Does profound acid inhibition improve haemostasis in peptic ulcer bleeding?

Comparison of Vonoprazan Versus Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitor for Prevention of High-Risk Peptic Ulcers Rebleeding After Successful Endoscopic Hemostasis: A Multicenter Randomized Noninferiority Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

High-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy has been recommended to prevent rebleeding of high-risk peptic ulcer (PU) after hemostasis. Vonoprazan has been proven to be noninferior to PPIs in various acid-related diseases. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of vonoprazan vs PPI for preventing high-risk PU rebleeding after hemostasis.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, noninferiority study was conducted in 6 centers. Pre-endoscopic and endoscopic therapy were performed according to standard protocol. After successful hemostasis, patients with high-risk PU bleeding (Forrest class Ia/Ib, IIa/IIb) were randomized into 1:1 to receive vonoprazan (20 mg twice a day for 3 days, then 20 mg once a day for 28 days) or high-dose PPI (pantoprazole intravenous infusion 8 mg/h for 3 days, then omeprazole 20 mg twice a day for 28 days). The primary outcome was a 30-day rebleeding rate. Secondary outcomes included 3- and 7-day rebleeding rate, all-cause and bleeding-related mortality, rate of rescue therapy, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, and safety.

RESULTS

Of 194 patients, baseline characteristics, severity of bleeding, and stage of ulcers were comparable between the 2 groups. The 30-day rebleeding rates in vonoprazan and PPI groups were 7.1% (7 of 98) and 10.4% (10 of 96), respectively; noninferiority (within 10% margin) of vonoprazan to PPI was confirmed (%risk difference, -3.3; 95% confidence interval, -11.2 to 4.7; P < .001). The 3-day and 7-day rebleeding rates in the vonoprazan group remained noninferior to PPI (P < .001 by Farrington and Manning test). All secondary outcomes were also comparable between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with high-risk PU bleeding, the efficacy of vonoprazan in preventing 30-day rebleeding was noninferior to intravenous PPI. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT05005910).

Proton pump inhibitors: use and misuse in the clinical setting

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) into clinical practice has greatly improved our therapeutic approach to acid-related diseases for their efficacy and safety. Areas Covered: The following evidence-based indications for PPI use are acknowledged by many scientific societies: treatment of the various forms and complications of gastroesophageal reflux disease, eradication of H. pylori infection in combination with two or more antibiotics, short- and long-term therapy of H. pylori-negative peptic ulcers, healing, and prevention of NSAID/COXIB-associated gastric ulcers, co-therapy with endoscopic procedures to control upper digestive bleeding and medical treatment of Zollinger Ellison syndrome. Expert Commentary: Despite the above well-defined indications, however, the use of PPIs continues to grow every year in both western and eastern countries and the endless expansion of the PPI market has created important problems for many regulatory authorities for two relevant features: the progressive increase of the costs of therapy and the greater potential harms for the patients. The major reasons for the misuse of PPIs are the prevention of gastro-duodenal ulcers in patients without risk factors and the stress ulcer prophylaxis in non-intensive care units, steroid therapy alone, anti-platelet or anti-coagulant treatment in patients without risk of gastric injury and the overtreatment of functional dyspepsia.

Appropriateness in prescribing PPIs: A position paper of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE) - Study section "Digestive Diseases in Primary Care"

The introduction of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) into clinical practice about thirty years ago has greatly improved our therapeutic approach to acid-related diseases for their well-recognized efficacy and safety. Despite the well-defined indications, however, the use of PPIs continues to grow every year in both western and eastern countries and this phenomenon poses serious queries that include the onset of potential adverse effects and the increase in health care costs. The major reason explaining this worrying market expansion is the inappropriate use of PPIs. In order to re-establish a correct use of these effective drugs in daily clinical practice, the Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), nominated a panel of experts who reviewed the available clinical literature and produced a series of updated position statements on the use of PPIs in clinical practice.

