Association of Proton Pump Inhibitors With Reduced Risk of Warfarin-Related Serious Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

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.

Peptic ulcer disease

Annual prevalence estimates of peptic ulcer disease range between 0·12% and 1·5%. Peptic ulcer disease is usually attributable to Helicobacter pylori infection, intake of some medications (such as aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications), or being critically ill (stress-related), or it can be idiopathic. The clinical presentation is usually uncomplicated, with peptic ulcer disease management based on eradicating H pylori if present, the use of acid-suppressing medications-most often proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)-or addressing complications, such as with early endoscopy and high-dose PPIs for peptic ulcer bleeding. Special considerations apply to patients on antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents. H pylori treatment has evolved, with the choice of regimen dictated by local antibiotic resistance patterns. Indications for primary and secondary prophylaxis vary across societies; most suggest PPIs for patients at highest risk of developing a peptic ulcer, its complications, or its recurrence. Additional research areas include the use of potassium-competitive acid blockers and H pylori vaccination; the optimal approach for patients at risk of stress ulcer bleeding requires more robust determinations of optimal patient selection and treatment selection, if any. Appropriate continuation of PPI use outweighs most possible side-effects if given for approved indications, while de-prescribing should be trialled when a definitive indication is no longer present.

Feasibility and acceptability of patient- and clinician-level antithrombotic stewardship interventions to reduce gastrointestinal bleeding risk in patients using warfarin (Anticoagulation with Enhanced Gastrointestinal Safety): a factorial randomized controlled pilot trial

Background

Overuse of antiplatelet therapy and underuse of gastroprotection contribute to preventable bleeding in patients taking anticoagulants.

Objectives

(1) Determine the feasibility of a factorial trial testing patient activation and clinician outreach to reduce gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding risk in patients prescribed warfarin-antiplatelet therapy without proton pump inhibitor gastroprotection and (2) assess intervention acceptability.

Methods

Pragmatic 2 × 2 factorial cluster-randomized controlled pilot comparing (1) a patient activation booklet vs usual care and (2) clinician notification vs clinician notification plus nurse facilitation was performed. The primary feasibility outcome was percentage of patients completing a structured telephone assessment after 5 weeks. Exploratory outcomes, including effectiveness, were evaluated using chart review, surveys, and semistructured interviews.

Results

Among 47 eligible patients, 35/47 (74.5%; 95% CI, 58.6%-85.7%) met the feasibility outcome. In the subset confirmed to be high risk for upper GI bleeding, 11/29 (37.9%; 95% CI, 16.9%-64.7%) made a medication change, without differences between intervention arms. In interviews, few patients reported reviewing the activation booklet; barriers included underestimating GI bleeding risk, misunderstanding the booklet's purpose, and receiving excessive health communication materials. Clinicians responded to notification messages for 24/47 patients (51.1%; 95% CI, 26.4%-75.4%), which was lower for surgeons than nonsurgeons (22.7% vs 76.0%). Medical specialists but not surgeons viewed clinician notification as acceptable.

Conclusion

The proposed trial design and outcome ascertainment strategy were feasible, but the patient activation intervention is unlikely to be effective as designed. While clinician notification appears promising, it may not be acceptable to surgeons, findings which support further refinement and testing of a clinician notification intervention.

Management of Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Agents in Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Prevention of Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Managing gastrointestinal bleeding in patients using antithrombotic agents remains challenging in clinical practice. This review article provides a comprehensive and evidence-based approach to managing acute antithrombotic-related gastrointestinal bleeding, focusing on the triage of patients, appropriate resuscitation, and timely endoscopy. The latest clinical practice guidelines are highlighted to guide decisions concerning the use of reversal agents, temporary interruption, and resumption of antithrombotic drugs. Additionally, preventive measures are discussed to lower the risk of future bleeding and minimize complications among patients prescribed antithrombotic drugs.

NSAID use in orthopedic surgery: A review of current evidence and clinical practice guidelines

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a valuable class of medications for orthopedic surgeons and often play a pivotal role in pain control. However, there are many common stipulations resulting in avoidance of its use in the treatment of musculoskeletal disease. This review summarizes the mechanism of action of NSAIDs as well as provides an overview of commonly used NSAIDs and the differences between them. It provides a concise summary on the osseous effects of NSAIDs with regard to bone healing and heterotopic ossification. Most of all, it serves as a guide or reference for orthopedic providers when counseling patients on the risks and benefits of NSAID use, as it addresses the common stipulations encountered: "It irritates my stomach," "I have a history of bariatric surgery," "I'm already on a blood thinner," "I've had a heart attack," and "I've got kidney problems" and synthesizes both current research and society recommendations regarding safe use and avoidance of NSAIDs.

Risk factors for anticoagulant-associated gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

There may be many predictors of anticoagulation-related gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), but until now, systematic reviews and assessments of the certainty of the evidence have not been published. We conducted a systematic review to identify all risk factors for anticoagulant-associated GIB to inform risk prediction in the management of anticoagulation- related GIB.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to search PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases (from inception through January 21, 2022) using the following search terms: anticoagulants, heparin, warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, DOACs, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, risk factors. According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, studies of risk factors for anticoagulation-related GIB were identified. Risk factors for anticoagulant-associated GIB were used as the outcome index of this review.

RESULTS

We included 34 studies in our analysis. For anticoagulant-associated GIB, moderate-certainty evidence showed a probable association with older age, kidney disease, concomitant use of aspirin, concomitant use of the antiplatelet agent, heart failure, myocardial infarction, hematochezia, renal failure, coronary artery disease, helicobacter pylori infection, social risk factors, alcohol use, smoking, anemia, history of sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, international normalized ratio (INR), obesity et al. Some of these factors are not included in current GIB risk prediction models. such as anemia, co-administration of gemfibrozil, co-administration of verapamil or diltiazem, INR, heart failure, myocardial infarction, etc.

CONCLUSION

The study found that anemia, co-administration of gemfibrozil, co-administration of verapamil or diltiazem, INR, heart failure, myocardial infarction et al. were associated with anticoagulation-related GIB, and these factors were not in the existing prediction models. This study informs risk prediction for anticoagulant-associated GIB, it also informs guidelines for GIB prevention and future research.

Drug-drug interaction prediction: databases, web servers and computational models

In clinical treatment, two or more drugs (i.e. drug combination) are simultaneously or successively used for therapy with the purpose of primarily enhancing the therapeutic efficacy or reducing drug side effects. However, inappropriate drug combination may not only fail to improve efficacy, but even lead to adverse reactions. Therefore, according to the basic principle of improving the efficacy and/or reducing adverse reactions, we should study drug-drug interactions (DDIs) comprehensively and thoroughly so as to reasonably use drug combination. In this review, we first introduced the basic conception and classification of DDIs. Further, some important publicly available databases and web servers about experimentally verified or predicted DDIs were briefly described. As an effective auxiliary tool, computational models for predicting DDIs can not only save the cost of biological experiments, but also provide relevant guidance for combination therapy to some extent. Therefore, we summarized three types of prediction models (including traditional machine learning-based models, deep learning-based models and score function-based models) proposed during recent years and discussed the advantages as well as limitations of them. Besides, we pointed out the problems that need to be solved in the future research of DDIs prediction and provided corresponding suggestions.

