The efficacy and safety of acid suppressants for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in cardiac care unit patients

Impact of short-term proton pump inhibitors vs. histamine-2 receptor antagonists on gut microbiota in patients with acute coronary syndrome: A multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Several randomized controlled studies have suggested that the prophylactic use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients could not reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and may increase adverse events such as intestinal infection and pneumonia. Gut microbiota may play a critical role in the process. PPIs has been widely prescribed for GIB prophylaxis in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This study aimed to determine the short-term effects of PPI and histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) treatment on gut microbiota of ACS patients.

METHODS

The study was designed as a single-blind, multicenter, three-parallel-arm, randomized controlled trial conducted at three centers in Beijing, China. We enrolled ACS patients at low-to-medium risk of GIB and randomized (2:2:1) them to either PPI (n = 40), H2RA (n = 31), or control group (n = 21). The primary outcomes were the alterations in gut microbiota after 7 days of acid suppressant therapy. Stool samples were collected at baseline and 7 days and analyzed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing.

RESULTS

There were no significant changes in the diversity of gut microbiota after the short-term use of acid suppressants, but the abundance of Fusobacterium significantly increased and that of Bifidobacterium significantly decreased, especially in PPI users. In addition, the abundance of some pathogenic bacteria, including Enterococcus and Desulfovibrio, was significantly elevated in the PPI users. The fecal microbiota of the PPI users included more arachidonic acid metabolism than that of control group.

CONCLUSIONS

PPIs may increase the risk of infection by adversely altering gut microbiota and elevating arachidonic acid metabolism, which may produce multiple proinflammatory mediators. For ACS patients at low-to-medium risk of GIB, sufficient caution should be paid when acid-suppressant drugs are prescribed, especially PPIs.

REGISTRATION

www.chictr.org.cn/ (ChiCTR2000029552).

The benefit of omeprazole exposure on all-cause mortality and length of ICU/hospital stay might vary with age in critically ill pediatric patients: A cohort study

PURPOSE

To investigate the association between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) administration during hospitalization and mortality and length of stay in critically ill pediatric patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective observational cohort study on pediatric ICU patients (0 to 18 years). Propensity score matching (PSM), Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional hazards model and Linear regression model was applied for assessing the effects of PPIs on mortality and other outcomes during hospitalization.

RESULTS

A total of 2269 pediatric ICU patients were included, involving 1378 omeprazole (OME) users and 891 non-OME users. The results showed significant association between OME exposure and decreased ICU stay (β -0.042; 95% CI -0.073--0.011; P = 0.008) but prolonged non-ICU hospital stay (β 0.121; 95% CI 0.097-0.155; P = 0.040). No statistical significance was observed between OME exposure and reduced mortality, but the OME group had a slightly decreased tendency in 28-day mortality (HR 0.701; 95% CI 0.418-1.176) and in-hospital mortality (HR 0.726; 95% CI 0.419-1.257). Furthermore, subgroup analyses revealed that the decreased tendency of mortality were more obvious in patients less than 1 year old compared with older pediatric patients, although not statistically significant. In addition, we also observed that OME exposure was significantly associated with reduced mortality of general ICU subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided a sign that PPIs used only in the ICU, rather than throughout hospital stay, might provide more benefit for critically ill pediatric patients. Additionally, younger pediatric patients might gain relatively more benefit than older children when receiving PPIs.

Prophylactic acid suppression and enteral nutrition

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Proton Pump Inhibitors and the Risk of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: An Updated Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some studies suggested an increased risk of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) among proton pump inhibitors (PPI) users. However, the published evidence is inadequate to define the association between PPI use and the risk of CAP.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of our meta-analysis were to systematically assess the association between the risk of CAP and PPI use in adults to reduce the adverse effects of PPI and ensure the safety of medication for patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted, published between January 1, 2004, and February 1, 2021. The primary outcome was the incidence of CAP. This meta-analysis was performed using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs as effective measures; 13 studies including 2 098 804 patients were enrolled in our meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Our study revealed that the incidence of CAP was higher in PPI users than non -PPI users [OR = 1.37 (95% CI = 1.22-1.53)], especially for PPI duration < 30 days [OR = 1.49 (95% CI = 1.34-1.66)]. Compared with non-PPI use, PPI use increased the incidence of CAP in the stroke disease population [OR = 1.52 (95% CI = 1.33-1.75)], but not in the liver disease population [OR = 1.13 (95% CI = 0.98-1.30)].

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Using PPI could increase the risk of CAP when compared to not using PPI. PPI use increased the incidence of CAP in patients with stroke. Clinicians and clinical pharmacists should weigh the benefits before medication and strictly control the indication of the prescription, so as to reduce adverse reactions.