Effective and safe proton pump inhibitor therapy in acid-related diseases - A position paper addressing benefits and potential harms of acid suppression

BACKGROUND

The introduction of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) into clinical practice has revolutionized the management of acid-related diseases. Studies in primary care and emergency settings suggest that PPIs are frequently prescribed for inappropriate indications or for indications where their use offers little benefit. Inappropriate PPI use is a matter of great concern, especially in the elderly, who are often affected by multiple comorbidities and are taking multiple medications, and are thus at an increased risk of long-term PPI-related adverse outcomes as well as drug-to-drug interactions. Herein, we aim to review the current literature on PPI use and develop a position paper addressing the benefits and potential harms of acid suppression with the purpose of providing evidence-based guidelines on the appropriate use of these medications.

METHODS

The topics, identified by a Scientific Committee, were assigned to experts selected by three Italian Scientific Societies, who independently performed a systematic search of the relevant literature using Medline/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane databases. Search outputs were distilled, paying more attention to systematic reviews and meta-analyses (where available) representing the best evidence. The draft prepared on each topic was circulated amongst all the members of the Scientific Committee. Each expert then provided her/his input to the writing, suggesting changes and the inclusion of new material and/or additional relevant references. The global recommendations were then thoroughly discussed in a specific meeting, refined with regard to both content and wording, and approved to obtain a summary of current evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-five years after their introduction into clinical practice, PPIs remain the mainstay of the treatment of acid-related diseases, where their use in gastroesophageal reflux disease, eosinophilic esophagitis, Helicobacter pylori infection, peptic ulcer disease and bleeding as well as, and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome is appropriate. Prevention of gastroduodenal mucosal lesions (and symptoms) in patients taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or antiplatelet therapies and carrying gastrointestinal risk factors also represents an appropriate indication. On the contrary, steroid use does not need any gastroprotection, unless combined with NSAID therapy. In dyspeptic patients with persisting symptoms, despite successful H. pylori eradication, short-term PPI treatment could be attempted. Finally, addition of PPIs to pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in patients with refractory steatorrhea may be worthwhile.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, PPIs are irreplaceable drugs in the management of acid-related diseases. However, PPI treatment, as any kind of drug therapy, is not without risk of adverse effects. The overall benefits of therapy and improvement in quality of life significantly outweigh potential harms in most patients, but those without clear clinical indication are only exposed to the risks of PPI prescription. Adhering with evidence-based guidelines represents the only rational approach to effective and safe PPI therapy. Please see related Commentary: doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0724-1 .