Guidelines on optimizing the use of proton pump inhibitors: PPI stewardship

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been available for over three decades and are among the most commonly prescribed medications. They are effective in treating a variety of gastric acid-related disorders. They are freely available and based on current evidence, use of PPIs for inappropriate indications and duration appears to be common. Over the years, concerns have been raised on the safety of PPIs as they have been associated with several adverse effects. Hence, there is a need for PPI stewardship to promote the use of PPIs for appropriate indication and duration. With this objective, the Indian Society of Gastroenterology has formulated guidelines on the rational use of PPIs. The guidelines were developed using a modified Delphi process. This paper presents these guidelines in detail, including the statements, review of literature, level of evidence and recommendations. This would help the clinicians in optimizing the use of PPIs in their practice and promote PPI stewardship.

Proton pump inhibitors and gastroprotection in patients treated with antithrombotic drugs: A cardiologic point of view

Aspirin, other antiplatelet agents, and anticoagulant drugs are used across a wide spectrum of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. A concomitant proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment is often prescribed in these patients, as gastrointestinal complications are relatively frequent. On the other hand, a potential increased risk of cardiovascular events has been suggested in patients treated with PPIs; in particular, it has been discussed whether these drugs may reduce the cardiovascular protection of clopidogrel, due to pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interactions through hepatic metabolism. Previously, the concomitant use of clopidogrel and omeprazole or esomeprazole has been discouraged. In contrast, it remains less known whether PPI use may affect the clinical efficacy of ticagrelor and prasugrel, new P2Y12 receptor antagonists. Current guidelines recommend PPI use in combination with antiplatelet treatment in patients with risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding, including advanced age, concurrent use of anticoagulants, steroids, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection. In patients taking oral anticoagulant with risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding, PPIs could be recommended, even if their usefulness deserves further data. H. pylori infection should always be investigated and treated in patients with a history of peptic ulcer disease (with or without complication) treated with antithrombotic drugs. The present review summarizes the current knowledge regarding the widespread combined use of platelet inhibitors, anticoagulants, and PPIs, discussing consequent clinical implications.

Management of patients on antithrombotic therapy with severe infections: a joint clinical consensus statement of the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis, the ESC Working Group on Atherosclerosis and Vascular Biology, and the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis

Patients with severe infections and a pre-existing indication for antithrombotic therapy, i.e. antiplatelet agents, anticoagulant drugs, or their combinations, require integrated clinical counselling among coagulation, infectious disease, and cardiology specialists, due to sepsis-induced coagulopathy that frequently occurs. Bacterial and viral pathogens constitute an increasing threat to global public health, especially for patients with ongoing antithrombotic treatment who have a high risk of thrombotic recurrences and high susceptibility to severe infections with increased morbidity and mortality. Similarly, sepsis survivors are at increased risk for major vascular events. Coagulopathy, which often complicates severe infections, is associated with a high mortality and obligates clinicians to adjust antithrombotic drug type and dosing to avoid bleeding while preventing thrombotic complications. This clinical consensus statement reviews the best available evidence to provide expert opinion and statements on the management of patients hospitalized for severe bacterial or viral infections with a pre-existing indication for antithrombotic therapy (single or combined), in whom sepsis-induced coagulopathy is often observed. Balancing the risk of thrombosis and bleeding in these patients and preventing infections with vaccines, if available, are crucial to prevent events or improve outcomes and prognosis.

Encouraging appropriate use of proton pump inhibitors: existing initiatives and proposals for the future

INTRODUCTION

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have revolutionized the management of acid-related disorders, representing today the mainstay treatment of these conditions. However, despite their large range of indications and usefulness, the remarkable expansion of their use in the last two decades cannot be explained by the increasing prevalence of acid-related diseases only. An inappropriate prescription for clinical conditions in which the pathogenetic role of acid has not been documented has been described, with the natural consequence of increasing the costs and the potential risk of iatrogenic harm due to adverse events and complications recently emerged.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we summarize current indications of PPIs administration, potential adverse events associated with their chronic utilization, and misuse of PPIs. Moreover, we describe existing and possible initiatives for improving the use of PPIs, and some proposals for the future.

EXPERT OPINION

PPI deprescribing is the preferred and most effective approach to reduce the use of PPIs, rather than adopting sharp discontinuation, probably due to fewer withdrawal symptoms. Nonetheless, large knowledge gaps still exist in clinical practice regarding the optimal approach of PPI deprescribing in various clinical scenarios. Further prospective well-designed international studies are eagerly warranted to improve our perspectives on controlling global PPI inappropriate use.

Antithrombotics and Gastrointestinal Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review

Antithrombotic medications include both antiplatelet and anticoagulants and are used for a wide variety of cardiovascular conditions. A common complication of antithrombotic use is gastrointestinal bleeding. As a result, gastrointestinal prophylaxis is a common consideration for patients on a single or combination antithrombotic regimen. Prophylaxis is typically achieved through use of either proton pump inhibitors or histamine 2 receptor antagonists. Current recommendations for use of gastrointestinal prophylaxis with concomitant use of antithrombotic medications are scarce. In this systematic review, we explore the current evidence and recommendations regarding gastrointestinal prophylaxis for patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy as well as combination regimens.

Analysis of deprescription strategies of proton pump inhibitors in primary care: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Since the introduction of omeprazole in 1989, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have become the mainstream of treatment for acid-related pathologies, but nowadays, it is estimated that between 20% and 80% of people worldwide who are using PPIs are doing so without an approved indication. Overusing PPIs is known to involve a tremendous cost in financial terms, and many western countries have reported high spending on these medicines.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a narrative review to evaluate PPI deprescription strategies carried out entirely or in collaboration with primary care and to identify factors that could influence the success of these strategies.

METHOD

This review was conducted in November 2022, following PRISMA guidelines. Four databases were searched: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL Complete, using the MeSH terms 'proton pump inhibitors' AND 'deprescriptions'.

RESULTS

The search with the established criteria found eight studies. The different success rates obtained by the various studies analysed in this review may be due to the different methodologies used when establishing the protocols, sample selection and monitoring of the results.

CONCLUSION

We can conclude that the two factors related to the most successful strategies were a) the clarity and simplicity of the de-escalation protocols, in which patients were instructed on the measures to follow in the event of the reappearance of symptoms, and b) the training of the physicians responsible for deprescribing. Long-term conclusions cannot be drawn about the effectiveness of these protocols, given that the studies are limited in time. Other barriers to generalizing the results are the small sample size and the absence of control groups.

Resumption of Antiplatelet Therapy after Major Bleeding

Major bleeding is a common threat in patients requiring antiplatelet therapy. Timing and intensity with regard to resumption of antiplatelet therapy represent a major challenge in clinical practice. Knowledge of the patient's bleeding risk, defining transient/treatable and permanent/untreatable risk factors for bleeding, and weighing these against thrombotic risk are key to successful prevention of major adverse events. Shared decision-making involving various disciplines is essential to determine the optimal strategy. The present article addresses clinically relevant questions focusing on the most life-threatening or frequently occurring bleeding events, such as intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal bleeding, and discusses the evidence for antiplatelet therapy resumption using individual risk assessment in high-risk cardiovascular disease patients.

A new model to predict the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding in patients on direct oral anticoagulants (dabigatran and rivaroxaban)

AIMS

The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and develop a risk score that would provide an effective tool for the clinical assessment of GIB.

METHODS

This was a multicentre retrospective analysis of clinical and follow-up data of patients treated with DOACs. The score was developed through logistic regression. The performance of score was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and Hosmer-Lemeshow test.

