projection to the macrolevel.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies based on health professional schools simulation centers may offer a novel method of evaluating health care processes at the microlevel.

Comparison of the enteral and intravenous lansoprazole pharmacodynamic responses in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

While proton pump inhibitors are frequently administered in the intensive care unit, the pharmacodynamic response of acid suppression between the enteral and intravenous (IV) route is unknown.

AIM

To compare the pharmacodynamic response between enteral and IV lansoprazole in intensive care unit patients requiring stress ulcer prophylaxis therapy.

METHODS

Adult mechanically ventilated patients were randomized to receive 72 h of daily enteral [lansoprazole oral disintegrating tablet (LODT) 30 mg mixed in 10 mL of water via a nasal gastric tube] or IV lansoprazole (30 mg over 30 min) therapy. Serial blood samples were collected after the first and third dose and analysed for pharmacokinetic parameters. Pharmacodynamic determination of intragastric pHmetry began prior to the first dose and continued for 72 h using a single channel pH microelectrode.

RESULTS

Nineteen intensive care unit patients were randomized [LODT (n = 10); IV-L (n = 9)]. LODT bioavailability was 76%. LODT maintained gastric pH > 4 longer than IV-L at both 24 h (7.4 vs. 5.9 h; P = 0.039) and 72 h (10.4 and 8.9 h; P = 0.046) and resulted in a greater average pH over the first 24 h (3.67 vs. 2.89; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Despite a lower bioavailability, enteral lansoprazole suppresses acid in intensive care unit patients to a greater extent than IV lansoprazole.

Effect of frequent dosing of an oral proton pump inhibitor on intragastric pH

BACKGROUND

Treatment with a continuous i.v. proton pump inhibitor is presumed to promote clot formation and stability by sustaining intragastric pH > or = 6.

AIM

We postulated that very frequent oral dosing of proton pump inhibitors should simulate i.v. infusion and achieve similar pH control.

METHODS

Twenty healthy volunteers were stratified by Helicobacter pylori status (10 positive; 10 negative) and had determination of CYP2C19 status. After an overnight fast, an intragastric pH probe was placed. Subjects received 120 mg of lansoprazole at 8 am and 30 mg every 3 h until 8 pm. Intragastric pH was measured over 24 h, and lansoprazole plasma concentrations were determined at five time points.

RESULTS

Intragastric pH was > or = 6 for 41% (95% CI: 30-53%) of the 15-h period from 8 am-11 pm and 46% (95% CI: 35-56%) of the 24-h period (8-8 am). The mean proportion of patients with pH > or = 6 was not significantly different in H. pylori-positive vs. negative patients. Only 25% of subjects sustained pH > or = 6 for at least 60% of the 15-h period, and 35% had a sustained pH > or = 6 for at least 60% of the 24-h period.

CONCLUSIONS

A dose of 120 mg of oral lansoprazole followed by standard 30 mg doses of lansoprazole every 3 h did not reliably sustain pH at the desired level of 6.

What is potent acid inhibition, and how can it be achieved?

The clinical response to antisecretory treatment correlates directly with the degree of inhibition of acid secretion achieved. Acid inhibition able to maintain the intragastric pH at a value greater than 4 for at least 16 h/day seems to heal even the most refractory acid-related diseases. It has also been shown that the degree of inhibition of acid secretion in response to antisecretory treatment depends on the genetic characteristics of the patient and on the presence of Helicobacter pylori infection. A possible definition of potent (or profound) acid inhibition is, therefore, the achievement of the aforementioned level of control of acid secretion regardless of patient characteristics or of the presence of H. pylori infection. Antisecretory drugs differ in their ability to reach potent acid inhibition. As far as the comparative efficacy of different drugs for inhibiting acid secretion is concerned, proton pump inhibitors are more efficient in inhibiting gastric acid secretion than histamine (H2) receptor antagonists. Among the different proton pump inhibitors, esomeprazole 40 mg/day exhibits greater antisecretory potency than the others at standard doses. Rabeprazole 20 mg/day and lansoprazole 30 mg/day exhibit a more rapid onset of action than omeprazole 20 mg/day or pantoprazole 40 mg/day.

