Novel Information Regarding the Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Helicobacter pylori infects at least 50% of the world's human population. The current study aimed to assess and compare the efficacy of triple versus quadruple therapy. METHODS: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) consisting of triple and quadruple therapy were identified through electronic and manual searches in the national and international online databases (IsI, Magiran, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus). The random-effects model was applied to pool analysis. Funnel plots and the Egger test were used to examine publication bias. RESULTS: After a detailed review of the selected articles, 80 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis; it was based on using triple and quadruple therapy as the first and second-line treatment. The results showed that quadruple therapy in the first-line treatment had a higher eradication rate than triple therapy. Overall, the eradication rate with triple therapy was 74% (95% CI, 71%-77%) for intention-totreat (ITT) analysis and 80% (95% CI, 77%-82%) for per-protocol (PP) analysis. Generally, the eradication rate with quadruple therapy was 82% (95% CI, 78.0%-86.0%) for ITT analysis and 85% (95% CI, 82.0%-89.0%) for PP analysis. The analysis also revealed that quadruple therapy was more effective for 7 or 10 days. CONCLUSION: The current study results demonstrated that quadruple therapy has better effectiveness than triple therapy as the first-line treatment; however, in the second-line treatment, the effectiveness of quadruple and triple regimens is almost similar. The effectiveness of quadruple therapy in the Asian population was found to be slightly higher than that of triple therapy, while this difference was considerably higher in the European population.

Use of over-the-scope clip (OTSC) versus standard therapy for the prevention of rebleeding in large peptic ulcers (size ≥1.5 cm): an open-labelled, multicentre international randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Over-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. METHODS: This 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). RESULTS: 100 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. CONCLUSION: The 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.

Prior oral proton-pump inhibitor use is associated with reduced severity of aspirin-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding in older people.

Low-dose aspirin is commonly used for primary or secondary prophylaxis against cardiovascular disease in older people. However, the potential risk of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) ulceration and bleeding associated with low-dose aspirin use is often not appreciated by prescribers and older consumers. Among 133 serial patients with UGI bleeding, aspirin-users aged ≥70 years had a ninefold increased likelihood of overt UGI bleeding compared with non-users, reducing by 90% in regular proton-pump inhibitor users (adjusted odds ratio 0.10). We recommend risk-versus-benefit discussions when recommending aspirin to older people.

Acute Upper Non-variceal and Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common surgical emergency requiring hospital admission and associated with high morbidity and mortality. Appropriate decision-making is essential to make a prompt diagnosis, accurate risk assessment, and proper resuscitation of patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. Despite multiple randomized trials and meta-analyses, there is still controversy on various management issues like appropriate risk stratification, the timing of endoscopy, choosing an appropriate endoscopic, and radiological intervention in these groups of patients. As the usage of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelet, and antithrombotic agents is common in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, the physician is challenged with proper management of these drugs. The present review summarizes the current strategies for risk stratification, localization of bleeding source, endoscopic and radiological intervention in patients with acute nonvariceal upper GI, middle GI, and lower GI bleeding.

Training in endotherapy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a UK-wide gastroenterology trainee survey.

INTRODUCTION: Competence in endoscopic haemostasis for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is typically expected upon completion of gastroenterology training. However, training in haemostasis is currently variable without a structured training pathway. We conducted a national gastroenterology trainee survey on haemostasis exposure and on attitudes and barriers to training. METHODS: A 24-item electronic survey was distributed to UK gastroenterology trainees covering the following domains: demographics, training setup, attitudes and barriers, confidence in managing AUGIB independently and exposure to individual haemostatic modalities (supervised and independent). Responses were analysed by region and training grade to assess potential variation in training. RESULTS: A total of 181 trainees completed the questionnaire (response rate 33.5%). There was significant variation in AUGIB training setup across the UK (p<0.001), with 22.7% of trainees declaring no access to structured or ad hoc training. 31.5% expressed confidence in managing AUGIB independently; this varied by trainee grade (0% of first-year specialty trainees (ST3s) to 60.7% of final-years (ST7s)) and by training setup (p=0.001). ST7 trainees reported lack of experience with independently applying glue (86%), Hemospray (54%), heater probe (36%) and variceal banding (36%). Overall, 88% of trainees desired additional haemostasis training and 89% indicated support for a national certification process to ensure competence in AUGIB. CONCLUSION: AUGIB training in the UK is variable. The majority of gastroenterology trainees lacked confidence in haemostasis management and desired additional training. Training provision should be urgently reviewed to ensure that trainees receive adequate haemostasis exposure and are competent by completion of training.

