Effect of antisecretory drugs and nitrates on the risk of ulcer bleeding associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelet agents, and anticoagulants

Association of blood group O with a recurrent risk for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding from a multicenter cohort study

The relationship between blood group and rebleeding in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the association between blood group O and clinical outcomes in patients with ALGIB. The study included 2336 patients with ALGIB whose bleeding source was identified during initial endoscopy (from the CODE BLUE-J Study). The assessed outcomes encompassed rebleeding and other clinical parameters. The rebleeding rates within 30 days in patients with blood group O and those without blood group O were 17.9% and 14.9%, respectively. Similarly, the rates within 1 year were 21.9% for patients with blood group O and 18.2% for those without blood group O. In a multivariate analysis using age, sex, vital signs at presentation, blood test findings, comorbidities, antithrombotic medication, active bleeding, and type of endoscopic treatment as covariates, patients with blood group O exhibited significantly higher risks for rebleeding within 30 days (odds ratio [OR] 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.65; P = 0.024) and 1 year (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.04-1.61; P = 0.020) compared to those without blood group O. However, the thrombosis and mortality rates did not differ significantly between blood group O and non-O patients. In patients with ALGIB, blood group O has been identified as an independent risk factor for both short- and long-term rebleeding.

Continuous co-prescription of rebamipide prevents upper gastrointestinal bleeding in NSAID use for orthopaedic conditions: A nested case-control study using the LIFE Study database

BACKGROUND

Rebamipide has been widely co-prescribed with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in Japan for decades. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of rebamipide in preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in new users of NSAIDs without risk factors of NSAID-induced ulcers other than age.

METHODS

A nested case-control study was conducted using medical claims data of 1.66 million inhabitants of 17 municipalities participating in Japan's Longevity Improvement & Fair Evidence study. The cohort entry (t0) corresponded to a new user of NSAIDs for osteoarthritis or low back pain. Patients with risk factors of NSAID-induced ulcers other than age were excluded. Cases were defined as patients who underwent gastroscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (occurrence date was defined as index date). A maximum of 10 controls were selected from non-cases at the index date of each case by matching sex, age, follow-up time, and type and dosage of NSAIDs. Exposure to rebamipide was defined as prescription status from t0 to index date: Non-user (rebamipide was not co-prescribed during the follow-up period), Continuous-user (rebamipide was co-prescribed from t0 with the same number of tablets as NSAIDs), and Irregular-user (neither Non-user nor Continuous-user). Conditional logistic regression analysis was conducted to estimate each category's odds ratio compared to non-users.

FINDINGS

Of 67,561 individuals who met the inclusion criteria, 215 cases and 1,516 controls were selected. Compared with that of Non-users, the odds ratios and 95% confidence interval were 0.65 (0.44-0.96) for Continuous-users and 2.57 (1.73-3.81) for Irregular-users.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous co-prescription of rebamipide significantly reduced the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in an Asian cohort of new users of NSAIDs with osteoarthritis or low back pain without risk factors other than age.

The global epidemiology of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding in general population: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common and potentially life-threatening clinical event. To date, the literature on the long-term global epidemiology of GIB has not been systematically reviewed.

AIM

To systematically review the published literature on the worldwide epidemiology of upper and lower GIB.

METHODS

EMBASE^® and MEDLINE were queried from 01 January 1965 to September 17, 2019 to identify population-based studies reporting incidence, mortality, or case-fatality rates of upper GIB (UGIB) or lower GIB (LGIB) in the general adult population, worldwide. Relevant outcome data were extracted and summarized (including data on rebleeding following initial occurrence of GIB when available). All included studies were assessed for risk of bias based upon reporting guidelines.

RESULTS

Of 4203 retrieved database hits, 41 studies were included, comprising a total of around 4.1 million patients with GIB worldwide from 1980–2012. Thirty-three studies reported rates for UGIB, four for LGIB, and four presented data on both. Incidence rates ranged from 15.0 to 172.0/100000 person-years for UGIB, and from 20.5 to 87.0/100000 person-years for LGIB. Thirteen studies reported on temporal trends, generally showing an overall decline in UGIB incidence over time, although a slight increase between 2003 and 2005 followed by a decline was shown in 5/13 studies. GIB-related mortality data were available from six studies for UGIB, with rates ranging from 0.9 to 9.8/100000 person-years, and from three studies for LGIB, with rates ranging from 0.8 to 3.5/100000 person-years. Case-fatality rate ranged from 0.7% to 4.8% for UGIB and 0.5% to 8.0% for LGIB. Rates of rebleeding ranged from 7.3% to 32.5% for UGIB and from 6.7% to 13.5% for LGIB. Two main areas of potential bias were the differences in the operational GIB definition used and inadequate information on how missing data were handled.

CONCLUSION

Wide variation was seen in estimates of GIB epidemiology, likely due to high heterogeneity between studies however, UGIB showed a decreasing trend over the years. Epidemiological data were more widely available for UGIB than for LGIB.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on De-Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most commonly used medications in the world. Developed for the treatment and prevention of acid-mediated upper gastrointestinal conditions, these agents are being used increasingly for indications where their benefits are less certain. PPI overprescription imposes an economic cost and contributes to polypharmacy. In addition, PPI use has been increasingly linked to a number of adverse events (PPI-associated adverse events [PAAEs]). Therefore, de-prescribing of PPIs is an important strategy to lower pill burden while reducing real costs and theoretical risks. The purpose of this clinical update was to provide Best Practice Advice (BPA) statements about how to approach PPI de-prescribing in ambulatory patients.

