Comparing intravenous and oral proton pump inhibitor therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers following endoscopic management: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Serum gastrin-17 concentration for prediction of upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding risk among peptic ulcer patients

BACKGROUND

Serum gastrin-17 (G-17), pepsinogen I (PGI), and pepsinogen II (PGII) concentrations regulate gastric acid secretion, and hypersecretion of gastric acid increases the risks of peptic ulcer and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These associations suggest that serum G-17, PGI, and (or) PGII may predict gastrointestinal bleeding risk among peptic ulcer patients.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacies of serum G-17, PGI, PGII, and PGI/PGII ratio (PGR) for predicting upper gastrointestinal bleeding among peptic ulcer patients.

METHODS

A total of 199 patients diagnosed with peptic ulcer confirmed by gastroscopy and positivity for Helicobacter pylori by the ¹⁴C-urea breath test were recruited, including 107 patients with simple peptic ulcer and 92 cases complicated by upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Serum PGI, PGII, G-17, and PGR were measured by immune methods and compared between bleeding and non-bleeding groups by univariate analysis. The specificity and sensitivity of PGs and G-17 for evaluating upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk were then assessed by constructing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

Serum G-17 was significantly higher among peptic ulcer patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding compared to simple peptic ulcer patients (25.34 ± 14.29 vs 8.84 ± 8.03 pmol/L, t = 9.822, P < 0.01), whereas serum PGI, PGII, and PGR did not differ significantly between bleeding and non-bleeding groups (all P > 0.05). The risk of bleeding was significantly higher among peptic ulcer patients with elevated serum G-17 (> 15 pmol/L) compared to patients with normal or low serum G-17 (73.2% vs 27.4%, χ² = 40.72, P < 0.01). The area under the ROC curve for serum G-17 was 0.866 ± 0.024, and a cut-off of 9.86 pmol/L yielded 90.2% sensitivity and 68.2% specificity for distinguishing peptic ulcer with and without upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Serum G-17 is significantly upregulated in peptic ulcer patients and higher levels are predictive of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Conversely, serum PGI, PGII, and PGR have no predictive value. Further prospective studies are warranted to examine if high G-17 can be used to assess risk of bleeding prior to onset.

Oral Proton Pump Inhibitors May Be as Effective as Intravenous in Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). We aimed to compare the efficacy of oral and IV administration of PPIs in PUB.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search in 4 databases for randomized controlled trials, which compared the outcomes of oral PPI therapy with IV PPI therapy for PUB. The primary outcomes were 30-day recurrent bleeding and 30-day mortality. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, while weighted mean differences (WMDs) with CI were calculated for continuous outcomes in meta-analysis. The protocol was registered a priori onto PROSPERO (CRD42020155852).

RESULTS

A total of 14 randomized controlled trials reported 1,951 peptic ulcer patients, 977 and 974 of which were in the control and intervention groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between oral and IV administration regarding 30-day rebleeding rate (OR = 0.96, CI: 0.65-1.44); 30-day mortality (OR = 0.70, CI: 0.35-1.40); length of hospital stay (WMD = -0.25, CI: -0.93 to -0.42); transfusion requirements (WMD = -0.09, CI: -0.07 to 0.24); need for surgery (OR = 0.91, CI: 0.40-2.07); further endoscopic therapy (OR = 1.04, CI: 0.56-1.93); and need for re-endoscopy (OR = 0.81, CI: 0.52-1.28). Heterogeneity was negligible in all analysis, except for the analysis on the length of hospitalization (I2 = 82.3%, P = 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Recent evidence suggests that the oral administration of PPI is not inferior to the IV PPI treatment in PUB after endoscopic management, but further studies are warranted.