Inappropriate use of intravenous pantoprazole: extent of the problem and successful solutions

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Indications for intravenous proton pump inhibitors (IV PPI) include upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) from peptic ulcer disease with high-risk stigmata and patients receiving nothing by mouth (NPO). The objectives were to assess the extent of errors in indications for IV PPI use and to determine whether multidisciplinary interventions could improve IV PPI use and costs.

METHODS

Part 1: Patients prescribed IV PPI during a period of 4 months were divided into 2 settings, UGIB or non-UGIB. The setting-specific appropriateness of the IV PPI indication and dosing regimen was determined. Part 2: Patients prescribed IV PPI before and after multidisciplinary interventions (educating physicians, a computerized dose template, pharmacists altering IV PPI orders in non-UGIB patients who were not NPO, and recommending a GI consult when a continuous infusion was ordered) were studied. Incidence of prescribing errors, IV PPI costs, and potential confounders were compared.

RESULTS

Part 1: Only 50% of UGIB (n = 145) patients received IV PPI for an appropriate indication. Both indication and dosing regimen were appropriate in 21%. In the non-UGIB group (n = 95), 33% were truly NPO; 51% had a correct dosing frequency. Part 2: The postintervention (n = 105) group (vs the preintervention group, n = 113) showed a significant absolute reduction in the degree of inappropriate indication in the UGIB (26%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10%-42%; P < .0001) and in the non-UGIB (41%; 95% CI, 24%-58%; P < .0001) subgroups. However, a greater improvement in underspending than overspending meant that overall costs were unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

IV PPI was frequently prescribed inappropriately and incorrectly; simple maneuvers resulted in reductions in errors.

Proton pump inhibitor formulary considerations in the acutely ill. Part 1: Pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, and available formulations

OBJECTIVE

To review important proton pump inhibitor (PPI) pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic principles in acutely ill patients, compare PPI formulation options for patients unable to swallow a tablet or capsule, and provide clinicians with guidance when making hospital formulary decisions with this class of agents.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (1966-May 2005) and the Cochrane Library databases were searched using the key words proton pump inhibitor, acid suppression, peptic ulcer disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, stress ulcer prophylaxis, and critical illness. Bibliographies of cited references were reviewed, and a manual search of abstracts from recent gastroenterology, critical care, and surgery scientific meetings was completed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All articles identified from the data sources were evaluated, and all information deemed relevant was included for this review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

PPIs have become a mainstay for acute acid suppression in hospitalized patients over other therapeutic options. Various commercially available PPI products are available for administration, either enterally or parenterally, to patients unable to swallow a tablet or capsule. Newer oral PPI formulations offer numerous advantages over older products. The results of studies comparing the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of different PPI dosage forms and routes of administration are among the factors to consider when making formulary decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

While the introduction of new PPI products has expanded the therapeutic options for acid suppression in acutely ill patients, a number of unresolved questions remain surrounding the interchangeability of these products, the clinical significance of one PPI formulation over the other, and how oral/enteral PPI therapy should be used as step-down therapy after parenteral PPI therapy.

Comparison of the pharmacokinetics of lansoprazole 15- and 30-mg sachets for suspension versus intact capsules

OBJECTIVE

The pharmacokinetic profiles of single doses of lansoprazole 15- and 30-mg sachets for suspension were compared with those of corresponding doses of lansoprazole oral capsules.

METHODS

Healthy adult male and female subjects were randomized (1:1 ratio) into 2 Phase 1, open-label, single-dose, 2-sequence, 2-period complete crossover studies. In the first study, each subject received 1 lansoprazole 15-mg sachet mixed with water and 1 lansoprazole 15-mg oral capsule; in the second study, each subject received 1 lansoprazole 30-mg sachet mixed with water and 1 lansoprazole 30-mg oral capsule. Administration of the 2 formulations was separated by a washout period of > or =7 days. Blood samples were collected before and after each administration to assess the pharmacokinetic parameters of lansoprazole and bioequivalence between suspension and capsule.