METHODS

Our guiding principle was that, although PPIs are generally safe, patients should not use any medication when there is not a reasonable expectation of benefit based on scientific evidence or prior treatment response. Prescribers are responsible for determining whether PPI use is absolutely or conditionally indicated and, when uncertainty exists, to incorporate patient perspectives into PPI decision making. We collaboratively outlined a high-level "process map" of the conceptual approach to de-prescribing PPIs in a clinical setting. We identified the following 3 key domains that required BPA guidance: documentation of PPI indication; identifying suitable candidates for consideration of de-prescribing; and optimizing successful de-prescribing. Co-authors drafted 1 or more potential BPAs, supported by literature review, for each domain. All co-authors reviewed, edited, and selected or rejected draft BPAs for inclusion in the final list submitted to the American Gastroenterological Association Governing Board. Because this was not a systematic review, we did not carry out a formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: All patients taking a PPI should have a regular review of the ongoing indications for use and documentation of that indication. This review should be the responsibility of the patient's primary care provider. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: All patients without a definitive indication for chronic PPI should be considered for trial of de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Most patients with an indication for chronic PPI use who take twice-daily dosing should be considered for step down to once-daily PPI. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Patients with complicated gastroesophageal reflux disease, such as those with a history of severe erosive esophagitis, esophageal ulcer, or peptic stricture, should generally not be considered for PPI discontinuation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Patients with known Barrett's esophagus, eosinophilic esophagitis, or idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis should generally not be considered for a trial of de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: PPI users should be assessed for upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk using an evidence-based strategy before de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Patients at high risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding should not be considered for PPI de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Patients who discontinue long-term PPI therapy should be advised that they may develop transient upper gastrointestinal symptoms due to rebound acid hypersecretion. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: When de-prescribing PPIs, either dose tapering or abrupt discontinuation can be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: The decision to discontinue PPIs should be based solely on the lack of an indication for PPI use, and not because of concern for PAAEs. The presence of a PAAE or a history of a PAAE in a current PPI user is not an independent indication for PPI withdrawal. Similarly, the presence of underlying risk factors for the development of an adverse event associated with PPI use should also not be an independent indication for PPI withdrawal.

A randomized non-inferiority study of low-dose and standard-dose ticagrelor after intervention for acute coronary syndrome: study protocol for the TIGER STUDY

Background

Current guidelines recommend that patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who have successfully undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) should continue to use dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months. The long-term use of standard-dose dual antiplatelet therapy will increase the risk of bleeding. An optimized antiplatelet strategy that can prevent ischemic events and reduce the risk of bleeding remains to be explored.

Methods

The study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled study involving 2090 patients from six clinical centers in China. Through the interactive web response system (IWRS), ACS patients undergoing successful PCI will be randomly divided into the low-dose ticagrelor group or the normal-dose ticagrelor group, after taking 100 mg aspirin and 90 mg ticagrelor bid for 1 week. The primary endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, repeat revascularization, and stroke. The secondary endpoints are bleeding events of grade 2 or higher according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] criteria, cardiovascular death, acute myocardium infarction, and coronary revascularization at 1 year.

Discussion

Recent studies have confirmed that 90 mg ticagrelor alone can safely and effectively reduce bleeding without increasing ischemic events of patients with ACS after PCI. Compared with standard-dose DAPT, whether low-dose ticagrelor combined with aspirin can ensure the anti-ischemic effect while reducing the bleeding risk remains unclear in Chinese patients.

The TIGER study will be the first large-scale, multicenter study to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose and standard-dose ticagrelor combined with aspirin in ACS patients 1 week after successful PCI.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04255602. Registered on 5 February 2020.

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.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Direct Oral Anticoagulants among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Risk, Prevention, Management, and Quality of Life

A significant problem for patients undergoing oral anticoagulation therapy is gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), a problem that has become increasingly urgent following the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Furthermore, in recent years a greater focus has been placed on the quality of life (QOL) of patients on long-term oral anticoagulant therapy, which necessitates changes in lifestyle, as well as posing an increased risk of bleeding without producing objective symptomatic relief. Here, we examine current evidence linked to GIB associated with oral anticoagulants, with a focus on randomized control trials, meta-analyses, and postmarketing observational studies. Rivaroxaban and dabigatran (especially the 150-mg bis-in-die dose) appeared to be linked to an increased risk of GIB. The risk of GIB was also greater when edoxaban was used, although this was dependent on the dose. Apixaban did not pose a higher risk of GIB in comparison with warfarin. We provided a summary of current knowledge regarding GIB risk factors for individual anticoagulants, prevention strategies that lower the risk of GIB and management of DOAC therapy after a GIB episode.

Pharmacogenomics of NSAID-Induced Upper Gastrointestinal Toxicity

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a group of drugs which are widely used globally for the treatment of pain and inflammation, and in the case of aspirin, for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Chronic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use is associated with potentially serious upper gastrointestinal adverse drug reactions (ADRs) including peptic ulcer disease and gastrointestinal bleeding. A few clinical and genetic predisposing factors have been identified; however, genetic data are contradictory. Further research is needed to identify clinically relevant genetic and non-genetic markers predisposing to NSAID-induced peptic ulceration.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the gastrointestinal tract

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used commonly but can cause foregut symptoms, peptic ulcer disease and small bowel enteropathy. Such iatrogenic injury can be complicated by gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation. Limiting NSAID use or co-administration with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce dyspepsia, peptic ulcer disease and rates of complications. Selective cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors are as effective as adding PPIs in preventing upper and lower gastrointestinal complications. COX-2 inhibitors are suggested in those with high cardiovascular risk and the addition of PPI in those with high risk of bleeding. Where required, COX-2 inhibitor monotherapy may be preferred in unexplained iron deficiency anaemia.

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.

Aspirin in Primary Prevention: What Changed? A Critical Appraisal of Current Evidence

Aspirin has been the mainstay of both secondary and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease for half a century. In 2018, 3 trials showed a modest reduction in cardiovascular outcomes that appeared counterbalanced by the risk of clinically significant bleeding. The latest ACC/AHA primary prevention guidelines downgraded their recommendation for aspirin use in primary prevention to that of physician preference. Despite the consistent and robust evidence previously supporting the use of aspirin in cardiovascular disease prevention, little discussion has been given to mechanisms or analytic explanations for this revision of recommendations. In this review, we explore 3 possible mechanisms that may have contributed to the alteration of our perception of aspirin's role in primary prevention. These include changes in the population potentially using aspirin in primary prevention, changes in cardiovascular disease and its presentation, and changes in aspirin itself. Here we present a translational look at knowledge gaps that should be addressed to better guide contemporary aspirin use in primary prevention. In conclusion, based on these considerations, the current recommendations might be improved by recalibration of the cardiovascular risk threshold above which aspirin should be recommended for primary prevention, including the incorporation of newer risk assessment modalities such as calcium scoring. A second enhancement would be developing a bleeding risk calculator to support clinicians' assessment of risk vs benefit. The use of enteric-coated aspirin vs noncoated aspirin should also be reassessed.