RESULTS

The 11 903 patients had a mean age of 65.1 years. In multivariate analysis, age ≥65 years, alcohol use, history of peptic ulcer, history of major bleeding, abnormal liver function or renal function, cancer, platelet count <100 × 10⁹ /L, anaemia, and concurrent antiplatelet agent or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug treatment were independent risk factors for GIB, and concurrent treatment with gastrointestinal protective agents were a protective factor. The Alfalfa-DOAC-GIB score was constructed using these 12 factors. The AUC of the Alfalfa-DOAC-GIB score was 0.77 (95% CI 0.74-0.81), which was higher than that of the HAS-BLED score (0.69; 95% CI 0.65-0.72) and the New score (0.65; 95% CI 0.61-0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on 12 factors, we developed a gastrointestinal bleeding risk score. The newly developed Alfalfa-DOAC-GIB score has better predictive value than the HAS-BLED score and the New score, and might be an effective tool to help reduce the occurrence of GIB in patients using DOACs.

Dual antithrombotic therapy and gastroprotection in atrial fibrillation: an observational primary care study

BACKGROUND

Patients with both atrial fibrillation (AF) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) may receive dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) with both an anticoagulant and ≥1 antiplatelet agents. Avoiding prolonged duration of DAT and use of gastroprotective therapies reduces bleeding risk.

AIM

To describe the extent and duration of DAT and use of gastroprotection in a primary care cohort of patients with AF.

DESIGN & SETTING

Observational study in 1.2 million people registered with GPs across four east London clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), covering prescribing from January 2020-June 2021.

METHOD

In patients with AF, factors associated with DAT prescription, prolonged DAT prescription (>12 months), and gastroprotective prescription were characterised using logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 8881 patients with AF, of whom 4.7% (n = 416) were on DAT. Of these, 65.9% (n = 274) were prescribed DAT for >12 months and 84.4% (n = 351) were prescribed concomitant gastroprotection. Independent of all other factors, females with AF were less likely to receive DAT than males (odds ratio [OR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 0.77). Similarly, older (aged ≥75 years) individuals (OR 0.79, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.98) were less likely to receive DAT than younger patients. Among those with AF on DAT, pre-existing CVD (OR 3.33, 95% CI = 1.71 to 6.47) and South Asian ethnicity (OR 2.70, 95% CI = 1.15 to 6.32) were associated with increased gastroprotection prescriptions. Gastroprotection prescription (OR 1.80, 95% CI = 1.01 to 3.22) was associated with prolonged DAT prescription.

CONCLUSION

Almost two-thirds of patients with AF on DAT were prescribed prolonged durations of therapy. Prescription of gastroprotection therapies was suboptimal in one in six patients. Treatment decisions varied by sex, age, ethnic group, and comorbidity. Duration of DAT and gastroprotection in patients with AF requires improvement.

Proton Pump Inhibitors in Allergy: Benefits and Risks

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely prescribed and are indicated for the treatment of several gastrointestinal disorders. Allergists may prescribe PPIs as a result of the coincidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease with asthma or rhinitis, or when gastroesophageal reflux disease presents as chronic cough. Furthermore, long-term, high-dose PPI therapy is a recommended option for managing eosinophilic esophagitis, resulting in histologic remission in approximately 40% of patients. Here, we discuss current recommendations for PPI use, its deescalation, and its side effect profile. We review evidence supporting the epidemiologic link between the use of acid-suppressant medication and the subsequent development of allergic disorders.

Association of Antisecretory Drugs with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Using Oral Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of antisecretory drugs for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients using anticoagulants is unclear. We investigated this question in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov thru April 2021 for controlled randomized trials and observational studies evaluating the association of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or H2-receptor antagonists with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients using anticoagulants. Independent duplicate review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed. Observational studies were included only if they provided results controlled for at least 2 variables. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models.

RESULTS

Six observational studies and 1 randomized trial were included. All but 1 study had low risk of bias. None of the studies excluded patients with concomitant aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. For PPIs, the pooled relative risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding was 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.61, 0.74) with low statistical heterogeneity (I² = 15%). Individual studies showed greater treatment effect in patients with higher risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or aspirin use, elevated bleeding risk score). A single observational study evaluating the association of H2-receptor antagonists with upper gastrointestinal bleeding found a relative risk of 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.24-2.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence drawn mostly from observational studies with low risk of bias demonstrate that PPIs reduce upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients prescribed oral anticoagulants. The benefit appears to be most clearcut and substantial in patients with elevated risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Protective effect of proton pump inhibitor against gastrointestinal bleeding in patients receiving oral anticoagulants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The evidence of a protective effect of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in oral anticoagulant (OAC) treated patients against gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is still lacking. We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the risk of GIB in patients with OAC and PPI co-therapy.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus databases was performed for studies reporting GIB risk in OAC and PPI co-therapy. Primary outcomes were total GIB and major GIB events. Pooled estimates of GIB risk were calculated by a random-effect meta-analysis and reported as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies and 1,970,931 patients were included. OAC and PPI co-therapy were associated with a lower odds of total and major GIB; OR (95% CI) was 0.67 (0.62-0.74) for total and 0.68 (0.63-0.75) for major GIB, respectively. No differences in the GIB of PPI co-therapy were observed between Asians and non-Asians (p-for-difference, total GIB=0.70, major GIB=0.75, respectively). For all kinds of OAC except for edoxaban, PPI cotreatment was related to a lower odds of GIB by 24-44%. The protective effect of PPI on total GIB was more significant in concurrent antiplatelets or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users and those with high bleeding risks: patients with previous GIB history, HAS-BLED ≥3, or underlying gastrointestinal diseases.

CONCLUSION

In patients who receive OAC, PPI co-therapy is associated with a lower total and major GIB irrespective of ethnic group and OAC type, except for edoxaban. PPI co-therapy can be considered particularly in high GIB risk patients.

Gastrointestinal bleeding during direct oral anticoagulants therapy in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and risk of polypharmacy

Although concomitant medications have been raised as a factor affecting hemorrhage during direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) therapy, details remain unelucidated. This study was conducted to clarify the relationship between concomitant medications with possible pharmacokinetic interactions and number of concomitant medications, and bleeding and embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation on DOACs. The subjects were 1,010 patients prescribed DOACs from a single-center at the Teikyo University Hospital between April 2011 and June 2018. This study was an exploratory analysis and investigated their course between the first prescription and December 2018, including the presence or absence of clinically relevant bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, and major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Impacts of medications were evaluated by the general linear model with inverse probability-weighted propensity score. The observation period was 2,272 patient-years. The rate of bleeding was 4.7%/year, gastrointestinal bleeding was 2.8%/year, and major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was 2.0%/year. Taking 10 or more oral medications concurrently was a significant risk for gastrointestinal bleeding (hazard ratio, 2.046 [1.188-3.526]; p = 0.010). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the only significant risk for gastrointestinal bleeding. Clinicians should be aware of gastrointestinal bleeding when using DOACs with patients taking more than 10 medications and/or NSAIDs. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Drug-Related Problems and Factors Involved in the Imbalance of Oral Anticoagulants in Lebanese Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study

The goal of this study was to identify drug-related problems (DRPs) and the factors involved in the imbalance of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and vitamin K antagonists in a Lebanese adult population with cardiovascular diseases. An imbalance in the hemostatic systems between procoagulant and anticoagulant factors in circulating blood produces either hemorrhagic or thrombotic conditions. A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted during 5 months in a teaching hospital. All patients at least 18 years of age taking oral anticoagulants were included in the study. A standardized questionnaire was used, and information was obtained from the patients’ profiles and electronic medical records. DRPs were identified and categorized according to the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe classification system. A total of 258 patients were included. The overall prevalence of DRPs was 87.2%; the highest prevalence was observed in patients taking acenocoumarol (96.0%), in contrast to 76.7% and 59.0% in patients taking dabigatran and rivaroxaban, respectively. Drug interaction was the most frequent DRP (83.3%), followed by inappropriate monitoring (42.6%) and excessive dose (26.7%). Having renal disease, and taking proton-pump inhibitors or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were among the factors affecting the international normalized ratio (INR) range (adjusted odds ratio [ORa] = 2.513, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.238, 5.101; ORa = 2.487, 95% CI 1.139, 5.430 and ORa = 2.114, 95% CI 1.043, 4.286, respectively), whereas smoking and renal disease significantly affected activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) (ORa = 8.325, 95% CI 1.577, 43.965 and ORa = 6.922, 95% CI 1.471, 32.570, respectively). Patients taking NOACs had greater aPTT control and fewer DRPs, with a wide therapeutic index enabling administration of fixed doses.