RESULTS

Thirty-six subjects (19 males, 17 females) with a mean (SD) age of 32.0 (9.6) years and mean (SD) body weight of 68.6 (10.5) kg received lansoprazole 15 mg. Thirty-six subjects (22 males, 14 females) with a mean (SD) age of 38.0 (8.3) years and mean (SD) body weight of 75.1 (9.7) kg received lansoprazole 30 mg. The pharmacokinetic parameters of the 15- and 30-mg lansoprazole sachets for suspension were similar to those of the corresponding doses of the oral capsules. The mean (SD) values for C(max) and AUC from time 0 to infinity (AUC(0-infinity) for the lansoprazole 15-mg sachet (591.9 [242.3] ng/mL and 1614 [2065] ng.h/mL, respectively) did not differ significantly from those for the lansoprazole 15-mg capsules (578.6 [275.2] ng/mL and 1620 [2290] ng.h/mL, respectively). These parameters also did not differ significantly between the lansoprazole 30-mg sachet and 30-mg capsule: mean (SD) C(max), 1103 (428.3) and 1077 (465.6) ng/mL, respectively; mean (SD) AUC(0-infinity), 2655 (1338) and 2669 (1311) ng.h/mL, respectively. The 90% Cls for C(max) and AUC(0-infinity) ratios were contained within the 0.80 to 1.25 equivalence range, supporting bioequivalence.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the 15- and 30-mg lansoprazole sachets for suspension are bioequivalent to the corresponding doses of oral capsules. The sachet for suspension may provide an alternative route of administration to patients who have difficulty swallowing solid oral formulations.

Evaluation of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous lansoprazole

AIM

To compare the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of lansoprazole 30 mg administered intravenously in 0.9% NaCl or in polyethylene glycol, or orally.

METHODS

Twenty-nine subjects received lansoprazole orally on days 1-7 and intravenous lansoprazole in NaCl on days 8-14. Blood samples were collected on days 1, 7, 8 and 14. Fasting basal acid output and pentagastrin-stimulated maximal acid output were determined on days -1, 8, 9 and 15. Thirty-six different subjects received one of four regimen sequences: intravenous lansoprazole in NaCl, intravenous in polyethylene glycol, per orally, or intravenous placebo, each for 5 days. Twenty-four hour intragastric pH was recorded on days 1 and 5.

RESULTS

Intravenous and per oral lansoprazole for 7 days produced equivalent basal acid output and maximal acid output suppression. Pharmacokinetics and mean pH values with intravenous lansoprazole in NaCl or polyethylene glycol were equivalent. Both produced mean pH and percentages of time pH above 3, 4, 5 and 6 that were significantly greater than did per orally.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous lansoprazole inhibits acid secretion as effectively in NaCl as in polyethylene glycol, and its onset of action is faster than per oral lansoprazole.

Diagnostic and therapeutic options in the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding from peptic ulcers is common. Advances in prognostication, therapeutic endoscopy, and medical management have evolved rapidly. Patients most likely to rebleed after therapy can now be identified and monitored more closely, and patients with ulcers of low risk for rebleeding can be managed on an outpatient basis. High-risk patients include those with ulcers containing a visible vessel or who are actively bleeding. Endoscopic therapy is mandatory in high-risk patients and involves at least two hemostatic techniques. Second-look endoscopy and repeated hemostasis should be performed promptly in patients who rebleed. Adjunctive treatment includes intravenous proton pump inhibitor administered in high doses for the first 72 hours after endoscopic therapy. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal combination of hemostatic techniques to better target patients who are at risk for ulcer rebleeding.