Comparison of different regimens of proton pump inhibitors for acute peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) improves clinical outcomes in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. However, the optimal dose and route of administration of PPIs remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of different regimens of PPIs in the management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding using evidence from direct comparison randomized controlled trials (RCTs).We specifically intended to assess the differential effect of the dose and route of administration of PPI on mortality, rebleeding, surgical intervention, further endoscopic haemostatic treatment (EHT), length of hospital stay, transfusion requirements and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE and EMBASE (from inception to September 2010) and proceedings of major gastroenterology meetings (January 2000 to September 2010), without language restrictions. Original investigators were contacted to request missing data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared at least two different regimens of the same or a different PPI in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding, diagnosed endoscopically.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized data using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method and performed multivariate meta-regression with random permutations based on Monte Carlo simulation. We measured heterogeneity with the I² statistic and Cochrane Q test and assessed publication bias with funnel plots and Egger's test. We graded the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty two RCTs were included; risk of bias was high in 17 and unclear in 5. The main analysis included 13 studies (1716 patients) comparing "high" dose regimens (72-hour cumulative dose > 600 mg of intravenous PPI) to other doses; there was no significant heterogeneity for any clinical outcome. We found low quality evidence that did not exclude a potential reduction or increase in mortality, rebleeding, surgical interventions or endoscopic haemostatic treatment (EHT) with "high" dose regimens. For mortality, pooled risk ratio (RR) was 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.54); pooled risk difference (RD) was 0 more deaths per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 1 fewer to 2 more deaths per 100 treated). For rebleeding, pooled RR was 1.27 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.67); pooled RD was 2 more rebleeding events per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 0 fewer to 5 more rebleeding events per 100 treated). For surgical interventions, pooled RR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.63 to 2.77); pooled RD was 1 more surgical intervention per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 1 fewer to 2 more surgical interventions per 100 treated). For further EHT, pooled RR was 1.39 (95% CI 0.88 to 2.18), pooled RD was 2 more events per 100 patients treated with "high" dose PPI (95% CI from 1 fewer to 5 more events per 100 treated). We found moderate quality evidence suggesting no important difference between the two regimens with regards to length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.26 days; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.6 days) or blood transfusion requirements (MD 0.05 units; 95% CI -0.21 to 0.3 units). There was visual and statistical evidence of "inverse" publication bias for mortality (missing small studies with favourable outcomes for "high" dose), but not for any other outcome. The results were similar for all subgroup analyses (according to risk of bias, geographical location, route of administration for non-"high" dose regimens, continuous infusion vs. bolus administration for intravenous non-"high" regimens group), sensitivity analyses (restriction to patients who had EHT for high risk stigmata, use of different dose thresholds for comparative regimens) and post hoc analyses (inclusion of all studies (N = 22) that compared at least two PPI regimens with different cumulative 72 hour doses; restriction of the previous analysis to patients who had EHT for high risk stigmata). Meta-regression analysis did not show any statistically significant associations between treatment effect (for the outcomes of mortality, rebleeding and surgical intervention) and the three study-level factors that were assessed (geographical location (Asia versus not Asia), route of PPI administration (intravenous versus oral), within-study ratio among the 72-hour cumulative doses of the two PPI regimens).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence for concluding superiority, inferiority or equivalence of high dose PPI treatment over lower doses in peptic ulcer bleeding.

Pantoprazole before Endoscopy in Patients with Gastroduodenal Ulcer Bleeding: Does the duration of Infusion and Ulcer Location Influence the Effects?

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of preemptive pantoprazole infusion on early endoscopic findings in patients with acute ulcer bleeding. Records of 333 patients admitted with acute ulcer bleeding were analyzed. Ulcer bleeders were given either 80 mg bolus of pantoprazole followed by continuous infusion of 8 mg per hour or saline infusion until endoscopy. In 93 patients saline infusion whereas in 240 patients bolus plus infusion of pantoprazole was administrated with mean (±SD) durations of 5.45 ± 12.9 hours and 6.9 ± 13.2 hours, respectively (P = 0.29). Actively bleeding ulcers were detected in 46/240 (19.2%) of cases in the pantoprazole group as compared with 23/93 (24.7%) in the saline infusion group (P = 0.26). Different durations of pantoprazole infusion (0–4 hours, >4 hours, and >6 hours) had no significant effect on endoscopic and clinical outcome parameters in duodenal ulcer bleeders. Gastric ulcer bleeders on pantoprazole infusion longer than 4 and 6 hours before endoscopy had actively bleeding ulcers in 4.3% and 5% compared to the 19.5% active bleeding rate in the saline group (P = 0.02 and P = 0.04). Preemptive infusion of high-dose pantoprazole longer than 4 hours before endoscopy decreased the ratio of active bleeding only in gastric but not in duodenal ulcer patients.

Pantoprazole for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding and prevention of rebleeding

Adding proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to endoscopic therapy has become the mainstay of treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding, with current consensus guidelines recommending high-dose intravenous (IV) PPI therapy (IV bolus followed by continuous therapy). However, whether or not high-dose PPI therapy is more effective than low-dose PPI therapy is still debated. Furthermore, maintaining pH ≥ 4 appears to prevent mucosal bleeding in patients with acute stress ulcers; thus, stress ulcer prophylaxis with acid-suppressing therapy has been increasingly recommended in intensive care units (ICUs). This review evaluates the evidence for the efficacy of IV pantoprazole, a PPI, in preventing ulcer rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, and in controlling gastric pH and protecting against upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in high-risk ICU patients. The review concludes that IV pantoprazole provides an effective option in the treatment of upper GI bleeding, the prevention of rebleeding, and for the prophylaxis of acute bleeding stress ulcers.

