Effect of preoperative oral use of erythromycin and nizatidine on gastric pH and volume

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Comparison of the effect of a single dose of erythromycin with pantoprazole on gastric content volume and acidity in elective general surgery patients

INTRODUCTION

Pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents remains one of the most feared complications of anesthesia. A gastric pH of 2.5 or less and a volume of 25 ml (0.4 ml/kg body weight) or more in average adult patients are considered critical factors for the development of pulmonary damage in adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study compared the efficacy of a single oral dose of erythromycin (a macrolide antibiotic) with oral pantoprazole (a proton pump inhibitor) on pre-operative gastric fluid volume and pH in a prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled fashion in 80 adult patients (of ASA physical status I and II) planned for elective surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were divided into two groups of 40 patients each. The pantoprazole group (Group I) received oral pantoprazole 40 mg and the erythromycin group (Group II) received oral erythromycin 250 mg at least 1 h prior to the induction of anesthesia. After tracheal intubation, gastric fluid was aspirated via a Salem Sump tube and its volume and pH were measured.

RESULTS

Although both erythromycin and pantoprazole decreased the gastric fluid volume to a similar extent, the decrease in gastric fluid acidity by pantoprazole was significantly greater than that by erythromycin. The proportion of patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration according to traditional criteria, i.e. pH ≤2.5 and volume ≥25ml, was lower in the pantoprazole group.

CONCLUSION

Administration of pantoprazole was found to be more useful than a sub-therapeutic dose of erythromycin in decreasing both volume and acidity of gastric content.

Azithromycin reduces gastroesophageal reflux and aspiration in lung transplant recipients

Azithromycin (AZI) is a macrolide antibiotic that improves lung function in lung transplant recipients (LTx). Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of chronic rejection after LTx. Macrolide antibiotics may affect GER by modifying esophageal and gastric motility. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of AZI on GER and gastric aspiration after LTx. Acid and weakly acidic GER was measured with 24-h pH-impedance monitoring in 47 LTx patients (12 patients "on" AZI). Gastric aspiration was assessed in a separate group of 30 LTx patients before and after AZI by measurements of pepsin and bile acid in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF). Patients "on" AZI had a significant lower total number of reflux events [41 (30-61) vs. 22.5 (7-37.5)], number of acid reflux events [24 (16-41) vs. 8 (4-18)], esophageal acid exposure [2.9% (0.7-7.3) vs. 0.2% (0.1-2.0)], bolus exposure [0.73% (0.5-1.4) vs. 0.21% (0.12-0.92)], and proximal extent of reflux [14 (9-24) vs. 5 (2-7)]. AZI reduced the concentration of bile acids in BALF without affecting levels of pepsin. LTx patients "on" AZI have less GER and bile acids aspiration. This effect might be due to enhanced esophageal motility and accelerated gastric emptying.

Effect of preoperative intravenous pantoprazole in elective-surgery patients: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the effects of intravenous pantoprazole on gastric volume and acid output in elective-surgical patients.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, randomized, pilot study of adult patients receiving intravenous pantoprazole: 40 mg every 24 h, 40 mg every 12 h (q12h) or 80 mg q12h. The first dose was administered 1 h before general anesthesia for surgery. All gastric fluid was aspirated through a nasogastric tube 1 h before dosing and through the postoperative period. Aspirate volume was recorded; pH and H(+) concentrations were measured.

RESULT

Twenty-six patients were enrolled and 21 were evaluable. Pantoprazole was well tolerated. All regimens decreased gastric acid output and volume, and increased pH within 1 h of dosing. Effects were sustained for up to 12 h following single-dose administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous pantoprazole administered prior to anesthesia induction may be efficacious for the reduction of gastric volume and acid output, and for pulmonary aspiration prophylaxis in surgical patients.

Does the use of nizatidine, as a pro-kinetic agent, improve gastric emptying in patients post-oesophagectomy?

PURPOSE

Delayed gastric emptying following oesophagectomy is common and can often lead to weight loss, malnutrition and a poor quality of life. Animal models have shown that nizatidine, a histamine H2-receptor antagonist, has pro-kinetic properties and can accelerate gastric emptying. Patients post-oesophagectomy require long-term acid suppression medication; if nizatidine can improve gastric emptying, it can be adopted for its dual pharmacological actions.