The Use and Misuse of Proton Pump Inhibitors: An Opportunity for Deprescribing

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are proven medications of choice for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), acid-related disorders, erosive esophagitis, Barrett esophagus, prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding while on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, eosinophilic esophagitis, peptic ulcer disease, stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients, and other indications. Best practice guidelines from several sources on the appropriate indications and duration of PPI therapy have been summarized for easy assimilation. Individualized decision with regard to PPI use is illustrated by case vignettes; best approaches are provided. The significant increase in use of PPIs for ill-defined indications over the years, associated adverse outcomes with long-term use, and consequent increase in health care costs have drawn much attention. Adverse outcomes due to PPI therapy may be categorized as unrelated or related to gastric acid inhibition. Examples of outcomes unrelated to acid inhibition include allergic reactions, acute interstitial nephritis, chronic kidney disease, poor cardiovascular outcomes, dementia, and drug interactions; consequences of acid inhibition include gastrointestinal infections, pneumonia, nutrient deficiencies, fractures, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Provider awareness regarding best practice guidelines on PPI use and imparting pertinent education to patients may be the rational approach to safe and effective PPI therapy. In individuals in whom the drug is not indicated, efforts at deprescribing the PPI may be attempted following discussion with the patient. Approaches include stopping the drug, reducing the dose or using "on-demand" therapy after completing the course of treatment for the specific indication. Barriers to successful deprescribing exist. Follow-up is recommended for recurrence of manifestations; in the event of recurrence, the PPI may need to be re-instituted. PPIs are valuable, irreplaceable drugs in the prevention and treatment of certain disorders for specific durations of time. Evidence nevertheless suggests that excessive and inappropriately prolonged use of PPIs is associated with a broad range of adverse effects. Education of provider and patient, stewardship, and motivation are key to appropriate use of PPIs for the right indications. Key implications for practice are offered.

British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)-led multisociety consensus care bundle for the early clinical management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Medical care bundles improve standards of care and patient outcomes. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency which has been consistently associated with suboptimal care. We aimed to develop a multisociety care bundle centred on the early management of AUGIB. Commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), a UK multisociety task force was assembled to produce an evidence-based and consensus-based care bundle detailing key interventions to be performed within 24 hours of presentation with AUGIB. A modified Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder representation from BSG, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, Society for Acute Medicine and the National Blood Transfusion Service of the UK. A formal literature search was conducted and international AUGIB guidelines reviewed. Evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool and statements were formulated and subjected to anonymous electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted statements were eligible for incorporation into the final bundle after a separate round of voting. The final version of the care bundle was reviewed by the BSG Clinical Services and Standards Committee and approved by all stakeholder groups. Consensus was reached on 19 statements; these culminated in 14 corresponding care bundle items, contained within 6 management domains: Recognition, Resuscitation, Risk assessment, Rx (Treatment), Refer and Review. A multisociety care bundle for AUGIB has been developed to facilitate timely delivery of evidence-based interventions and drive quality improvement and patient outcomes in AUGIB.

Comparison of Oral versus Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitors in Preventing Re-bleeding from Peptic Ulcer after Successful Endoscopic Therapy

Introduction Perforation, obstruction, and bleeding remain the most frequently encountered complications of peptic ulcer disease (PUD). Bleeding may be in the form of hematemesis or melena. The treatment of choice in patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer is endoscopic ligation to maintain the hemostatic balance followed by the administration of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). This study focuses on the evaluation and comparison of intravenous (IV) and oral PPIs in terms of prevention of re-bleeding after successful endoscopy for peptic ulcers. Methods A prospective, comparative study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan from January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019. The trial included known cases of PUD admitted with active upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). They were randomly divided into two groups: one received oral pantoprazole and the other was administered IV pantoprazole. The outcomes for both groups were compared. Data was entered and analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY) Results There were 96 (48%) patients in the IV pantoprazole group and 104 (52%) in the oral group. From 24 hours after the medication onwards, the IV pantoprazole group showed a significant improvement in hemoglobin (Hb) levels (p: 0.01); the group also showed improvement in supine systolic BP at 48 hours (p: 0.04) and in diastolic BP at both 12 and 48 hours as compared to the oral pantoprazole group (p: 0.05). The mean duration of hospital stay, need for blood transfusion and repeat endoscopy, re-bleeding, and mortality rates were similar for both groups (p: >0.05). Conclusion We could not find any statistically significant difference between oral and IV routes of pantoprazole administration in the prevention of rebleeding when used after successful therapeutic endoscopy in patients with bleeding PUDs.

Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of ilaprazole infusion in healthy subjects and patients with esomeprazole as positive control

AIMS

The objectives were to investigate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of ilaprazole infusion in healthy subjects and patients with esomeprazole as positive control, and then recommend the dosage regimen for Phase 2b/3 studies.