The pharmacological therapy of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

The modern management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding includes, in selected patients, the performance of timely multimodal endoscopic hemostasis followed by profound acid suppression. This article discusses the available data on the use of antisecretory regimens in the management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, which are a major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and briefly addresses other medications used in this acute setting. The most important clinically relevant data are presented, favoring fully published articles.

Management of Αcute Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Drugs, Endoscopic Hemostasis, or Both?

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains one of the most frequent and emergent conditions in everyday clinical practice and a challenge for doctors. Peptic ulcer is responsible for more than half of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and is the most frequent cause of serious non-variceal bleeding. Despite progress in diagnosis and management in these patients, the recurrence of bleeding remains an important problem. Several drugs and endoscopic techniques, alone or in combination, have been evaluated in many studies and there is presently enough experience in terms of their efficacy. Endoscopic hemostasis is more effective than any other therapeutic intervention in the treatment of patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. In patients with high risk of rebleeding spots, the combination of endoscopic hemostasis with high dose proton pump inhibitors is the most effective strategy to reduce bleeding recurrences and the need for surgery.

Intravenous proton pump inhibition utilization and prescribing patterns escalation: a comparison between early and current trends in use

BACKGROUND

Approved indications of intravenous (i.v.) proton pump inhibition (PPI) are limited to treatment of reflux esophagitis in patients unable to tolerate oral medications and for patients with pathologic hypersecretory states.

OBJECTIVES

i.v. PPIs are commonly used after endoscopic evaluation of patients with high-risk endoscopic stigmata (HRES) of nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (NVUGIB). There appears to have been an expansion of indications of this drug at many centers.

DESIGN

All consecutive patients receiving i.v. PPI (pantoprazole) between 2 study periods, (1) when pantoprazole was restricted to the gastroenterology service and (2) when it was unrestricted, were reviewed.

SETTING

Tertiary care university hospital.

PATIENTS

All receiving i.v. PPI.

INTERVENTIONS

i.v. PPI utilization.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Percentage of patients receiving i.v. PPI for indications other than bleeding during 2 time periods.

RESULTS

In the early period, 217 patients (67.30% male) received i.v. PPI on 218 occasions compared with 516 patients (65.31% male, P= .61) in the later period on 613 occasions. In the early group, 93.12% of 217 patients received i.v. PPI for NVUGIB compared with 56.12% of 516 patients (P< .0001) with 18% of patients receiving i.v. PPI for nothing by mouth status and 13% for abdominal pain in the later group. A total of 153 (70.18%) patients in the early group underwent upper endoscopy compared with only 275 (44.86%) patients in the later group; 84 of these 153 patients (54.90%) were already on i.v. PPI at the time of endoscopy in the early group compared with 253 (92.00%, P< .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

i.v. PPI use has escalated at our hospital and is being prescribed in patients before endoscopy with fewer patients noted to have HRES on endoscopy.

Review article: the opportunities and benefits of extended acid suppression

Acid suppression therapy with proton pump inhibitors is associated with well-established benefits in the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux (GERD) and other acid-related disorders. However, a number of issues still remain unsettled. Despite their clinical efficacy, when given once daily, currently available proton pump inhibitors may not adequately control intragastric acidity during the night in a significant proportion of both healthy subjects and GERD patients, in whom symptom relief remains suboptimal. Although some novel proton pump inhibitors have been synthesized, only few reached clinical testing. Amongst them, tenatoprazole represents a true advance displaying a long half-life (five to seven times longer than that of currently available drugs) and extended acid suppression covering both day and night. All the available clinical studies suggest both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic advantages of tenatoprazole over esomeprazole. As this last compound provides - amongst the members of the class - the most effective control of intragastric pH whatever the parameter considered, it is conceivable that tenatoprazole could similarly be better than the other existing proton pump inhibitors. Tenatoprazole appears to be a promising proton pump inhibitor for the treatment of acid-related diseases, where it has the potential to address unmet clinical needs.

