Explore the vast range of titles available.

Guidelines for clinical practice are intended to indicate preferred approaches to medical problems as established by scientifically valid research. Double-blind, placebo-controlled studies are preferable, but compassionate use reports and expert review articles are used in a thorough review of the literature conducted through Medline with the National Library of Medicine. Only when data that will not withstand objective scrutiny are available is a recommendation identified as a consensus of experts. Guidelines are applicable to all physicians who address the subject, without regard to specialty training or interests, and are intended to indicate the preferable, but not necessarily the only, acceptable approach to a specific problem. Guidelines are intended to be flexible and must be distinguished from standards of care, which are inflexible and rarely violated. Given the wide range of specifics in any health-care problem, the physician must always choose the course best suited to the individual patient and the variables in existence at the moment of decision. These guidelines were developed under the auspices of the American College of Gastroenterology by a committee of experts in the field, reviewed by its Practice Parameters Committee, and approved by the Board of Trustees. The recommendations of these guidelines are therefore considered valid at the time of production based on the data available. New developments in medical research and practice pertinent to each guideline will be reviewed at an established time and indicated at publication to assure continued validity. Owing to the volume of new data on the subject of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related injury to the upper gastrointestinal tract, i.e., the advent of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, new data on interactions between these agents, as well as traditional NSAIDs, with aspirin and H. pylori, it was elected by the Committee to confine these guidelines to upper gastrointestinal (GI) injury and to leave post-duodenal injury as the subject of a separate guideline.

Background Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are at risk of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and acid suppressants are frequently used prophylactically. However, stress ulcer prophylaxis may increase the risk of serious adverse events and, additionally, the quantity and quality of evidence supporting the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis is low. The aim of the SUP-ICU trial is to assess the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor in adult patients in the ICU. We hypothesise that stress ulcer prophylaxis reduces the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding, but increases rates of nosocomial infections and myocardial ischaemia. The overall effect on mortality is unpredictable. Methods/design The SUP-ICU trial is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, international, multicentre, randomised, blinded, parallel-group trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor versus placebo (saline) in 3350 acutely ill ICU patients at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. The primary outcome measure is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients with clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection or myocardial ischaemia, days alive without life support in the 90-day period, serious adverse reactions, 1-year mortality, and health economic analyses. The sample size will enable us to detect a 20 % relative risk difference (5 % absolute risk difference) in 90-day mortality assuming a 25 % event rate with a risk of type I error of 5 % and power of 90 %. The trial will be externally monitored according to Good Clinical Practice standards. Interim analyses will be performed after 1650 and 2500 patients. Conclusion The SUP-ICU trial will provide high-quality data on the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor in critically ill adult patients admitted in the ICU. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02467621 .

Patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding were assigned to receive endoscopy within 6 hours or between 6 and 24 hours after gastroenterologic consultation. Mortality at 30 days was 8.9% in the former group and 6.6% in the latter group; earlier endoscopy did not lower mortality.

Peptic ulcers in patients receiving aspirin are associated with Helicobacter pylori infection. We aimed to investigate whether H pylori eradication would protect against aspirin-associated ulcer bleeding. We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Helicobacter Eradication Aspirin Trial [HEAT]) at 1208 primary care centres in the UK, using routinely collected clinical data. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older who were receiving aspirin at a daily dose of 325 mg or less (with four or more 28-day prescriptions in the past year) and had a positive C13 urea breath test for H pylori at screening. Patients receiving ulcerogenic or gastroprotective medication were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a combination of oral clarithromycin 500 mg, metronidazole 400 mg, and lansoprazole 30 mg (active eradication), or oral placebo (control), twice daily for 1 week. Participants, their general practitioners and health-care providers, and the research nurses, trial team, adjudication committee, and analysis team were all masked to group allocation throughout the trial. Follow-up was by scrutiny of electronic data in primary and secondary care. The primary outcome was time to hospitalisation or death due to definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeding, and was analysed by Cox proportional hazards methods in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2011-003425-96. Between Sept 14, 2012, and Nov 22, 2017, 30 166 patients had breath testing for H pylori, 5367 had a positive result, and 5352 were randomly assigned to receive active eradication (n=2677) or placebo (n=2675) and were followed up for a median of 5·0 years (IQR 3·9–6·4). Analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant departure from proportional hazards assumptions (p=0·0068), requiring analysis over separate time periods. There was a significant reduction in incidence of the primary outcome in the active eradication group in the first 2·5 years of follow-up compared with the control group (six episodes adjudicated as definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeds, rate 0·92 [95% CI 0·41–2·04] per 1000 person-years vs 17 episodes, rate 2·61 [1·62–4·19] per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] 0·35 [95% CI 0·14–0·89]; p=0·028). This advantage remained significant after adjusting for the competing risk of death (p=0·028) but was lost with longer follow-up (HR 1·31 [95% CI 0·55–3·11] in the period after the first 2·5 years; p=0·54). Reports of adverse events were actively solicited; taste disturbance was the most common event (787 patients). H pylori eradication protects against aspirin-associated peptic ulcer bleeding, but this might not be sustained in the long term. National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment.