Omeprazole vs famotidine for the prevention of gastroduodenal injury in high-risk users of low-dose aspirin: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low-dose aspirin is widely used in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. However, the use of aspirin is associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal injury.

METHODS

Low-dose aspirin users with a history of peptic ulcers who did not have gastroduodenal mucosal breaks at initial endoscopy were randomly assigned to receive famotidine (20 mg bid) or omeprazole (20 mg qd) for 6 months. Follow-up endoscopy was performed at the end of the sixth month and whenever epigastric discomfort, hematemesis, or melena occurred. The primary end point was the occurrence of gastroduodenal mucosal breaks. The secondary end points were (1) the occurrence of gastroduodenal ulcers and (2) the occurrence of gastroduodenal bleeding.

RESULT

Between November 2013 and June 2018, 170 patients were randomly assigned to receive either famotidine (n = 84) or omeprazole (n = 86). The incidence of gastroduodenal mucosal breaks was 33.8% among the patients receiving famotidine, and 19.8% among those receiving omeprazole (95% CI: 0.4%-27.5%; p = 0.045). The two patient groups had comparable incidence rates of gastroduodenal ulcers (20.0% vs 9.8%; p = 0.071), and gastroduodenal bleeding (2.5% vs 0%; p = 0.243). Multivariate analysis showed that use of the proton pump inhibitor was an independent protective factor (odds ratio: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.23-0.99; p = 0.047), and that smoking was a risk factor for mucosal breaks (odds ratio: 3.84; 95% CI: 1.52-9.71; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Proton pump inhibitor was superior to histamine-2 receptor antagonist in the prevention of gastroduodenal mucosal breaks in high-risk users of low-dose aspirin, and smoking was an independent risk factor for developing gastroduodenal mucosal breaks.

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.

[Upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with stable coronary artery disease (registry of antithrombotic therapy "REGATТA" results)]

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding is a common complication of antiplatelet therapy. Data from real clinical practice that characterize the range of risk factors for UGI bleeding, prophylactic proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) therapy, bleeding frequency and their long-term effects in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) are limited.

AIM

To identify predictors of UGI bleeding in patients with stable CAD, to assess the role of PPI in the prevention of bleeding and the long-term prognosis of patients after bleeding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

934 patients with stable CAD (median age 61 [5368] years, 78.6% men) were included in the single institution prospective REGistry of Long-term AnTithrombotic TherApy (REGATTA). Atherosclerosis of peripheral arteries (APA) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening was performed by doctor decision, as well as esophagogastroduodenoscopy. 76% of patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for 612 months after elective PCI. PPIs were prescribed in 28.3% of cases.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 2.5 [1.15.1] years. The frequency of overt UGI bleeding was 1.9 per 100 patients per year. Anamnesis of peptic ulcer disease (OR 4.7; 95% CI 1.911.8;p=0.001), erosion of the upper gastrointestinal tract (OR 6.7; 2.716.6;p=0.00004 ), as well as concomitant diseases associated with a decrease in blood supply to the mucosa, such as heart failure HF (OR 6.1; 2.316.0;p=0.0002), AAA (OR 9.3; 2.534.2;p=0.0008) and APA (OR 2.3; 0.985.5;p=0.05) turned out to be independent predictors of UGI bleeding. The frequency of AAA among those who underwent UGI bleeding was 19.6% (in patients without bleeding 1.4%;p0.001). 90.2% of patients with UGI bleeding received PPI; the frequency of UGI bleeding in patients receiving pantoprazole and omeprazole did not differ significantly. After UGI bleeding, rebleeding rate was 7.8%, thrombotic events (TE) rate 31.4%, mortality rate 17.7% for 30 days, 19.4% for 1 year and 35.3% for the entire observation period. The predictors of deaths were AAA (OR 92.5; 7.7107.9;p0.0001), APA (OR 4.2; 1.0317.2;p=0.045) and HF (OR 34.5; 8.5140.6;p0.0001). The worst prognosis was expected for patients who underwent UGI bleeding and thrombotic events: 2/3 of these patients died.

CONCLUSION

In a prospective analysis of patients with stable CAD, we identified UGI bleeding was a significant risk factor for late thromboembolism and death, compared with patients without bleeding. Predictors of UGI bleeding and poor prognosis are factors that indicate atherothrombotic burden abdominal aortic aneurysm, peripheral atherosclerosis and HF. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04347200.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy in patients with hypertension, cardiovascular, renal or gastrointestinal comorbidities: joint APAGE/APLAR/APSDE/APSH/APSN/PoA recommendations

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most commonly prescribed medications, but they are associated with a number of serious adverse effects, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, kidney injury and GI complications.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a set of multidisciplinary recommendations for the safe prescription of NSAIDs.

METHODS

Randomised control trials and observational studies published before January 2018 were reviewed, with 329 papers included for the synthesis of evidence-based recommendations.

RESULTS

Whenever possible, a NSAID should be avoided in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, high risk of cardiovascular disease and severe chronic kidney disease (CKD). Before treatment with a NSAID is started, blood pressure should be measured, unrecognised CKD should be screened in high risk cases, and unexplained iron-deficiency anaemia should be investigated. For patients with high cardiovascular risk, and if NSAID treatment cannot be avoided, naproxen or celecoxib are preferred. For patients with a moderate risk of peptic ulcer disease, monotherapy with a non-selective NSAID plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), or a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor should be used; for those with a high risk of peptic ulcer disease, a selective COX-2 inhibitor plus PPI are needed. For patients with pre-existing hypertension receiving renin-angiotensin system blockers, empirical addition (or increase in the dose) of an antihypertensive agent of a different class should be considered. Blood pressure and renal function should be monitored in most cases.

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs are a valuable armamentarium in clinical medicine, but appropriate recognition of high-risk cases, selection of a specific agent, choice of ulcer prophylaxis and monitoring after therapy are necessary to minimise the risk of adverse events.