Review article: acid-related disease--what are the unmet clinical needs?

Proton pump inhibitors have dramatically improved the management options available for patients with acid-related disorders. In patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, currently available proton pump inhibitors provide an excellent outcome for the majority; however, they do not provide optimal pH control in many. Proton pump inhibitors co-therapy reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk of gastrointestinal ulcers and complications in patients taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, while in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, it may be difficult to reach and maintain the current therapeutic target of intragastric pH of 6-7. This article reviews the effectiveness of current antisecretory therapy in these three acid-related diseases and areas of unmet clinical need. The potential role of a proton pump inhibitor with an extended duration of action and enhanced acid control from a single daily dose, particularly improved control at night, is discussed. Finally, therapy that could be administered without regard to time of day and/or food intake would offer dosing flexibility and thus have a positive effect on patients' compliance.

Somatostatin inhibits gastric acid secretion more effectively than pantoprazole in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Gastric acid inhibition is beneficial in the management of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). The aim of this double-blind study was to test whether somatostatin (SST) increases intragastric pH in PUB as compared with pantoprazole (PAN) and placebo (PLA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eligible patients were randomized to receive SST (500 microg/h+250 microg bolus), or PAN (8 mg/h+80 mg bolus) or PLA (normal saline) i.v., for 24 h. All patients underwent gastric pH monitoring during the infusion of the trial drugs.

RESULTS

The three groups (SST, n=14; PAN, n=14; PLA, n=15) were comparable for age, gender, aetiology of PUB and laboratory data at admission. Mean (+/-SE) baseline pH levels in the fundus increased during the administration of the trial drugs (SST: 1.94+/-0.18 to 6.13+/-0.37, p<0.0001; PAN: 1.93+/-0.16 to 5.65+/-0.37, p<0.0001; PLA: 1.86+/-0.12 to 2.10+/-0.15, p=0.0917). During the first 12 h of infusion, the mean (+/-SE) percentage time spent above pH 4.0 and 5.4 was higher with SST versus PAN (84.4%+/-4.8 versus 55.1%+/-8.3, p=0.0049 and 74.2%+/-6.5 versus 47.1%+/-8.3, p=0.0163, respectively) and there was a trend favouring the SST group regarding the time spent above pH 6.0 and 6.8 (65.7%+/-6.4 versus 43.3%+/-8.2, p=0.0669 and 49.2%+/-7.7 versus 28.4+/-6.6, p=0.0738, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In PUB, both SST and PAN inhibit gastric acid secretion as compared with placebo. However, during the first 12 h of the infusion, SST was more effective than PAN in maintaining high intragastric pH. These results may provide a rationale for the administration of SST in PUB.

The cost-effectiveness of high-dose oral proton pump inhibition after endoscopy in the acute treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest a role for high-dose oral proton pump inhibition in ulcer bleeding.

AIM

To compare the cost-effectiveness of oral high-dose proton pump inhibition to both high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibition and placebo administration.

METHODS

The model adopted a 30-day time horizon, and focused on patients with ulcer haemorrhage initially treated endoscopically for high-risk stigmata. Re-bleeding rates were set a priori based on non-head-to-head data from the literature, and charges and lengths of stay from a national American database. Sensitivity analyses were carried across a broad range of clinically relevant assumptions.