METHODOLOGY

Twenty consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled in this trial following oesophagectomy. All patients were more than 6 months post-surgery and had no evidence of recurrent cancer. A baseline nuclear medicine scan following a radiolabelled meal was conducted and then repeated after 1 week of nizatidine (150 mg bd) treatment. Quality of life and eating comfort data were collected.

RESULTS

Oesophagectomy causes a significant delay in gastric emptying. Early satiety (80%) and reflux (65%) were the most common post-operative complaints. The percentage of food remaining in the stomach at 60 min post-meal was significantly more than normal values in both the pre- and post-nizatidine studies. There is no advantage in using nizatidine as a pro-kinetic agent.

CONCLUSIONS

Impaired gastric emptying post-surgery causes a change in eating habits. Patients in this study did not lose a significant amount of weight despite all indicating worse eating comfort. Patients required more regular meals or snacks throughout the day and avoid foods that are difficult to swallow. It is likely that gastric motility only plays a small role in the emptying process and gravity combined with appropriate drainage procedures (pyloroplasty/pyloromyotomy) at the time of surgery are more important.

Nizatidine and gastric emptying in functional dyspepsia

In clinical practice, H2-receptor antagonists, including nizatidine, in addition to their use in the treatment of peptic ulcer and gastroesophageal reflux, are also useful in alleviating dyspeptic symptoms. Patients with functional dyspepsia show a tendency to delayed gastric emptying. Results of preliminary studies have demonstrated that nizatidine has a prokinetic effect due to its cholinergic properties. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of nizatidine on gastric emptying in patients with functional dyspepsia. Sixteen patients with dyspeptic symptoms referred for gastroscopy by primary care physicians were enrolled in this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind cross-over study. They received nizatidine 150 mg twice daily or placebo for 2 months. After a 1-month washout period, the 2-month treatment was repeated, with these patients acting as their own controls. Gastric emptying was measured by scintigraphy, and dyspeptic symptoms and quality of life were evaluated at the end of both treatment periods. Gastric emptying of solids during nizatidine therapy was prolonged (T1/2 110.1 +/- 76.7 vs. 65.6 +/- 23.2 min, P = 0.03), but nizatidine had no effect on gastric emptying of liquids. Nizatidine improved the symptom scores and seven of eight aspects of quality of life - but not significantly. In conclusion, nizatidine decreases the gastric emptying rate of solids without having a significant effect on symptoms or quality of life in functional dyspepsia.

The effect of intravenous pantoprazole and ranitidine for improving preoperative gastric fluid properties in adults undergoing elective surgery

We studied pantoprazole, a new potent and fast-acting proton pump inhibitor. Its effects on preoperative gastric fluid volume and pH have not yet been determined. In this randomized, controlled trial, we examined the effects of preoperative IV pantoprazole or ranitidine on gastric pH and volume. Ninety patients (ASA status I and II, scheduled for elective surgery) were studied. One hour before surgery, patients in Group I (n = 30) were given IV saline 5 mL, those in Group II (n = 30) were given 40 mg of pantoprazole IV, and those in Group III (n = 30) were given 50 mg of ranitidine IV. A nasogastric tube was inserted immediately after anesthesia induction. Gastric contents were aspirated, and volume and pH were recorded. The pH values determined in Group I were 3.73 +/- 0.82; in Group II, they were 5.30 +/- 1.84; and in Group III, they were 4.80 +/- 1.40. There was no statistical difference between Groups 2 and 3, but there was a significant difference between Group I and Groups 2 and 3 (P < 0.0005). The volume of the gastric contents was 28.67 +/- 10.98 mL in Group I, 15.20 +/- 15.52 mL in Group II, and 7.77 +/- 11.17 mL in Group III. There was no statistical difference between Groups 2 and 3, but there was a statistically significant difference between Group I and Groups 2 and 3 (P < 0.0005). The proportion of patients considered "at risk" of significant lung injury should aspiration occur was 20% of Group I, 10% of Group II, and 3.3% of Group III. When statistically evaluated, there was no difference among groups. We concluded that the administration of IV pantoprazole and ranitidine 1 h before surgery is effective in reducing gastric pH and volume.

IMPLICATIONS

This randomized, controlled trial examined the effects of preoperative IV pantoprazole or ranitidine on gastric pH and volume. We concluded that IV pantoprazole and ranitidine, given 1 h before surgery, are effective in reducing gastric pH and volume.