Effect of Proton Pump Inhibitors on Risks of Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding among Users of Low-Dose Aspirin: A Population-Based Observational Study

Estimates of the effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on risks of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB and LGIB) among low-dose aspirin users in routine clinical practice are variable (UGIB) or lacking (LGIB). We aimed to establish these risks in the same observational study population. Using UK primary care data, we followed 199,049 new users of low-dose aspirin (75–300 mg/day) and matched non-users at start of follow-up to identify incident UGIB/LGIB cases. In nested case–control analyses, adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for concomitant PPI use vs. past (discontinued) PPI use among current low-dose aspirin users. For UGIB (n = 987), ORs (95% CIs) were 0.69 (0.54–0.88) for >1 month PPI use and 2.65 (1.62–4.3) for ≤1 month PPI use. Among the latter group, ORs (95% CIs) were 3.05 (1.75–5.33) for PPI initiation after start of aspirin therapy, and 1.66 (0.63–4.36) for PPI initiation on/before start of aspirin therapy. For LGIB (n = 1428), ORs (95% CIs) were 0.98 (0.81–1.17) for >1 month PPI use and 1.12 (0.73–1.71) for ≤1 month PPI use. Among low-dose aspirin users, maintaining PPI use (>1 month) was associated with a significantly reduced UGIB risk. Neither short nor long-term PPI use affected LGIB risk.

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.

Cost-Utility and Budget Impact Analysis for Stopping the Inappropriate Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors After Cessation of NSAID or Low-Dose Acetylsalicylic Acid Treatment

BACKGROUND

In accordance with current guidelines, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are now generally prescribed as a protective co-medication in patients taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (LDASA). However, less attention is paid to the corresponding discontinuation of a PPI after cessation of NSAID or LDASA treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the extent of inappropriate PPI use, as the proportion of patients who started a PPI as a protective co-medication but continued using these drugs after cessation of NSAID and LDASA treatment. We also sought to estimate the potential cost savings and effect gains of discontinuing inappropriate PPI use and the resulting decrease in adverse effects and their detrimental consequences.

METHODS

Pharmacy dispensing data were used to map inappropriate PPI use in 2014 for community-dwelling patients. Strategies with or without PPI continuation were compared in the cost-utility analysis for a time horizon of 5 years from a healthcare perspective. Subsequently, incremental costs and effects (quality-adjusted life-years) were estimated with a Markov model.

RESULTS

Related to NSAID and LDASA treatment, 11.0% and 5%, respectively, of the PPI users were found to inappropriately continue PPI co-treatment. Discontinuation in 71- to 80-year-old patients suggested cost savings of €170.46 (95% confidence interval 75-282) at a 0.003 (95% confidence interval 0.001-0.005) quality-adjusted life-year increase. The total budget impact of stopping inappropriate PPI use related to NSAID/LDASA treatment in the Netherlands would amount to almost €1,050,000 after 1 year. Correspondingly, successful interventions to stop a patient's inappropriate use would cost up to €29 and probably would pay for themselves in the following years.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of patients inappropriately continue to use a PPI after cessation of NSAID or LDASA treatment. Because adverse effects and their detrimental consequences are avoided, interventions to stop inappropriate PPI use, particularly in older patients, are likely to pay for themselves.

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.

Effectiveness of acid suppressants and other mucoprotective agents in reducing the risk of occult gastrointestinal bleeding in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug users

Acid suppressants such as histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective in preventing gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) users. Despite widespread acid suppressant use, there remain concerns about several potential risks of long-term use. Therefore, we investigated whether gastroprotective agents (GPAs) other than acid suppression therapy are effective in preventing NSAID-related GI injury. To this end, we studied 9,133 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis who used NSAIDs for ≥1 month. A decrease of 2 g/dL or more in the hemoglobin level was considered a GI injury indicator. The GPAs included acid suppressants and other mucoprotective agents. Acid suppressants included PPIs and H2RAs. Other mucoprotective agents included misoprostol, rebamipide, and eupatilin. During a median follow-up period of 27 (range, 4.3-51.3) weeks, occult GI bleeding occurred in 1,191 (13%) patients. A comparison of patients who used GPAs concomitantly with that of nonusers in a multivariable analysis revealed the hazard ratios (HRs; 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for occult GI bleeding were 0.30 (0.20-0.44), 0.35 (0.29-0.43), 0.47 (0.23-0.95), 0.43 (0.35-0.51), and 0.98 (0.86-1.12) for PPIs, H2RAs, misoprostol, rebamipide, and eupatilin, respectively. Compared to PPI co-treatment, H2RA, misoprostol, rebamipide, and eupatilin co-treatments were associated with occult GI bleeding HRs (95% CIs) of 1.19 (0.79-1.79), 1.58 (0.72-3.46), 1.44 (0.96-2.16), and 3.25 (2.21-4.77), respectively. Our findings suggest that mucoprotective agents, such as rebamipide and misoprostol, as well as acid suppressants, are effective in reducing the risk for GI injury in NSAID users.

Clinical, clinicopathologic, and gastrointestinal changes from aspirin, prednisone, or combination treatment in healthy research dogs: A double-blind randomized trial

Background

Dogs with immune‐mediated disease are often coadministered glucocorticoids and aspirin, but ulcerogenic effects of current protocols are unknown.

Objectives

To compare gastrointestinal changes among dogs administered aspirin, prednisone, and combination treatment.

Animals

Twenty‐four healthy research dogs.

Methods

Double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled randomized trial of dogs administered placebo, aspirin (2 mg/kg q24h), prednisone (2 mg/kg q24h), or combination treatment PO for 28 days. Clinical signs were recorded daily, with laboratory work performed at baseline and day 28. Gastrointestinal mucosal hemorrhages, erosions, and ulcers were numerated for endoscopic studies performed on days 0, 14, and 28; endoscopic mucosal lesion scores were calculated. Results were compared using mixed model repeated‐measures analyses of variance and generalized estimating equation proportional odds models. P < .05 was considered significant.

Results

Gastric mucosal lesion scores differed by treatment‐by‐time (F[6, 40] = 4.4, P = .002), treatment (F[3, 20] = 7.1, P = .002), and time (F[2, 40] = 18.9, P < .001). Post hoc analysis revealed increased scores in the aspirin (day 14 only), prednisone, and prednisone/aspirin groups during treatment. Ulcers were identified on 14 studies, representing 10 dogs. Dogs receiving prednisone and prednisone/aspirin had 11.1 times (95% CI, 1.7‐73.6) and 31.5 times (95% CI, 3.5‐288.0) higher odds, respectively, of having endoscopic mucosal lesion scores ≥4 than dogs receiving placebo (P ≤ .01).