RESULTS

Re-bleeding rates for patients receiving intravenous, oral, or placebo therapies were 5.9%, 11.8%, and 27%, respectively. The mean lengths of stay and costs for admitted patients with and without re-bleeding were 4.7 and 3 days; $11,802, and $7993, respectively. High-dose intravenous proton pump inhibition was more effective and less costly (dominant) than high-dose oral proton pump inhibition with incremental savings of $136.40 per patient treated. The oral high-dose strategy in turn dominated placebo administration. Results remained robust according to one- and two-way sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing endoscopic haemostasis, subsequent high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibition is more cost-effective than high-dose oral proton pump inhibition, which in turn dominates placebo. The results from this exploratory-type cost analysis require confirmation by head-to-head prospective trials performed in Western populations.

Intragastric pH during continuous infusion with pantoprazole in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer

OBJECTIVES

In managing patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, prevention of rebleeding is a particular challenge to hemostasis and fibrinolysis, both of which involve reactions that are impaired in acidic gastric environment. Therefore, such patients are expected to benefit from profound acid suppression. The present investigation aimed to establish a safe and, with regard to pH elevation, effective treatment that, based on in vitro evidence, should provide clinical benefit in this patient population.

METHODS

Patients with acute bleeding peptic ulcers (Forrest Ia, Ib, IIa) after successful endoscopic hemostasis were enrolled in two pilot studies (N = 20 each). They were given an intravenous bolus injection of 80 mg of pantoprazole immediately followed by continuous infusion of either 6 mg/h or 8 mg/h pantoprazole for 72 h. Intragastric pH was measured continuously over 24 h and, if possible, for up to 48 h.

RESULTS

Intragastric pH increased rapidly to values of about 6 with both treatments. For the 0-24 h period, the median pH values were 6.1 (68% range 4.5-7.4) and 6.1 (68% range 5.2-6.7) in patients receiving 6 mg/h and 8 mg/h continuous infusion, respectively; the values for the 0-48 h period were 5.9 (4.9-6.7) and 6.3 (5.5-7.0), respectively. The median percentage time that pH was > or =6 during the 0-48 h interval was 47% (68% range 28-89) for the 6 mg/h treatment group and 64% (68% range 41-84) for the 8 mg/h treatment group. Both treatment regimens with pantoprazole were well tolerated based on electrocardiographic measurements, vital signs, clinical laboratory values, and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the infusion with 6 mg/h pantoprazole, the continuous infusion of 8 mg/h pantoprazole showed a lower interindividual variability of the intragastric pH and a greater percentage of time that pH was >/ or =6. Thus, with regard to safety and efficacy, an initial 80-mg bolus injection, followed by 8 mg/h continuous infusion, seems to be the adequate treatment in patients with a high risk of rebleeding.

Cost implications of administering intravenous proton pump inhibitors to all patients presenting to the emergency department with peptic ulcer bleeding

OBJECTIVES

Administering proton pump inhibitors (PPI) intravenously (iv) after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers reduces the incidence of rebleeding, the need for operative procedures, and hospitalizations. We assessed the cost implications of iv PPI initiated in all patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with signs of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding.

METHODS

From a third-party payer perspective with a time horizon of 60 days, we built a decision analytic model comparing standard endoscopic therapy to a strategy in which all patients presenting to the ED with UGI bleeding would start iv PPI before endoscopy. After endoscopy, only those with peptic ulcers would be kept on iv PPI added to standard therapy. Probabilities of health events were extracted from published literature. Resource utilization profiles and costs (iv PPI, hospital stay for medical and operative procedures, and professional fees) were based on Medicare reimbursement data from a large hospital in Alabama. All costs were expressed in 2000 US dollars. Uncertainty was investigated through one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic analyses using Monte Carlo simulations.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical group of 1000 individuals, routine use of iv PPI prevented 40 rebleeds, 9 surgical procedures, and 223 hospital days, and led to incremental savings of dollars 920 per subject. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that the strategy of using iv PPI was likely to be dominant even when accounting for uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on available evidence, routine administration of iv PPI to all persons presenting with UGI bleeding represents good value for money and merits consideration as standard hospital policy.