A Pharmacy-Managed Intravenous to Enteral Proton-Pump Inhibitor Conversion Program

This article describes a pharmacy-managed, intravenous (IV) to enteral proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) program at a 377-bed tertiary care, teaching community hospital. IV pantoprazole was not restricted by indication, service, or patient location. Pharmacy converted any eligible patient prescribed an IV PPI to either pantoprazole tablets or lansoprazole capsules, packets, or enteral suspension according to protocol. Over a four-month evaluation period, 113 patients (mean age of 66 years) were prescribed IV PPIs for primarily suspected or documented GI bleeding. Gastroenterology specialists initiated 85% of IV PPI therapy. The most common dosage of IV PPI was 40 mg, once or twice daily with a median duration of 3 to 4 days. Continuous infusion IV PPI therapy was used for only two patients, both with GI bleeding. IV pantoprazole was converted to an enteral PPI in 73 of 113 patients in dosages of pantoprazole 40 mg or lansoprazole 30 or 60 mg administered once (32%) or twice (68%) daily. Pharmacists initiated 34% of the conversions. The total PPI expenditure was $6200 during the evaluation period. Daily acquisition cost savings, based on nominal pricing, ranged from approximately $5 to $25. Initial evaluation of the conversion program resulted in protocol revision and education of the medical staff, in an effort to minimize days of IV PPI use and encourage transition to enteral therapy. The protocol conversion dosage of lansoprazole 60 mg twice daily was changed to 30 mg twice daily and enteral pantoprazole tablets were deleted from the protocol (all IV PPI is converted to lansoprazole, 30 mg twice daily). Although IV pantoprazole remained on the hospital formulary, the medical staff were educated about the relative effectiveness of IV and enteral PPI therapy and the use of histamine-2 receptor antagonists for various indications. Prescribers of IV pantoprazole are now required to document the rationale for use. The Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee will continue to explore the role IV PPI therapy, based on efficacy, safety, and cost.

Comparative pharmacokinetics and safety of lansoprazole oral capsules and orally disintegrating tablets in healthy subjects

BACKGROUND

Many individuals with acid-related gastrointestinal disorders have difficulty in swallowing oral agents.

AIM

To compare the bio-availability of a single dose of lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet with that of an intact capsule.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty healthy subjects participated in two prospective, Phase I, open-label, two-period cross-over studies to receive lansoprazole, 15 mg or 30 mg. Within each study, subjects were randomized into two parallel cohorts consisting of 30 subjects per regimen, dispensed in opposing sequence over two periods separated by a 7-day washout period. Blood samples were collected on day 1 of both periods to determine the pharmacokinetic parameters.

RESULTS

Tmax occurred at 1.8 and 2.0 h with the 15-mg and 30-mg tablets, respectively. Dose proportional increases in Cmax, AUCt and AUC infinity were observed in the 15-mg and 30-mg groups. The terminal elimination half-lives (t1/2) were identical in both dose groups (1.18 h). Lansoprazole administered as the orally disintegrating tablet was bio-equivalent to the intact capsule formulation with respect to Cmax, AUCt and AUC infinity.

CONCLUSIONS

Lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablets, 15 mg and 30 mg, are bio-equivalent to the respective dose administered as the intact capsule. This novel dosage formulation represents an option for patients who have difficulty in swallowing oral agents.

Proton-pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adults.

DATA SOURCES

Computerized biomedical literature search of MEDLINE (1966-June 2002) was conducted using the MeSH headings proton-pump inhibitor, ulcer, critical care, and acid. References of selected articles were reviewed. A manual search of critical care, surgery, trauma, gastrointestinal, and pharmacy journals was conducted to identify relevant abstracts.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Traditional medications used for stress ulcer prophylaxis include antacids, histamine(2) receptor antagonists (H(2)RAs), and sucralfate. Few studies have evaluated PPIs for stress ulcer prophylaxis. The majority of studies have demonstrated that enteral or intravenous administration of PPIs to critically ill patients elevates intragastric pH and consistently maintains pH > or =4.0. PPIs are safe and seem to be as efficacious as H(2)RAs or sucralfate for prevention of bleeding from stress-related mucosal damage (SRMD) and they may provide cost minimization. The small patient populations limit the results of comparative studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Available data indicate that PPIs are safe and efficacious for elevating intragastric pH in critically ill patients. PPIs should be used only as an alternative to H(2)RAs or sucralfate since the superiority of PPIs over these agents for preventing SRMD-associated gastrointestinal bleeding has not been established. Additional comparative studies with adequate patient numbers and pharmacoeconomic analyses are needed before PPIs are considered the agents of choice for stress ulcer prophylaxis.