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

Gastrointestinal bleeding occurs commonly in dogs administered aspirin, prednisone, or prednisone/aspirin treatment, with higher lesion scores for dogs receiving combination treatment. Even severe lesions are not accompanied by clinical signs.

Cluster-Randomized Trial of Opiate-Sparing Analgesia after Discharge from Elective Hip Surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgeons have traditionally relied on opiates after hip replacement, despite a growing epidemic of abuse. This study assessed the efficacy of multimodal analgesia and impact of conservative opiate prescribing after discharge from hip surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

In this cluster-randomized trial, 235 patients undergoing hip replacement (5 surgeons) received 1 of 3 discharge pain regimens: scheduled-dose multimodal analgesia with a minimal opiate supply (group A), scheduled-dose multimodal analgesia with a traditional opiate supply (group B), or a traditional pro re nata (as needed) opiate regimen alone (group C). Each of the surgeons comprised a distinct cluster and alternated in a randomized sequence between interventions. The multimodal regimen comprised fixed-schedule doses of acetaminophen, meloxicam, and gabapentin. Primary outcomes were daily visual analogue scale pain and opiate use for 30 days. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction, sleep quality, opiate-related symptoms, hip function, and adverse events. The primary intent-to-treat analysis was performed using linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Daily pain was significantly lower in group A (coefficient [Coeff] -0.81; p = 0.003) and group B (Coeff -0.61; p = 0.021) relative to group C. Although daily opiate use in group A (Coeff -0.77; p < 0.001) and group B (Coeff -0.30; p = 0.04) was lower than group C, opiate use for group A was also lower than group B (Coeff -0.46; p = 0.002). Duration of opiate use was significantly shorter for group A (1.14 weeks) and group B (1.39 weeks) compared with group C (2.57 weeks). There were fewer opiate-related symptoms, most commonly fatigue, in group A compared with C, but groups B and C were not significantly different. Both multimodal regimens improved satisfaction and sleep, and there were no differences in hip function or adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodal analgesia with minimal opiates improved pain control while significantly decreasing opiate use and opiate-related adverse effects. It is time to rethink our reliance on opiates after elective operations.

Outcome of stroke patients on clopidogrel plus proton-pump inhibitors: a single-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcome and mortality in patients co-prescribed clopidogrel with proton pump inhibitors (PPI).

OBJECTIVE

Investigate the impact of concomitant prescription of clopidogrel and PPI on 30-day unplanned readmission and one-year all-cause mortality.

DESIGN

Retrospective longitudinal cohort study.

SETTING

Single academic tertiary center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included patients admitted with a diagnosis of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke between 2010 and 2014. Demographic and outcome data were collected and compared for patients on clopidogrel plus PPI vs those on clopidogrel plus H2blockers and those not on clopidogrel.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

One-year mortality and 30-day unplanned readmissions were compared among different patient groups using multivariable logistic regression modeling.

SAMPLE SIZE

464 patients.

RESULTS

Out of 464 patients, 175 (37.7%) were discharged on clopidogrel. The concomitant prescription of clopidogrel and PPI was noted in 107 (24.4%) and clopidogrel and H2 blockers in 36 patients (7.8%). The one-year all-cause mortality in the entire cohort was 22.2%. Patients on clopidogrel plus PPI did not have a higher risk of one-year mortality compared to the non-PPI cohort (6.2% vs. 4.8%, p 0.7). There was a non-significant suggestion of lower one-year mortality in patients on clopidogrel plus PPI vs those not on clopidogrel (6.2% vs. 10.1%, p 0.23). In multivariable logistic regression, the use of clopidogrel plus PPI did not predict higher one-year mortality (odds ratio 0.6, P=0.6). The risk of unplanned 30-day readmission was lower in those with clop-idogrel plus PPI (odds ratio 0.6, P=.03).

CONCLUSION

The use of clopidogrel plus PPI resulted in lower readmission rates and was not associated with higher mortality compared with the non-PPI cohorts.

LIMITATIONS

Single center study, not generalizable. Given the retrospective nature of this study, we did not collect data on duration of treatments or patient compliance.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

Acid and the basis for cellular plasticity and reprogramming in gastric repair and cancer

Subjected to countless daily injuries, the stomach still functions as a remarkably efficient digestive organ and microbial filter. In this Review, we follow the lead of the earliest gastroenterologists who were fascinated by the antiseptic and digestive powers of gastric secretions. We propose that it is easiest to understand how the stomach responds to injury by stressing the central role of the most important gastric secretion, acid. The stomach follows two basic patterns of adaptation. The superficial response is a pattern whereby the surface epithelial cells migrate and rapidly proliferate to repair erosions induced by acid or other irritants. The stomach can also adapt through a glandular response when the source of acid is lost or compromised (that is, the process of oxyntic atrophy). We primarily review the mechanisms governing the glandular response, which is characterized by a metaplastic change in cellular differentiation known as spasmolytic polypeptide-expressing metaplasia (SPEM). We propose that the stomach, like other organs, exhibits marked cellular plasticity: the glandular response involves reprogramming mature cells to serve as auxiliary stem cells that replace lost cells. Unfortunately, such plasticity might mean that the gastric epithelium undergoes cycles of differentiation and de-differentiation that increase the risk of accumulating cancer-predisposing mutations.

Internists' Perceptions of Proton Pump Inhibitor Adverse Effects and Impact on Prescribing Practices: Results of a Nationwide Survey

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have linked proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) with serious adverse effects. The study aimed to evaluate internists' perceptions of PPI harms and effects on prescribing.

METHODS

This was an online survey of a representative sample of the American College of Physicians in 2013. We queried familiarity with and concern about PPI adverse effects (1 - 7 Likert-type scales, anchored by "not at all" and "extremely"). We also asked how frequently (often, sometimes, rarely, or never) participants used any of three "de-escalation" strategies to stop or reduce PPIs because of concern about adverse effects: reducing patients' PPI dose, switching to H2 blocker, or discontinuing PPI. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations between sometimes/often using any PPI de-escalation strategy and gender, time in practice, familiarity, and concern.