IntroductionOver-the-scope clip (OTSC) has been used recently for primary haemostasis of peptic ulcers. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of OTSC to standard endoscopic therapy in primary treatment of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding that are of size ≥1.5 cm. The target population accounts for only 2.5% of all upper GI bleeders.MethodsThis was a multicentre international randomised controlled trial from July 2017 to October 2020. All patients with Forest IIa or above peptic ulcers of ≥1.5 cm were included. Primary outcome was 30-day clinical rebleeding. Secondary endpoints include 3-day all-cause mortality, transfusion requirement, hospital stay, technical and clinical success, and further interventions. 100 patients are needed to yield a power of 80% to detect a difference of −0.15 at the 0.05 significance level (alpha) using a two-sided Z-test (pooled).Results100 patients were recruited. Success in achieving primary haemostasis was achieved in 46/50 (92%) and 48/50 (96%) in the OTSC and conventional arm, respectively. Among patients who had success in primary haemostasis, 2/46 (4.35%) patients in the OTSC arm and 9/48 (18.75%) patients in the conventional arm developed 30-day rebleeding (p=0.03). However, in an intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference in rebleeding within 30 days (5/50 (10%) OTSC vs 9/50 (18%) standard, p=0.23) or all-cause mortality (2/50 (4%) OTSC vs 4/50 (8%) standard, p=0.68; OR=2.09, 95% CI 0.37 to 11.95). There was also no difference in transfusion requirement, hospital stay, intensive care unit admission and further interventions.ConclusionThe routine use of OTSC as primary haemostasis in large bleeding peptic ulcers was not associated with a significant decrease in 30-day rebleeding.Trial registration number NCT03160911.

Endoscopic treatment is effective for bleeding peptic ulcers, but bleeding recurs in 15 to 20 percent of patients. The mortality rate in these patients is high. In vitro studies have shown that a high intragastric pH could facilitate platelet aggregation. 1 Thus, inhibition of gastric acid to maintain a neutral pH should stabilize clots and prevent recurrent bleeding. However, the role of acid suppression in the management of bleeding peptic ulcers, particularly after endoscopic treatment, remains unclear. Evidence of the effectiveness of histamine H 2 –receptor antagonists in bleeding peptic ulcers is conflicting. In a meta-analysis of 27 randomized trials, Collins . . .

The use of low-dose aspirin as prophylaxis against cardiac events or stroke and the presence of Helicobacter pylori infection are both risk factors for upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding from ulcers. In this study, patients taking low-dose aspirin who had both bleeding from ulcers and H. pylori infection had the latter eradicated and were then randomly assigned to receive lansoprazole (62 patients) or placebo (61 patients) and were followed for a median of 12 months while the low-dose aspirin treatment was continued. There was one recurrence of ulcer complications in the lansoprazole group and nine in the placebo group (P=0.008). After the eradication of H. pylori infection, low-dose aspirin therapy can be continued more safely if lansoprazole is added to the therapeutic regimen. The efficacy of low-dose aspirin (less than 325 mg daily) in the prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases is well established. 1 Patients who are taking low-dose aspirin, however, have an increased risk of ulcer complications, 2 and some of these patients should be given prophylactic treatment. One of the available options for preventing these ulcer complications is the simultaneous use of proton-pump inhibitors, which reduce gastric acidity substantially. In a recent epidemiologic study, the use of a proton-pump inhibitor was found to be associated with a decrease of 80 percent in the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in subjects taking low-dose aspirin. . . .