Drug Interactions Affecting Oral Anticoagulant Use

Oral anticoagulants (OACs) are medications commonly used in patients with atrial fibrillation and other cardiovascular conditions. Both warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants are susceptible to drug-drug interactions (DDIs). DDIs are an important cause of adverse drug reactions and exact a large toll on the health care system. DDI for warfarin mainly involve moderate to strong inhibitors/inducers of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9, which is responsible for the elimination of the more potent S-isomer of warfarin. However, inhibitor/inducers of CYP3A4 and CYP1A2 may also cause DDI with warfarin. Recognition of these precipitating agents along with increased frequency of monitoring when these agents are initiated or discontinued will minimize the impact of warfarin DDI. Direct oral anticoagulants are mainly affected by medications strongly affecting the permeability glycoprotein (P-gp), and to a lesser extent, strong CYP3A4 inhibitors/inducers. Dabigatran and edoxaban are affected by P-gp modulation. Strong inducers of CYP3A4 or P-gp should be avoided in all patients taking direct oral anticoagulant unless previously proven to be otherwise safe. Simultaneous strong CYP3A4 and P-gp inhibitors should be avoided in patients taking apixaban and rivaroxaban. Concomitant antiplatelet/anticoagulant use confers additive risk for bleeding, but their combination is unavoidable in many cases. Minimizing duration of concomitant anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy as indicated by evidence-based clinical guidelines is the best way to reduce the risk of bleeding.

Prescribing trends of proton pump inhibitors, antipsychotics and benzodiazepines of medicare part d providers

Background

Proton pump inhibitors, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics are considered potentially inappropriate medications in older adults according to the American Geriatric Society Beers Criteria, and deprescribing algorithms have been developed to guide use of these drug classes. The objective of this study was to describe the number of beneficiaries prescribed these medications, provider specialty and regional trends in prescribing, and the aggregate costs for these claims in Medicare Part D.

Methods

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study using publicly available Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Part D Prescriber data for years 2013–2019. Descriptive statistics and the Cochrane-Armitage test were used to summarize the trends.

Results

Overall, 30.1%, 25.6%, 4.6% of Medicare Part D beneficiaries had a proton pump inhibitor, benzodiazepine, and antipsychotic claim in 2013, respectively. These rates decreased to 27.5%, 17.5%, 4.1% in 2019 (p-value < 0.0001). However, the number of standardized 30-day claims increased from 63 million in 2013 to 84 million in 2019 for proton pump inhibitors, remained steady for benzodiazepines and slightly increased (10 million to 13 million) for antipsychotics. Total aggregate costs decreased by almost $1.5 billion for proton pump inhibitor, $100 million for benzodiazepine, and $700 million for antipsychotic from 2013 to 2019 (p-value < 0.0001). Almost 93% of gastroenterologists prescribed a proton pump inhibitor, and 60% of psychiatrists prescribed benzodiazepines and antipsychotics all seven years. The Other region had the highest percentage of providers prescribing all three classes and the highest number of standardized 30-day benzodiazepine claims.

Conclusions

The overall rate of use of proton pump inhibitors, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics decreased from 2013–2019 among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Despite the increase in raw number of standardized 30-day claims, the costs decreased which is likely due to generics made available. These prescribing trends may aid in identifying and targeting potential deprescribing interventions.

Bleeding avoidance strategies in percutaneous coronary intervention

For many years, bleeding has been perceived as an unavoidable consequence of strategies aimed at reducing thrombotic complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the paradigm has now shifted towards bleeding being recognized as a prognostically unfavourable event to the same extent as having a new or recurrent ischaemic or thrombotic complication. As such, in parallel with progress in device and drug development for PCI, there is clinical interest in developing strategies that maximize not only the efficacy but also the safety (for example, by minimizing bleeding) of any antithrombotic treatment or procedural aspect before, during or after PCI. In this Review, we discuss contemporary data and aspects of bleeding avoidance strategies in PCI, including risk stratification, timing of revascularization, pretreatment with antiplatelet agents, selection of vascular access, choice of coronary stents and antithrombotic treatment regimens.

Development of a multicomponent implementation strategy to reduce upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk in patients using warfarin and antiplatelet therapy, and protocol for a pragmatic multilevel randomized factorial pilot implementation trial

BACKGROUND

The concomitant use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications increases the risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Two underused evidence-based practices (EBPs) can reduce the risk: de-prescribe unnecessary antiplatelet therapy or initiate a proton pump inhibitor. We describe the development of a multicomponent intervention to increase use of these EBPs in patients treated with warfarin and followed by an anticoagulation monitoring service (AMS), and the design of a pilot pragmatic implementation trial.

METHODS

A participatory planning group iteratively used Implementation Mapping and the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to develop implementation strategies and plan the trial. Informed by qualitative interviews with patients and clinicians, we drew on several implementation science theories, as well as self-determination theory, to design interventions. For patients, we developed an activation guide to help patients discuss the EBPs with their clinicians. For clinicians, we developed two electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions: (1) clinician notification (CN) consists of a templated message that identifies a patient as high risk, summarizes the EBPs, and links to a guidance statement on appropriate use of antiplatelet therapy. (2) Clinician notification with nurse facilitation (CN+NF) consists of a similar notification message but includes additional measures by nursing staff to support appropriate and timely decision-making: the nurse performs a chart review to identify any history of vascular disease, embeds indication-specific guidance on antiplatelet therapy in the message, and offers to assist with medication order entry and patient education. We will conduct a pilot factorial cluster- and individual-level randomized controlled trial with a primary objective of evaluating feasibility. Twelve clinicians will be randomized to receive either CN or CN+NF for all their patients managed by the AMS while 50 patients will be individually randomized to receive either the activation guide or usual care. We will explore implementation outcomes using patient and clinician interviews along with EHR review.

DISCUSSION

This pilot study will prepare us to conduct a larger optimization study to identify the most potent and resource conscious multicomponent implementation strategy to help AMSs increase the use of best practices for upper GI bleeding risk reduction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05085405 . Registered on October 19, 2021-retrospectively registered.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy Does Not Affect Prognosis of Cirrhosis Patients With Acute Decompensation and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: A Single-Center Prospective Study

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy on complications and prognosis in cirrhosis patients with and without acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF).

Materials and Methods: Cirrhosis patients with acute decompensation (AD) (n = 489) admitted in our center were enrolled in this prospective observational cohort study. According to treatment received, patients were identified as users or nonusers of PPI. Clinical and laboratory data, complications during hospitalization, and overall survival were recorded in all the patients.