RESULTS

The response rate was 53% (487/914). Seventy percent were male, median time in practice was 11 - 15 years, and most practiced general medicine (58%). Ninety-nine percent reported at least some familiarity with reported adverse effects (mean 4.9, standard deviation (SD) 1.0), and 98% reported at least some concern (mean 4.6, SD 1.3). Sixty-three percent reported sometimes/often reducing the PPI dose, 52% switching to H2 blocker, and 44% discontinuing PPI. In multivariable analysis, familiarity with adverse effects (OR 1.66 (1.31 - 2.10) for 1-point increase, P < 0.001) and concern (OR 2.14 (1.76 - 2.61) for 1-point increase, P < 0.001) were independently associated with de-escalation. Gender and time in practice had no effects.

CONCLUSION

Almost all internists report awareness and concern about PPI adverse effects, and most are de-escalating PPIs as a result. Research on which approach is most effective for which patients is critically important.

Cerebrovascular Outcomes With Proton Pump Inhibitors and Thienopyridines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Pharmacokinetic and prior studies on thienopyridine and proton pump inhibitors (PPI) coadministration provide conflicting data for cardiovascular outcomes, whereas there is no established evidence on the association of concomitant use of PPI and thienopyridines with adverse cerebrovascular outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies from inception to July 2017, reporting following outcomes among patients treated with thienopyridine and PPI versus thienopyridine alone (1) ischemic stroke, (2) combined ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, (3) composite outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and cardiovascular death, (4) MI, (5) all-cause mortality, and (6) major or minor bleeding events. After the unadjusted analyses of risk ratios, we performed additional analyses of studies reporting hazard ratios adjusted for potential confounders.

RESULTS

We identified 22 studies (12 randomized controlled trials and 10 cohort studies) comprising 131 714 patients. Concomitant use of PPI with thienopyridines was associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-2.16; P<0.001), composite stroke/MI/cardiovascular death (risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.29; P=0.04), and MI (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.00-1.40; P=0.05). Likewise, in adjusted analyses concomitant use of PPI with thienopyridines was again associated with increased risk of stroke (hazard ratios adjusted, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04-1.61; P=0.02), composite stroke/MI/cardiovascular death (hazard ratios adjusted, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.47; P=0.02), but not with MI (hazard ratios adjusted, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.93-1.52; P=0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Co-prescription of PPI and thienopyridines increases the risk of incident ischemic strokes and composite stroke/MI/cardiovascular death. Our findings corroborate the current guidelines for PPI deprescription and pharmacovigilance, especially in patients treated with thienopyridines.

Review article: a practical approach to the clinical management of NSAID enteropathy

Co-prescription of acid suppressive therapy, together with advances in small bowel imaging techniques, have shifted the burden of NSAID-related toxicity from gastro-duodenal to more distal small bowel injury. Due to predominantly subclinical disease, NSAID enteropathy remains under-recognised, with an incidence of 53-80% amongst healthy short-term users, and a prevalence of 50-71% following long-term (>3 months) use. Despite their distinct pathogenesis, those at risk of NSAID-related gastro-duodenal and small bowel complications share several risk factors. Clinical complications of NSAID enteropathy such as protein-losing enteropathy, small bowel strictures and diaphragm disease, confer significant morbidity, and are often irreversible. Small bowel prophylaxis has proven of modest efficacy after short-term, high-dose NSAID use in asymptomatic patients. While selective COX-2 inhibitors are associated with fewer gastro-duodenal complications relative to non-selective NSAIDs, their comparative benefit in protecting against small bowel enteropathy remains unclear. Prophylaxis should be considered in those at high risk of small bowel complications, as treatment options for established disease remain limited; however, the optimal agent remains unclear. We propose a clinical algorithm that may help prevent, monitor, investigate, and manage the sequelae of NSAID-induced small bowel toxicity.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding in low-dose aspirin users

BACKGROUND

Aspirin increases the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIM

To investigate the risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) in aspirin users.

METHODS

Low-dose (75-325 mg daily) aspirin users and controls matched by age, gender and enrollment time in a 1:5 ratio were selected from 1 million randomly sampled subjects in the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. Cox proportional hazard regression models were developed to evaluate the predictors of LGIB with adjustments for age, gender, comorbidities including coronary artery disease, ischaemic stroke, diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, liver cirrhosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dyslipidemia, uncomplicated peptic ulcer disease, history of peptic ulcer bleeding, and concomitant use of clopidogrel, ticlopidine, warfarin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, steroids, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), nitrates, alendronate, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and calcium channel blockers.

RESULTS

A total of 53 805 aspirin users and 269 025 controls were included. Aspirin group had a higher incidence of LGIB within 1 year than control group (0.20% vs 0.06%, P<.0001). Aspirin (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.06-3.65), NSAIDs (HR: 8.61, 95% CI: 3.28-22.58), steroids (HR: 10.50, 95% CI: 1.98-55.57), SSRIs (HR: 11.71, 95% CI: 1.40-97.94), PPIs (HR: 8.47, 95% CI: 2.26-31.71), and H2RAs (HR: 10.83, 95% CI: 2.98-39.33) were significantly associated with LGIB.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of LGIB was higher in low-dose aspirin users than in aspirin nonusers in this nationwide cohort. Low-dose aspirin, NSAIDs, steroids, SSRIs, PPIs and H2RAs were independent risk factors for LGIB.

Effect of a Proton Pump Inhibitor on Tumor Bleeding Prevention in Unresectable Gastric Cancer Patients: a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Purpose

Tumor bleeding is a major complication in inoperable gastric cancer. The study aim was to investigate the effects of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for the prevention of gastric tumor bleeding.

Materials and Methods

This study was a prospective double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Patients with inoperable gastric cancer were randomly assigned to receive oral lansoprazole (30 mg) or placebo daily. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of tumor bleeding, and the secondary endpoints were transfusion requirement and overall survival (OS).