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, as a component of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy.DesignA randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group study was conducted to verify the non-inferiority of vonoprazan 20 mg to lansoprazole 30 mg as part of first-line triple therapy (with amoxicillin 750 mg and clarithromycin 200 or 400 mg) in H pylori-positive patients with gastric or duodenal ulcer history. The first 50 patients failing first-line therapy with good compliance also received second-line vonoprazan-based triple therapy (with amoxicillin 750 mg and metronidazole 250 mg) as an open-label treatment.ResultsOf the 650 subjects randomly allocated to either first-line triple therapy, 641 subjects completed first-line therapy and 50 subjects completed second-line therapy. The first-line eradication rate (primary end point) was 92.6% (95% CI 89.2% to 95.2%) with vonoprazan versus 75.9% (95% CI 70.9% to 80.5%) with lansoprazole, with the difference being 16.7% (95% CI 11.2% to 22.1%) in favour of vonoprazan, thus confirming the non-inferiority of vonoprazan (p<0.0001). The second-line eradication rate (secondary end point) was also high (98.0%; 95% CI 89.4% to 99.9%) in those who received second-line therapy (n=50). Both first-line triple therapies were well tolerated with no notable differences. Second-line triple therapy was also well tolerated.ConclusionVonoprazan is effective as part of first-line triple therapy and as part of second-line triple therapy in H pylori-positive patients with a history of gastric or duodenal ulcer.Trial registration numberNCT01505127.

The rapidly declining prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and widespread use of potent anti-secretory drugs means peptic ulcer disease has become substantially less prevalent than it was two decades ago. Management has, however, become more challenging than ever because of the threat of increasing antimicrobial resistance worldwide and widespread use of complex anti-thrombotic therapy in the ageing population. Peptic ulcers not associated with H pylori infection or the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are now also imposing substantial diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. This Seminar aims to provide a balanced overview of the latest advances in the pathogenetic mechanisms of peptic ulcers, guidelines on therapies targeting H pylori infection, approaches to treatment of peptic ulcer complications associated with anti-inflammatory analgesics and anti-thrombotic agents, and the unmet needs in terms of our knowledge and management of this increasingly challenging condition.

Our aims were to assess risks of early rebleeding after successful endoscopic hemostasis for Forrest oozing (FIB) peptic ulcer bleeding (PUBs) compared with other stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH). These were post hoc multivariable analyses of a large, international, double-blind study (NCT00251979) of patients randomized to high-dose intravenous (IV) esomeprazole (PPI) or placebo for 72 h. Rebleeding rates of patients with PUB SRH treated with either PPI or placebo after successful endoscopic hemostasis were also compared. For patients treated with placebo for 72 h after successful endoscopic hemostasis, rebleed rates by SRH were spurting arterial bleeding (FIA) 22.5%, adherent clot (FIIB) 17.6%, non-bleeding visible vessel (FIIA) 11.3%, and oozing bleeding (FIB) 4.9%. Compared with FIB patients, FIA, FIIB, and FIIA had significantly greater risks of rebleeding with odds ratios (95% CI's) from 2.61 (1.05, 6.52) for FIIA to 6.66 (2.19, 20.26) for FIA. After hemostasis, PUB rebleeding rates for FIB patients at 72 h were similar with esomeprazole (5.4%) and placebo (4.9%), whereas rebleed rates for all other major SRH (FIA, FIIA, FIIB) were lower for PPI than placebo, but the treatment by SRH interaction test was not statistically significant. After successful endoscopic hemostasis, FIB patients had very low PUB rebleeding rates irrespective of PPI or placebo treatment. This implies that after successful endoscopic hemostasis the prognostic classification of FIB ulcers as a high-risk SRH and the recommendation to treat these with high-dose IV PPI's should be re-evaluated.