Results: Of the 489 patients, 299 (61.1%) patients received PPI therapy. The logistic regression analysis showed that age, albumin, history of previous hepatic encephalopathy (HE), and the chronic liver failure-sequential organ failure assessment (CLIF-SOFA) score were independent risk factors for HE in patients with decompensated cirrhosis [odds ratio (OR) = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.03–1.12, p = 0.001; OR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.04–1.24, p = 0.006; OR = 242.52, 95% CI: 40.17–1464.11, p < 0.001; and OR = 2.89, 95% CI: 2.11–3.96, p < 0.001, respectively]. Previous severe liver injury and previous bacterial infections were independent risk factors for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in patients with decompensated cirrhosis (OR = 3.43, 95% CI: 1.16–10.17, p = 0.026 and OR = 6.47, 95% CI: 2.29–18.29, p < 0.001, respectively). The multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model showed that the type and dose of the PPI used were not related to 28-day and 90-day mortality in cirrhosis patients with AD or ACLF.

Conclusion: PPI use does not appear to increase mortality or the risk of HE and SBP in the hospitalized cirrhosis patients with and without ACLF.

Thrombotic events and rebleeding after hemorrhage in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants for non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Several direct oral anticoagulants have been developed to prevent cardiogenic thrombosis in patients with atrial fibrillation, on the other hand, have the complication of bleeding. Since clinical course after bleeding with direct oral anticoagulant remains unclear, the present retrospective cohort study was to clarify the course after hemorrhage among patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants. Among all 2005 patients prescribed dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban between April 2011 and June 2017, subjects comprised 96 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who experienced relevant bleeding during direct oral anticoagulant therapy (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or above). The clinical course after hemorrhage was reviewed to examine whether rebleeding or thrombotic events occurred up to the end of December 2019. Gastrointestinal bleeding was the most frequent cause of initial bleeding (57 patients, 59%). Rebleeding occurred in 11 patients (4.5%/year), with gastrointestinal bleeding in 10 and subarachnoid hemorrhage in 1. All rebleeding occurred in patients who resumed anticoagulation therapy. Another significant factor related with rebleeding included past history of gastrointestinal bleeding. On the other hand, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events occurred in 6 patients older than 75 years old or more (2.5%/year), with systemic thrombosis in 4 and cardiac death in 2. All 4 patients with systemic thrombosis withheld anticoagulants after index bleeding, although only 10 patients withheld anticoagulation therapy. Rebleeding should be taken care of when anticoagulants are resumed after bleeding, particularly among patients who initially experienced gastrointestinal bleeding. Systemic thrombosis occurred at a high rate when anticoagulant therapy was withheld after bleeding.

Clinical Guidelines for Drug-Related Peptic Ulcer, 2020 Revised Edition

Korean guidelines for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced peptic ulcer were previously developed in 2009 with the collaboration of the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research and Korean Society of Gastroenterology. However, the previous guidelines were based mainly upon a review of the relevant literature and expert opinion. Therefore, the guidelines need to be revised. We organized a guideline Development Committee for drug-related peptic ulcer under the auspices of the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research in 2017 and developed nine statements, including four for NSAIDs, three for aspirin and other antiplatelet agents, and two for anticoagulants through a de novo process founded on evidence-based medicine that included a literature search and a meta-analysis, A consensus was reached through the application of the modified Delphi method. The primary target of these guidelines is adult patients undergoing long-term treatment with NSAIDs, aspirin or other antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants. The revised guidelines reflect the expert consensus and is intended to assist clinicians in the management and prevention of drug-induced peptic ulcer and associated conditions.

[Clinical Guidelines for Drug-induced Peptic Ulcer, 2020 Revised Edition]

The Korean guidelines for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced peptic ulcers were previously developed under co-work with the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research and Korean Society of Gastroenterology at 2009. On the other hand, the previous guidelines were based mainly on a literature review and expert opinions. Therefore, the guidelines need to be revised. In this study, a guideline development committee for drug-induced peptic ulcers was organized under the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research in 2017. Nine statements were developed, including four for NSAID, three for aspirin and other antiplatelet agents, and two for anticoagulants through de novo processes based on evidence-based medicine, such as a literature search, meta-analysis, and the consensus was established using the modified Delphi method. The primary target of this guideline was adult patients taking long-term NSAIDs, aspirin, or other antiplatelet agent and anticoagulants. The revised guidelines reflect the consensus of expert opinions and are intended to assist relevant clinicians in the management and prevention of drug-induced peptic ulcers and associated conditions.

Comprehensive Exploration of Medications That Affect the Bleeding Risk of Oral Anticoagulant Users

Oral anticoagulants (OACs) pose a major bleeding risk, which may be increased or decreased by concomitant medications. To explore medications that affect the bleeding risk of OACs, we conducted a nested case-control study including 554 bleeding cases (warfarin, n = 327; direct OACs [DOACs], n = 227) and 1337 non-bleeding controls (warfarin, n = 814; DOACs, n = 523), using a Japanese health insurance database from January 2005 to June 2017. Major bleeding risk associated with exposure to concomitant medications within 30 d of the event/index date was evaluated, and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated using logistic regression analysis. Several antihypertensive drugs, such as amlodipine and bisoprolol, were associated with a decreased risk of bleeding (warfarin + amlodipine [aOR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41-0.98], DOACs + bisoprolol [aOR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.80]). As hypertension is considered a significant risk factor for intracranial bleeding in antithrombotic therapy, antihypertensive drugs may suppress intracranial bleeding. In contrast, telmisartan, a widely used antihypertensive drug, was associated with an increased risk of bleeding [DOACs + telmisartan (aOR, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.84-12.91)]. Since telmisartan is an inhibitor of P-glycoprotein (P-gp), the elimination of rivaroxaban and apixaban, which are substrates of P-gp, is hindered, resulting in increased blood levels of both drugs, thereby increasing the risk of hemorrhage. In conclusion, antihypertensive drugs may improve the safety of OACs, and the pharmacokinetic-based drug interactions of DOACs must be considered.

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.

Drug-drug Interactions with Warfarin: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

AIM

The objective of this paper is to systematically review the literature on drug-drug interactions with warfarin, with a focus on patient-important clinical outcomes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstract (IPA) databases were searched from January 2004 to August 2019. We included studies describing drug-drug interactions between warfarin and other drugs. Screening and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. We synthesized pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), comparing warfarin plus another medication to warfarin alone. We assessed the risk of bias at the study level and evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

Of 42,013 citations identified, a total of 72 studies reporting on 3,735,775 patients were considered eligible, including 11 randomized clinical trials and 61 observational studies. Increased risk of clinically relevant bleeding when added to warfarin therapy was observed for antiplatelet (AP) regimens (OR=1.74; 95% CI 1.56, 1.94), many antimicrobials (OR=1.63; 95% CI 1.45, 1.83), NSAIDs including COX-2 NSAIDs (OR=1.83; 95% CI 1.29, 2.59), SSRIs (OR=1.62; 95% CI 1.42, 1.85), mirtazapine (OR=1.75; 95% CI 1.30, 2.36), loop diuretics (OR=1.92; 95% CI 1.29, 2.86), and others. We found a protective effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) against warfarin-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleedings (OR=0.69; 95% CI 0.64, 0.73). No significant effect on thromboembolic events or mortality of any drug group used with warfarin was found, including single or dual AP regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found low to moderate certainty evidence supporting the interaction between warfarin and a small group of medications, which result in increased bleeding risk. PPIs are associated with reduced hospitalization for upper GI bleeding for patients taking warfarin. Further studies are required to better understand drug-drug interactions leading to thromboembolic outcomes or death.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Co-Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Treated with Oral Anticoagulants and a Prior History of Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Bleeding

PURPOSE

The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) can be mitigated by proton pump inhibitor (PPI) co-therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with anticoagulants. We aimed to evaluate the effect of PPIs on the risk of GIB in Asian patients with AF, treated with oral anticoagulants (OACs), and with a prior history of upper GIB.