Results

This study initially planned to enroll 394 patients, but prematurely ended due to low recruitment rate. Overall, 127 patients were included in the analyses: 64 in the lansoprazole group and 63 in the placebo group. During the median follow-up of 6.4 months, tumor bleeding rates were 7.8% and 9.5%, in the lansoprazole and placebo groups, respectively, with the cumulative bleeding incidence not statistically different between the groups (P=0.515, Gray's test). However, during the initial 4 months, 4 placebo-treated patients developed tumor bleeding, whereas there were no bleeding events in the lansoprazole-treated patients (P=0.041, Gray's test). There was no difference in the proportion of patients who required transfusion between the groups. The OS between the lansoprazole (11.7 months) and the placebo (11.0 months) groups was not statistically different (P=0.610). Study drug-related serious adverse event or bleeding-related death did not occur.

Conclusions

Treating patients with inoperable gastric cancer with lansoprazole did not significantly reduce the incidence of tumor bleeding. However, further studies are needed to evaluate whether lansoprazole can prevent tumor bleeding during earlier phases of chemotherapy (ClinicalTrial.gov, identifier No. NCT02150447).

Risk of gastrointestinal bleeding during anticoagulant treatment

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a major problem in patients on oral anticoagulation therapy. This issue has become even more pressing since the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in 2009. Areas covered: Here we review current evidence related to GIB associated with oral anticoagulants, focusing on randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and post-marketing observational studies. Dabigatran 150 mg twice daily and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily increase the risk of GIB compared to warfarin. The risk increase with edoxaban is dose-dependent, while apixaban shows apparently, no increased risk. We summarize what is known about GIB risk factors for individual anticoagulants, the location of GIB in patients taking these compounds, and prevention strategies that lower the risk of GIB. Expert opinion: Recently there has been an important shift in the clinical presentation of GIB. Specifically, upper GIB has decreased with the decreased incidence of peptic ulcers due to the broad use of proton pump inhibitors and the decreased prevalence of H. pylori infections. In contrast, the incidence of lower GIB has increased, due in part to colonic diverticular bleeding and angiodysplasia in the elderly. In this population, the addition of oral anticoagulation therapy, especially DOACs, seems to increase the risk of lower GIB.

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

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

Histamine-2 Receptor Antagonist Cannot Prevent Recurrent Peptic Ulcers in Patients With Atherosclerotic Diseases Who Receive Platelet ADP Receptor Antagonist Monotherapy: A Randomized-Controlled, Double-Blind, and Double-Dummy Trial

OBJECTIVES

Proton pump inhibitor can effectively prevent recurrent peptic ulcers among atherosclerotic patients receiving clopidogrel monotherapy. However, the interaction between proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel has raised concerns over the safety of combined use of the two medicines in clinical practice. The aims of this randomized-controlled, double-blind and double-dummy trial were to investigate the efficacy of histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) in the prevention of recurrent peptic ulcer in patients undergoing thienopyridine monotherapy.

METHODS

From January 2012 to 2016, long-termed thienopyridine users with a peptic ulcer history who did not have peptic ulcers at initial endoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either famotidine (40 mg, before bedtime) or placebo (before bedtime) for 6 months. Follow-up endoscopy was performed at the end of the 6th month and whenever dyspepsia, hematemesis, or melena occurred.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of recurrent peptic ulcer during the 6-month period was 7.0% in famotidine group (n=114) and 11.4% in the placebo group (n=114). The two patient groups had comparable cumulative incidence of peptic ulcer (difference, 4.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -11.7 to 2.9%; P=0.239). Additionally, there was no difference in the cumulative incidence of ulcer bleeding (2.6% vs. 1.8%; difference, 0.8%; 95% CI, -0.6 to 2.4%, P=1.000) between famotidine and placebo groups. However, the former had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal erosion than the latter (21.1% vs. 36.8%; difference, 15.7%; 95% CI, -27.3 to -4.1%; P=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

Famotidine cannot decrease the incidence of peptic ulcer or ulcer bleeding in thienopyridine users with atherosclerotic disease and a history of peptic ulcer.

Management of non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: position statement of the Catalan Society of Gastroenterology

In recent years there have been advances in the management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding that have helped reduce rebleeding and mortality. This document positioning of the Catalan Society of Digestologia is an update of evidence-based recommendations on management of gastrointestinal bleeding peptic ulcer.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) might reduce the risk of serious warfarin-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding, but the evidence of their efficacy for this indication is limited. A gastroprotective effect of PPIs would be particularly important for patients who take warfarin with antiplatelet drugs or nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which further increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of patients beginning warfarin treatment in Tennessee Medicaid and the 5% National Medicare Sample identified 97,430 new episodes of warfarin treatment with 75,720 person-years of follow-up. The study end points were hospitalizations for upper gastrointestinal bleeding potentially preventable by PPIs and for bleeding at other sites.

RESULTS

Patients who took warfarin without PPI co-therapy had 119 hospitalizations for upper gastrointestinal bleeding per 10,000 person-years of treatment. The risk decreased by 24% among patients who received PPI co-therapy (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.91). There was no significant reduction in the risk of other gastrointestinal bleeding hospitalizations (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.94-1.22) or non-gastrointestinal bleeding hospitalizations (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84-1.15) in this group. Among patients concurrently using antiplatelet drugs or NSAIDs, those without PPI co-therapy had 284 upper gastrointestinal bleeding hospitalizations per 10,000 person-years of warfarin treatment. The risk decreased by 45% (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39-0.77) with PPI co-therapy. PPI co-therapy had no significant protective effect for warfarin patients not using antiplatelet drugs or NSAIDs (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70-1.06). Findings were similar in both study populations.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of patients beginning warfarin treatment in Tennessee Medicaid and the 5% National Medicare Sample, PPI co-therapy was associated with reduced risk of warfarin-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding; the greatest reduction occurred in patients also taking antiplatelet drugs or NSAIDs.

Long-Term Outcomes of NSAID-Induced Small Intestinal Injury Assessed by Capsule Endoscopy in Korea: A Nationwide Multicenter Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

We evaluated the long-term outcome and clinical course of patients of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced small intestinal injury by performing capsule endoscopy (CE).