Effect of oral omeprazole in reducing re-bleeding in bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective, double-blind, randomized, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapies and continuous intravenous omeprazole can decrease the morbidity and duration of hospital stay of patients with high-risk peptic ulcer.

AIM

To evaluate the role of oral omeprazole in high-risk bleeders.

METHODS

After injection therapy of 160 patients with high-risk peptic ulcer, 80 received oral omeprazole and 80 received placebo, and all were followed up.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-nine patients (71 omeprazole and 78 placebo) completed the study. Eleven patients were excluded from the study. Thirty-seven (25%) patients had gastric ulcer and 112 (75%) had duodenal ulcer. Fifty-seven (38%) ulcers showed visible vessels, 80 (54%) showed oozing of blood and 12 (8%) showed a spurting artery. Only one patient died (placebo group). The mean hospital stays were 62.8 +/- 28.6 h and 75 +/- 39 h in the omeprazole and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.032). The mean amounts of blood transfused were 1.13 +/- 1.36 and 1.68 +/- 1.68 bags in the omeprazole and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.029). The re-bleeding rate was lower in the omeprazole group than in the placebo group (12 vs. 26, respectively; P = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Oral omeprazole is effective in decreasing the hospital stay, re-bleeding rate and the need for blood transfusion in high-risk ulcer bleeders treated with endoscopic injection therapy.

Proton-pump inhibitors for acute peptic ulcer bleeding

OBJECTIVE

To review the use of proton-pump inhibitors for acute peptic ulcer bleeding.

DATA SOURCES

Articles were obtained through computerized searches of MEDLINE (1966-September 2000). Additionally, several textbooks containing information on the diagnosis and management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding were reviewed. The bibliographies of retrieved publications and textbooks were reviewed for additional references.

STUDY SELECTION

All randomized studies and pharmacoeconomic evaluations that used proton-pump inhibitor therapy for acute peptic ulcer bleeding were included. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses involving other therapies for treating peptic ulcer bleeding were also reviewed for possible inclusion.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary outcomes extracted from the literature were persistent or recurrent bleeding, transfusion requirements, need for endoscopic intervention or surgery, length of stay, and mortality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Data from double-blind, placebo-controlled trials involving more than 1000 patients demonstrate that short-term, high-dose omeprazole therapy is effective for reducing bleeding and transfusion requirements in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding. The patients most likely to benefit from this therapy are hospitalized patients at high risk for rebleeding and patients in whom endoscopic evaluation must be delayed or is unavailable.

CONCLUSIONS

Omeprazole (and likely other proton-pump inhibitors) is useful in reducing bleeding and transfusion requirements in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding, although better delineation of appropriate candidates is needed.

Review article: acid suppression in non-variceal acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Despite a decreased incidence of ulcer disease and improvements in the management of acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, mortality remains at about 6-7%. Although endoscopic haemostatic therapy has been demonstrated to be the mainstay of management, the search continues for less invasive medical modalities that might also improve patient outcome. In vitro data have indicated the important role of acid in impairing haemostasis and causing clot digestion. Therefore, theoretically, maintenance of a high intragastric pH (above 6.0) during management of upper GI bleeding is warranted. Until recently, available agents did not permit such a sustained elevation in gastric pH. Early studies with H2-receptor antagonists have not demonstrated significant improvements in important patient outcomes, such as rebleeding, surgery or mortality. With the availability of intravenous formulations of proton pump inhibitors, it is now possible to aim at maintaining gastric pH above 6.0 for 24 h per day. Recent clinical trial data would appear to support the use of proton pump inhibitors to decrease the rate of rebleeding and the need for surgery. This paper provides a review of non-variceal acute GI bleeding, with special reference to the role of proton pump inhibitors in this clinical setting.