METHODS

Using a nationwide claims database, OAC-naïve patients with AF and a history of upper GIB before initiating OAC treatment between January 2010 and April 2018 were included. Patients were categorized into 10 groups according to the index OAC (warfarin, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, and edoxaban) and whether or not they received PPI co-therapy, and were followed up for incidence of major GIB.

RESULTS

Among a total of 42,048 patients, 40% were prescribed PPIs as co-therapy with OACs. Over a median 0.6 years (interquartile ranges 0.2-1.7 years) of follow-up, rivaroxaban use without PPIs showed the highest crude incidence of major GIB (2.62 per 100 person-years), followed by the use of warfarin without a PPI (2.20 per 100 person-years). Compared to the patients without PPI use, PPI co-therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of major GIB, by 40% and 36%, in the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups, respectively. In dabigatran, apixaban, and edoxaban users, PPI co-therapy did not show a significant reduction in the risk of major GIB.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with AF receiving anticoagulant treatment and with a prior history of upper GIB, PPI co-therapy was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of major GIB in patients treated with rivaroxaban and warfarin.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021

1: ESGE recommends in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Patients with GBS ≤ 1 are at very low risk of rebleeding, mortality within 30 days, or needing hospital-based intervention and can be safely managed as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in patients with acute UGIH who are taking low-dose aspirin as monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted. If for any reason it is interrupted, aspirin should be re-started as soon as possible, preferably within 3-5 days.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that following hemodynamic resuscitation, early (≤ 24 hours) upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be performed. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: ESGE does not recommend urgent (≤ 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy since as compared to early endoscopy, patient outcomes are not improved. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends for patients with actively bleeding ulcers (FIa, FIb), combination therapy using epinephrine injection plus a second hemostasis modality (contact thermal or mechanical therapy). Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends for patients with an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel (FIIa), contact or noncontact thermal therapy, mechanical therapy, or injection of a sclerosing agent, each as monotherapy or in combination with epinephrine injection. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE suggests that in patients with persistent bleeding refractory to standard hemostasis modalities, the use of a topical hemostatic spray/powder or cap-mounted clip should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that for patients with clinical evidence of recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage, use of a cap-mounted clip should be considered. In the case of failure of this second attempt at endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) should be considered. Surgery is indicated when TAE is not locally available or after failed TAE. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with FIIb ulcer stigmata (adherent clot) not treated endoscopically. (A): PPI therapy should be administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (e. g., 80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy. (B): High dose PPI therapies given as intravenous bolus dosing (twice-daily) or in oral formulation (twice-daily) can be considered as alternative regimens.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that in patients who require ongoing anticoagulation therapy following acute NVUGIH (e. g., peptic ulcer hemorrhage), anticoagulation should be resumed as soon as the bleeding has been controlled, preferably within or soon after 7 days of the bleeding event, based on thromboembolic risk. The rapid onset of action of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS), as compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), must be considered in this context.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Gastroprotection in patients on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy: a position paper of National Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO) and the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists (AIGO)

Aspirin and P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonists are widely used across the spectrum of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. Gastrointestinal complications, including ulcer and bleeding, are relatively common during antiplatelet treatment and, therefore, concomitant proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment is often prescribed. However, potential increased risk of cardiovascular events has been suggested for PPIs, and, in recent years, it has been discussed whether these drugs may reduce the cardiovascular protection by aspirin and, even more so, clopidogrel. Indeed, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies suggested an interaction through hepatic CYP2C19 between PPIs and clopidogrel, which could translate into clinical inefficacy, leading to higher rates of cardiovascular events. The FDA and the EMA sent a warning in 2010 discouraging the concomitant use of clopidogrel with omeprazole or esomeprazole. In addition, whether the use of PPIs may affect the clinical efficacy of the new P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonists, ticagrelor and prasugrel, remains less known. According to current guidelines, PPIs in combination with antiplatelet treatment are recommended in patients with risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding, including advanced age, concurrent use of anticoagulants, steroids or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Like vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), DOACs can determine gastrointestinal bleeding. Results from both randomized clinical trials and observational studies suggest that high-dose dabigatran (150 mg bid), rivaroxaban and high-dose edoxaban (60 mg daily) are associated with a higher risk of GI bleeding as compared with apixaban and warfarin. In patients taking oral anticoagulant with GI risk factor, PPI could be recommended, even if usefulness of PPIs in these patients deserves further data. Helicobacter pylori should always be searched, and treated, in patients with history of peptic ulcer disease (with or without complication). Given the large number of patients treated with antithrombotic drugs and PPIs, even a minor reduction of platelet inhibition or anticoagulant effect potentially carries a considerable clinical impact. The present joint statement by ANMCO and AIGO summarizes the current knowledge regarding the widespread use of platelet inhibitors, anticoagulants, and PPIs in combination. Moreover, it outlines evidence supporting or opposing drug interactions between these drugs and discusses consequent clinical implications.

Dabigatran Dual Therapy vs Warfarin Triple Therapy Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation With/Without a Proton Pump Inhibitor: A Pre-Specified Analysis of the RE-DUAL PCI Trial

Background and Objective

In patients with atrial fibrillation following percutaneous coronary intervention, if a proton pump inhibitor is used, could that allow the use of warfarin triple therapy, or is there additional reduction in bleeding while using it with dual therapy?

Methods

The RE-DUAL PCI trial randomized 2725 patients with atrial fibrillation post-percutaneous coronary intervention to dabigatran dual therapy (110 or 150 mg twice daily, with clopidogrel or ticagrelor) or warfarin triple therapy (with clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and aspirin for 1–3 months). This prespecified subgroup analysis evaluated risks of a first major bleeding event or clinically relevant non-major bleeding event, all gastrointestinal bleeding, and a composite efficacy endpoint of all-cause mortality/thromboembolic event or unplanned revascularization according to baseline use of a proton pump inhibitor.

Results

Of 2678 analyzed patients, 1641 (61.3%) were receiving a proton pump inhibitor at baseline. Dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy reduced the risk of major bleeding events or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events vs warfarin triple therapy regardless of proton pump inhibitor use, with comparable risk of the composite efficacy endpoint (all interaction p values > 0.05). For gastrointestinal bleeding, no interaction was observed between study treatment and proton pump inhibitor use (interaction p values 0.84 and 0.62 for dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy, respectively, vs warfarin triple therapy).

Conclusions

Dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy reduced the risk of major bleeding events or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events vs warfarin triple therapy, regardless of proton pump inhibitor use at baseline, in patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Risk of the composite efficacy endpoint appeared to be similar for dabigatran dual therapy vs warfarin triple therapy in patients receiving/not receiving a proton pump inhibitor.

ClinicalTrials.gov unique identifier

NCT02164864.