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective study was conducted using data collected from the CE nationwide database registry, which has been established since 2002.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients (87 males; mean age, 60.6±14.8 years) from the CE nationwide database registry (n=2,885) were diagnosed with NSAID-induced small intestinal injury and enrolled in our study. Forty-nine patients (35.0%) presented with a history of aspirin use and an additional 49 (35.0%) were taking NSAIDs without aspirin. The most prominent findings after performing CE were multiple ulcerations (n=82, 58.6%) and erosions or aphthae (n=32, 22.9%). During the follow-up period (mean, 15.9±19.0 months; range, 0 to 106 months), NSAID-induced small intestinal injury only recurred in six patients (4.3%). Older age and hypertension were positive predictive factors for recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the recurrence of NSAID-induced small bowel injury was not frequent in the presence of conservative treatment. Therefore, the initial diagnosis using CE and the medication history are important.

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: comparative effectiveness and safety of strategies for preventing NSAID-associated gastrointestinal toxicity

BACKGROUND

Many strategies are used to prevent nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-associated gastrointestinal toxicity, but the comparative effectiveness remains unclear.

AIM

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of clinical strategies for preventing gastrointestinal toxicity induced by NSAIDs.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library (from their inception to May 2015) were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events in patients taking nonselective NSAIDs, selective cyclooxygenase(COX)-2 inhibitors or nonselective NSAIDs/COX-2 inhibitors plus gastroprotective agents [proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists, misoprostol]. Both pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Analyses were based on 82 trials including 125 053 participants. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that selective COX-2 inhibitors + PPIs [Risk ratio (RR), 95% Credible Interval (CrI): ulcer complications 0.07, 0.02-0.18], selective COX-2 inhibitors (RR, 95% CrI: ulcer complications 0.25, 0.15- 0.38; symptomatic ulcer 0.12, 0.04-0.30), nonselective NSAIDs + PPIs (RR, 95% CrI: ulcer complications 0.28, 0.18-0.41; symptomatic ulcer 0.11, 0.04-0.23), nonselective NSAIDs + misoprostol (RR, 95% CrI: ulcer complications 0.47, 0.24-0.81; symptomatic ulcer 0.41, 0.13-1.00) were associated with significantly lower risk of clinical gastrointestinal events compared with nonselective NSAIDs. For all effectiveness endpoints, selective COX-2 inhibitors + PPIs was associated with the lowest absolute event probability and the highest rank, followed by selective COX-2 inhibitors and thirdly by nonselective NSAIDs + PPIs.

CONCLUSION

The combination of selective COX-2 inhibitors plus PPIs provides the best gastrointestinal protection, followed by selective COX-2 inhibitors, and thirdly by nonselective NSAIDs plus PPIs.

Analysis of the Interaction between Clopidogrel, Aspirin, and Proton Pump Inhibitors Using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System Database

Clopidogrel is an antiplatelet agent widely used in combination with aspirin to limit the occurrence of cardiovascular (embolic/thrombotic) events. Consensus guidelines recommend proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) as a gastrointestinal (GI) prophylactic measure for all patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin. The objective of this study was to analyze the effect of the simultaneous use of clopidogrel, aspirin, and PPIs on hemorrhagic and embolic/thrombotic events using the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. Reports of hemorrhagic and embolic/thrombotic events between 2004 and 2013 were analyzed with a reporting odds ratio (ROR) algorithm and logistic regression methods. The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Preferred Terms was used to identify such events. Regarding hemorrhagic events, the adjusted RORs of the concomitant use of aspirin and clopidogrel and those of PPIs prescribed with aspirin and clopidogrel were 4.40 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.02-4.81) and 3.40 (95% CI, 2.84-4.06), respectively. For embolic/thrombotic events, the adjusted RORs of the concomitant use of aspirin and clopidogrel and those of PPIs prescribed with aspirin and clopidogrel were 2.37 (95% CI, 2.16-2.59) and 2.38 (95% CI, 2.00-2.84), respectively. Among patients included in the FAERS database, the concurrent use of aspirin and clopidogrel with PPIs reduced the adjusted ROR of GI hemorrhagic events. PPIs had little influence on the adjusted ROR of embolic/thrombotic events. These results support the use of PPIs as a preventive measure against GI hemorrhagic events for patients receiving clopidogrel and aspirin.

Acute Middle Gastrointestinal Bleeding Risk Associated with NSAIDs, Antithrombotic Drugs, and PPIs: A Multicenter Case-Control Study

Background

Middle gastrointestinal bleeding (MGIB) risk has not been fully investigated due to its extremely rare occurrence and the need for multiple endoscopies to exclude upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding. This study investigated whether MGIB is associated with the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), low-dose aspirin (LDA), thienopyridines, anticoagulants, and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), and whether PPI use affects the interactions between MGIB and antithrombotic drugs.

Methods

In this multicenter, hospital-based, case-control study, 400 patients underwent upper and lower endoscopy, 80 had acute overt MGIB and 320 had no bleeding and were matched for age and sex as controls (1:4). MGIB was additionally evaluated by capsule and/or double-balloon endoscopy, after excluding upper and lower GI bleeding. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) for MGIB risk were calculated using conditional logistic regression. To estimate the propensity score, we employed a logistic regression model for PPI use.

Results

In patients with MGIB, mean hemoglobin level was 9.4 g/dL, and 28 patients (35%) received blood transfusions. Factors significantly associated with MGIB were chronic kidney disease (p<0.001), liver cirrhosis (p = 0.034), NSAIDs (p<0.001), thienopyridines (p<0.001), anticoagulants (p = 0.002), and PPIs (p<0.001). After adjusting for these factors, NSAIDs (AOR, 2.5; p = 0.018), thienopyridines (AOR, 3.2; p = 0.015), anticoagulants (AOR, 4.3; p = 0.028), and PPIs (AOR; 2.0; p = 0.021) were independently associated with MGIB. After adjusting for propensity score, the use of PPIs remained an independent risk factors for MGIB (AOR, 1.94; p = 0.034). No significant interactions were observed between PPIs and NSAIDs (AOR, 0.7; p = 0.637), LDA (AOR, 0.3; p = 0.112), thienopyridine (AOR, 0.7, p = 0.671), or anticoagulants (AOR, 0.5; p = 0.545).

Conclusions

One-third of patients with acute small intestinal bleeding required blood transfusion. NSAIDs, thienopyridines, anticoagulants, and PPIs increased the risk of acute small intestinal bleeding. However, there were no significant interactions found between antithrombotic drugs and PPI use for bleeding risk.