METHODS

Three clinical studies were performed. First, 16 healthy subjects received infusion of ilaprazole 30 mg or esomeprazole 80 mg. Second, 12 healthy subjects received ilaprazole 20 mg followed by 10 mg once daily for 2 days. Finally, 20 patients with duodenal ulcers received ilaprazole 20 mg followed by 10 mg for 2 days or esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily for 3 days. Serial blood samples were collected and intragastric pH was recorded.

RESULTS

The mean percentages time of intragastric pH >6 was 63.6 and 51.7% for healthy subjects after receiving ilaprazole 30 mg and esomeprazole 80 mg. Linear pharmacokinetics was observed when the dose was increased to 30 mg but the effect was saturated. Ilaprazole 20 mg followed by 10 mg for 2 days provided higher plasma exposure in healthy subjects than patients, but the effect was comparable. After multiple administrations, ilaprazole provided similar effect to esomeprazole. Ilaprazole infusion was safe and well tolerated without serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Ilaprazole provided comparable effect of pH control to esomeprazole, with lower dose and fewer times of administration. There was no significant difference of ilaprazole between healthy subjects and patients regarding intragastric acid inhibition. A loading dose of ilaprazole 20 mg followed by 10 mg once daily for 2 days was recommended for Phase 2b/3 studies.

Endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopic therapy is the mainstay of treatment for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). Injection plus mechanical or thermal therapy continues to be the most widely used option. New endoscopic devices such as the use of an inert powder or a new class of over-the-scope clip system have demonstrated encouraging results as a rescue therapy for difficult hemostasis. Emerging data suggest that Doppler ultrasound-guided endoscopic therapy may improve the outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding. This review sumarizes the recent advances in the management of NVUGIB. With increasing use of anti-platelet agents and anti-coagulants, the management of NVUGIB in patients on anti-thrombotic therapy is also discussed.

Proton pump inhibitors for upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a public health burden with a persistent high mortality despite advances in modern day management. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) as medical therapy is an attractive adjuvant to endoscopic treatment in UGIB but the method and dose of PPI therapy remains controversial. This chapter aims to describe the current evidence addressing acute PPI use in the management of UGIB. It will explore the evidence behind the timing, the dosage and the mode of administration of PPI during initial UGIB management, prior to and immediately following endoscopy, as well as in the short-term following discharge.

Gastrointestinal stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit, where is the data?

Stress-induced gastrointestinal ulcers are common among patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). These ulcers impose significant morbidity and mortality, therefore, stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is a common clinical practice among healthcare providers dealing with these critically-ill patients. Several strategies for SUP have been suggested over the past four decades, with acid suppressive therapies being the most commonly used in the ICU. Whether SUP is effective and safe, or not, remains a topic of controversy. The data is still conflicting, and provision of a simple answer is not feasible at the present time. Recently, a large phase IV, multicenter, randomized clinical trial (SUP-ICU), negated the benefits (and harms) of proton pump inhibitors as SUP. This article reviews some of these controversies.

Comparing intravenous and oral proton pump inhibitor therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers following endoscopic management: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has been demonstrated for bleeding peptic ulcers but the route of administration remains controversial. Several studies have demonstrated that high-dose oral PPIs are as effective as intravenous PPIs in reducing recurrent bleeding. However, current guidelines recommend intravenous PPIs after endoscopic treatment. Previous data based on numbers that were too small to enable a firm conclusion to be reached suggested that oral and intravenous PPIs had equivalent efficacy. We undertook a meta-analysis to compare oral and intravenous PPIs in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers after endoscopic management.

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, between 1990 and February 2016, to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy of PPIs administered by different routes. Nine RCTs, involving 1036 patients, were analysed. Outcomes were: recurrent bleeding, blood transfusion requirement, duration of hospital stay, a need for repeat endoscopy, surgery and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the rebleeding rates [odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60, 1.46; P = 0.77], need for surgery (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.25, 2.40; P = 0.65), need for repeat endoscopy (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39, 1.21; P = 0.19), need for blood transfusion [(MD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.26, 0.19; P = 0.76], duration of hospital stay (MD -0.61, 95% CI -1.45, 0.23; P = 0.16) or 30-day mortality (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.27, 2.43; P = 0.84) according to the route of administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral PPIs represent better value for money, with clinical efficacy equivalent to intravenous PPIs.