Video abstract

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40265-020-01323-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Study of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Other Risk Factors in Warfarin-Associated Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Background

Warfarin users are at increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). History of GIB, stroke, cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease, age greater than 65 years, and drug interaction with proton pump inhibitors (PPI) have previously been identified as risk factors for GIB in warfarin users. We hypothesized that concomitant use of warfarin and PPI would increase the incidence of GIB relative to warfarin use alone.

Methods

We did a retrospective review of medical records of 626 patients taking warfarin for at least two weeks. Parameters including age, concomitant medication use (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), aspirin, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), PPI, and anti-platelet drug), history of GIB, chronic renal failure (CRF), and peptic ulcer disease (PUD) prior to warfarin use were analyzed.

Results

Variables that increase the likelihood of bleeding in warfarin users included aspirin, PPI, history of PUD, history of previous GIB, CRF, and elevated prothrombin time (PT)/international normalized ratio (INR) values. Concomitant antiplatelet use showed a slight increase in GIB but this was not statistically significant (p=0.082). NSAID use and SSRI use were not associated with a higher risk of GIB among warfarin users. Patients who are on PPI and warfarin simultaneously are more likely to be on acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) or have a history of PUD, GIB, or CRF, all of which are associated with increased incidences of GIB.

Conclusions

Although concomitant use of warfarin and PPI appears to be associated with an increased incidence of GIB, these patients are more likely to have other risk factors that also increase the risk of a GIB outcome. Therefore, the interaction between PPI and warfarin is clinically insignificant.

Combining antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in cardiovascular disease

Up to 10% of the >3 million Americans with atrial fibrillation will experience an acute coronary syndrome or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. Therefore, concurrent indications for multiple antithrombotic agents is a common clinical scenario. Although each helps reduce thrombotic risk, their combined use significantly increases the risk of major bleeding events, which can be life threatening. In the past 5 years, a number of randomized clinical trials have explored different combinations of anticoagulation plus antiplatelet agents aimed at minimizing bleeding risk while preserving low thrombotic event rates. In general, shorter courses with fewer antithrombotic agents have been found to be effective, particularly when direct oral anticoagulants are combined with clopidogrel. Combined use of very low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin has also demonstrated benefit in atherosclerotic diseases, including coronary and peripheral artery disease. Use of proton pump inhibitor therapy while patients are taking multiple antithrombotic agents has the potential to further reduce upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk in select populations. Applying this evidence to patients with multiple thrombotic conditions will help to avoid costly and life-threatening adverse medication events.

The Role of Acid Suppressants in the Prevention of Anticoagulant-Related Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background/Aims

Although acid suppressants are widely used for the prevention or treatment of drug-induced upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), evidence regarding the prevention of anticoagulant-related GIB is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the protective effect of acid suppressants against anticoagulant-related GIB.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted of studies that evaluated the protective effect of acid suppressants against anticoagulant-related GIB found in PubMed, the Cochrane library, Embase, and KoreaMed from the date of database inception to April 2018. Random effect model meta-analyses with sensitivity analyses were conducted. The methodological quality of each included publication was evaluated using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies. Publication bias was assessed.

Results

In total, six nested case-control or cohort studies were identified and analyzed. Proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) had a protective effect against upper GIB in patients on dicumarinics (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.83; I², 0%); however, the histamine-2 receptor antagonist did not have the same effect (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.81; I², 0%). Acid suppressants did not have a protective effect against GIB in patients on dabigatran (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.37; I², 81.8%).

Conclusions

The protective effect of PPIs against dicumarinics-related upper GIB was clear, while there was no evidence supporting the protective effect of acid suppressants against dabigatran-related GIB. However, in the absence of randomized trials demonstrating a lack of bias, solid conclusions cannot be drawn.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Utilization in Veteran Patients on Combined Antithrombotic Therapy and Validation of Simplified Bleeding Risk Score

BACKGROUND

Concomitant use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents can increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleed (GIB). Use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has been proposed to decrease the risk of GIB in patients on combined antithrombotic therapy (CAT).

OBJECTIVE

To describe the current utilization of PPIs in veteran patients on CAT and associated clinical predictors of GIB.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients on CAT receiving PPIs, with at least one of the CAT agents initiated between January 1, 2018 and October 30, 2018. Data were extracted from the computerized patient record system. Primary end point included estimating proportion of patients on CAT receiving PPI co-therapy, describing patient characteristics, and identifying clinical predictors of GIB. Secondary outcomes included reporting GIB events and all-cause mortality. Additional outcome was to validate the five-factor risk score (FFRS) for GIB in patients on CAT and compare its overall predictive performance to HAS-BLED score.

RESULTS

This study reports an overall rate of PPI co-therapy in patients on CAT of 40.9% (484/1181), with only 22.3% of patients on CAT receiving PPI for GIB prophylaxis. There was no difference in the mean follow up duration of PPI users and PPI co-therapy (264.01 vs 271.92 days; p=0.3761). Current alcohol use (p=0.005), current smokers (p=0.022), chronic kidney disease (p=0.004), peptic ulcer disease (p<0.001), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use (p=0.048) were significant predictors of GIB in multivariate analyses of our study cohort. We further provide exploratory validation that use of a simplified FFRS to predict GIB showed a trend towards better overall predictive performance as compared to HAS-BLED score (C-statistic: 0.738; 95% CI 0.684-0.787 for FFRS vs C-statistic: 0.596; 95% CI 0.538-0.653 for HAS-BLED; p=0.0094).

CONCLUSION

This study reports lower rate of PPI co-therapy in veteran patients on CAT per currently available guidance. Further we explore utilization of simplified FFRS model to predict GIB in patients on CAT with long-term PPI co-therapy.

Major gastrointestinal bleeding and antithrombotics: Characteristics and management

BACKGROUND

There are few reports on major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding among patients receiving an antithrombotic.

AIM

To describe clinical characteristics, bleeding locations, management and in-hospital mortality related to these events.

METHODS

Over a three-year period, we prospectively identified 1080 consecutive adult patients admitted in two tertiary care hospitals between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015 for major GI bleeding while receiving an antithrombotic. The bleeding events were medically validated. Clinical characteristics, causative lesions, management and fatalities were described. The distribution of antithrombotics prescribed was compared across the bleeding lesions identified.

RESULTS

Of 576 patients had symptoms of upper GI bleeding and 504 symptoms of lower GI bleeding. No cause was identified for 383 (35.5%) patients. Gastro-duodenal ulcer was the first causative lesion in the upper tract (209 out of 408) and colonic diverticulum the first causative lesion in the lower tract (120 out of 289). There was a larger proportion of direct oral anticoagulant use among patients with lower GI than among those with upper GI lesion locations (P = 0.03). There was an independent association between gastro-duodenal ulcer and antithrombotic use (P = 0.03), taking account of confounders and proton pump inhibitor co-prescription. Pair wise comparisons pointed to a difference between vitamin K antagonist, direct oral anticoagulants, and antiplatelet agents in monotherapy vs dual antiplatelet agents.

CONCLUSION

We showed a higher rate of bleeding lesion identification and suggested a different pattern of antithrombotic exposure between upper and lower GI lesion locations and between gastro-duodenal ulcer and other identified upper GI causes of bleeding. Management was similar across antithrombotics and in-hospital mortality was low (5.95%).

Daily Usage of Proton Pump Inhibitors May Reduce the Severity of Critical Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Elderly Patients

Introduction

We retrospectively examined the relationship between daily proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and severity of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), mainly in the elderly.

Methods

We included 97 patients with nonvariceal UGIB diagnosed at our hospital from January 2012 to October 2017. Bleeding severity was assessed using the shock index (SI) and estimated bleeding volume; 49 patients met the criterion for the mild group and 48 for the moderate/severe group. The effect of PPI use on bleeding severity was compared between the groups. The relationships of PPI use and dose with the clinical symptoms of UGIB were also analyzed.

Results

Among the 97 patients, 17 (17.5%) habitually used PPIs. The rate of habitual PPI use was significantly higher in the mild group, indicating as an independent factor contributing to a reduction in the severity of UGIB in a multiple logistic regression analysis (30.6% vs. 4.2%; OR 10.147; 95% CI 2.174–47.358, P < 0.01). When analyzing data for a subgroup of patients older than 75 years, we found the protective PPI effect to be even higher in the mild UGIB group than in the moderate/severe group (37.0% vs. 5.6%; OR 10.000; 95% CI 1.150–86.951, P < 0.05). Conversely, we found no association between PPI prescription and UGIB symptoms in patients younger than 75 years. The mean estimated bleeding volume and SI in the 17 habitual PPI users were both significantly less than those among the 80 nonhabitual users, respectively (P < 0.05). The proportion of patients with mild UGIB was similar between the low- and high-dose PPI users.

Conclusions

Particularly in elderly patients with nonvariceal UGIB, habitual PPI use can alleviate the clinical symptoms of UGIB by suppressing the volume of bleeding, regardless of the adapted dose of PPIs.

Risk of Bleeding with Exposure to Warfarin and Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

 Warfarin use can trigger the occurrence of bleeding independently or as a result of a drug-drug interaction when used in combination with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

OBJECTIVES

 This article examines the risk of bleeding in individuals exposed to concomitant warfarin and NSAID compared with those taking warfarin alone (Prospero Registry ID 145237).

METHODS

 PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. The primary outcome of interest was gastrointestinal bleeding and general bleeding. Summary effects were calculated to estimate average treatment effect using random effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and I ². Risk of bias was also assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality bias assessment tool.

RESULTS

 A total of 651 studies were identified, of which 11 studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The odds ratio (OR) for gastrointestinal bleeding when exposed to warfarin and an NSAID was 1.98 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.55-2.53). The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was also significantly elevated with exposure to a COX-2 inhibitor and warfarin relative to warfarin alone (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.46-2.46). There was an increased risk of general bleeding with the combination of warfarin with NSAIDs (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18-2.12) or COX-2 inhibitors (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.86-2.78) compared with warfarin alone.

CONCLUSION

 Risk of bleeding is significantly increased among persons taking warfarin and a NSAID or COX-2 inhibitor together as compared with taking warfarin alone. It is important to caution patients about taking these medications in combination.

Proton pump inhibitors and cardiovascular adverse effects: Real or surreal worries?

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most widely prescribed agents, either for treatment or prophylaxis of gastrointestinal (GI) disease, that are often administered for prolonged or chronic use. Patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease frequently receive PPIs for prophylaxis against GI bleeding due to common use of antithrombotic drugs. Over the last several years there is a growing number of reports associating chronic PPI use with a variety of serious CV and non-CV adverse effects. In this context, PPI use has been independently associated with an increased risk of CV morbidity (myocardial infarction, stroke, other CV events) and mortality. However, the critique remains that these data do not largely derive from randomized controlled trials. On the other hand, in certain conditions, the benefits of PPIs may outweigh the risks of adverse CV effects. As the indications for prolonged, particularly lifelong, prophylactic use of PPIs are not compelling and in the light of evidence of serious CV and other adverse effects, clinicians have to reconsider such long-term use of these drugs. Importantly, histamine 2 blockers have not been found to be associated with increased CV risk and thus may be an alternative therapeutic option in certain patients. These issues are amply discussed together with the potential mechanisms of these pleiotropic and off-target effects of PPIs, which are also depicted in an illustrative schema; data are also presented on differential effects of specific agents involved, alternative modes of therapy available, and relevant current guidelines on this issue.

PPIs and Beyond: A Framework for Managing Anticoagulation-Related Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the Era of COVID-19

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) can be associated with high morbidity and mortality; patients with severe clinical manifestations may develop significant coagulopathy as well as unexpected thromboembolic complications. In response, centers are increasingly treating selected patients with intermediate-dose prophylactic or even therapeutic dose anticoagulation in order to prevent potentially catastrophic thrombotic complications. With this changing practice, the authors suspect that inpatient gastrointestinal consult teams across the country will be frequently managing COVID-19 patients with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). In order to reduce potentially avoidable hospital readmissions for GIB while improving patient outcomes, it is imperative to appropriately risk-stratify patients prior to initiation of anticoagulation. In this review, we discuss how to appropriately identify high-risk patients for GIB and how to mitigate GIB risk with proton-pump inhibitor co-therapy, medication reconciliation, and Helicobacter pylori testing and treating in this complex and morbid population.

An algorithmic approach to gastrointestinal bleeding in patients receiving antithrombotic agents

Gastrointestinal bleeding is an overwhelming complication of patients taking antithrombotic agents. These drugs pose a challenge to physicians in the management of bleeding to establish hemostasis without putting these patients at a higher risk for thromboembolism. This study aims to propose an algorithmic approach to four major groups of patients receiving antithrombotic agents (single antiplatelet agents, dual antiplatelet agents, anticoagulants and direct oral anticoagulants) to decide when and how these drugs should be held or restarted to offset between the risk of re-bleeding and thromboembolism. Four case-based algorithms are proposed in this article based on some relevant articles. Having designed four case-based algorithms, we are hoping to guide physicians who face a dilemma on the management of patients receiving antithrombotics when gastrointestinal bleeding occurs. Patients using antithrombotics referred for gastrointestinal bleeding were stratified into four groups based on the medication which is used as an antithrombotic agent and four algorithms were designed which are presented here. We have made an attempt to have a stepwise approach to four cases relevant to the study and have an evaluation on the management of their antithrombotic agents during an episode of gastrointestinal bleeding. It is widely accepted that antithrombotic agents should be restarted as soon as possible after the establishment of hemostasis in a patient taking antithrombotics referring for gastrointestinal bleeding. The time for resuming these drugs is different based on the severity of bleeding, the probability of thromboembolic events, and the nature of the antithrombotic medication which is used by the patient.

Adverse cardiovascular and blood pressure effects of drug-induced hypomagnesemia

Introduction: The objective of this study was to review the current status of drug-induced hypomagnesemia and its adverse effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and hypertension. Since magnesium is a potent vasodilator, which modulates vasomotor tone, peripheral blood flow, and hypertension, its deficiency could have significant cardiovascular and blood pressure (BP) effects.Areas covered: Studies have shown that several factors can contribute to magnesium deficiency including age, diet, disease, and certain drugs such as diuretics and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs). For an updated perspective of drug-induced hypomagnesemia, a Medline search of the English language literature was conducted between 2010 and 2019 using the terms diuretics, proton-pump inhibitors, hypomagnesemia, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and 35 pertinent papers were retrieved.Expert opinion: The data showed that magnesium deficiency is difficult to occur since it is plentiful in green leafy vegetables, cereals, nuts, and the drinking water. However, magnesium deficiency can occur with the use of diuretics for the treatment of hypertension and heart failure, or the use of PPIs for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Therefore, magnesium deficiency should be detected and treated to prevent the aggravation of hypertension and the onset of CVD and serious cardiac arrhythmias including torsades de points.

Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group

DESCRIPTION

This update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations.

METHODS

An international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.