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.

Prevention of recurrent idiopathic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding: a double-blind, randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with a history of Helicobacter pylori-negative idiopathic bleeding ulcers have a considerable risk of recurrent ulcer complications. We hypothesised that a proton pump inhibitor (lansoprazole) is superior to a histamine 2 receptor antagonist (famotidine) for the prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding in such patients. DESIGN: In this industry-independent, double-blind, randomised trial, we recruited patients with a history of idiopathic bleeding ulcers. After ulcer healing, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive oral lansoprazole 30 mg or famotidine 40 mg daily for 24 months. The primary endpoint was recurrent upper GI bleeding within 24 months, analysed in the intention-to-treat population as determined by an independent adjudication committee. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2018, we enrolled 228 patients (114 patients in each study group). Recurrent upper GI bleeding occurred in one patient receiving lansoprazole (duodenal ulcer) and three receiving famotidine (two gastric ulcers and one duodenal ulcer). The cumulative incidence of recurrent upper GI bleeding in 24 months was 0.88% (95% CI 0.08% to 4.37%) in the lansoprazole arm and 2.63% (95% CI 0.71% to 6.91%) in the famotidine arm (p=0.313; crude HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.16, p=0.336). None of the patients who rebled used aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or other antithrombotic drugs. CONCLUSION: This 2-year, double-blind randomised trial showed that among patients with a history of H. pylori-negative idiopathic ulcer bleeding, recurrent bleeding rates were comparable between users of lansoprazole and famotidine, although a small difference in efficacy cannot be excluded. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01180179; Results.

Endoscopic Management of Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: Recent Advances.

Bleeding peptic ulcers remained as one of the commonest causes of hospitalization worldwide. While endoscopic hemostasis serves as primary treatment for bleeding ulcers, rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis becomes more and more difficult to manage as patients are usually poor surgical candidates with multiple comorbidities. Recent advances in management of bleeding peptic ulcers aimed to further reduce the rate of rebleeding through-(1) identification of high risk patients for rebleeding and mortality; (2) improvement in primary endoscopic hemostasis and; (3) prophylactic angiographic embolization of major arteries. The technique and clinical evidences for these approaches will be reviewed in the current article.

Management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: where are we in 2018?

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is one of the most common medical emergencies in the UK. Despite advancement in technology the management of AUGIB remains a challenge. The clinical community recognise the need for improvement in the treatment of these patients. AUGIB has a significant impact on resources. Endoscopic therapy is the gold standard treatment. The mortality in AUGIB is rarely related to the presenting bleed but significantly associated with concurrent comorbidities. The cost of blood transfusion in the management of patients with AUGIB is significant and misuse of blood products has been documented nationally. Risk stratification tools such as Glasgow-Blatchford Score, Rockall Score and the AIMS65 score have allowed clinicians to triage patients appropriately in order to deliver endoscopic therapy within a suitable time frame. Endoscopic therapeutic modalities such as epinephrine injection, heat thermocoagulation and mechanical clips have had a positive impact on patient's management. However, in order to continue to improve patient's outcomes, further developments are needed.

Endoscopic Management of Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: Recent Advances

Bleeding peptic ulcers remained as one of the commonest causes of hospitalization worldwide. While endoscopic hemostasis serves as primary treatment for bleeding ulcers, rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis becomes more and more difficult to manage as patients are usually poor surgical candidates with multiple comorbidities. Recent advances in management of bleeding peptic ulcers aimed to further reduce the rate of rebleeding through—(1) identification of high risk patients for rebleeding and mortality; (2) improvement in primary endoscopic hemostasis and; (3) prophylactic angiographic embolization of major arteries. The technique and clinical evidences for these approaches will be reviewed in the current article.

Guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has compiled a set of guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding using evidence-based methods. The major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. As a result, these guidelines mainly focus on peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, although bleeding from other causes is also overviewed. From the epidemiological aspect, in recent years in Japan, bleeding from drug-related ulcers has become predominant in comparison with bleeding from Helicobacter pylori (HP)-related ulcers, owing to an increase in the aging population and coverage of HP eradication therapy by national health insurance. As for treatment, endoscopic hemostasis, in which there are a variety of methods, is considered to be the first-line treatment for bleeding from almost all causes. It is very important to precisely evaluate the severity of the patient's condition and stabilize the patient's vital signs with intensive care for successful endoscopic hemostasis. Additionally, use of antisecretory agents is recommended to prevent rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, especially for gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. Eighteen statements with evidence and recommendation levels have been made by the JGES committee of these guidelines according to evidence obtained from clinical research studies. However, some of the statements that are supported by a low level of evidence must be confirmed by further clinical research.

Endoscopic treatment for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers: A randomized, controlled trial of epinephrine alone with epinephrine plus fresh frozen plasma.

BACKGROUND: Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common and potentially life-threatening emergency with substantial mortality. Fresh frozen plasma (FFP), a good source of coagulation factors, might be an ideal injection agent based on its physiologic properties. Therefore, we evaluated the role of FFP as a hemostatic agent in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From August 2015 to April 2016, 108 consecutive patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers were admitted to our university hospital. They were randomly assigned to undergo injection of epinephrine alone (A) or epinephrine plus FFP (B). The primary outcomes assessed were the initial hemostasis, recurrent bleeding, hospital stay, blood transfusion, surgery rate, and 14-day mortality. RESULTS: Initial hemostasis was achieved in 47 of 50 patients (94%) in the Group A and 49 of 50 patients (98%) in the Group B (P = 0.61). There were no significant differences in the rate of recurrent bleeding between Group A (14%) and Group B (8%) (P = 0.52). We found no significant differences between Group A and Group B with respect to the surgery rate, bleeding death, procedure-related death, and duration of hospitalization (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: It is concluded the injection of epinephrine alone was equally effective as injection of epinephrine plus FFP to endoscopic hemostasis. Epinephrine alone and epinephrine plus FFP were not different in recurrent bleeding, rate of surgery, blood transfusion, or mortality.

Upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage: an update.

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) haemorrhage is a common cause for admission to hospital and is associated with a mortality of around 10%. Prompt assessment and resuscitation are vital, as are risk stratification of the severity of bleeding, early involvement of the multidisciplinary team and timely access to endoscopy, preferably within 24 h. The majority of bleeds are due to peptic ulcers for which Helicobacter pylori and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents are the main risk factors. Although proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used before endoscopy, this is controversial. Pre-endoscopic risk stratification with the Glasgow Blatchford score is recommended as is the use of the Rockall score postendoscopy. Endoscopic therapy, with at least two haemostatic modalities, remains the mainstay of treating high-risk lesions and reduces rebleeding rates and mortality. High-dose PPI therapy after endoscopic haemostasis also reduces rebleeding rates and mortality. Variceal oesophageal haemorrhage is associated with a higher rebleeding rate and risk of death. Antibiotics and vasopressin analogues are advised in suspected variceal bleeding; however, endoscopic variceal band ligation remains the haemostatic treatment of choice. Balloon tamponade remains useful in the presence of torrential variceal haemorrhage or when endoscopy fails to secure haemostasis, and can be a bridge to further endoscopic attempts or placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. This review aims to provide an update on the latest evidence-based recommendations for the management of acute upper GI haemorrhage.

Antithrombotic drugs and non-variceal bleeding outcomes and risk scoring systems: comparison of Glasgow Blatchford, Rockall and Charlson scores.

OBJECTIVES: Antithrombotic drugs (ATDs) cause non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). Risk scoring systems have not been validated in ATD users. We compared Blatchford, Rockall and Charlson scores in predicting outcomes of NVUGIB in ATD users and controls. METHODS: A total of 2071 patients with NVUGIB were grouped into ATD users (n=851) and controls (n=1220) in a single-centre retrospective analysis. Outcomes included duration of hospital admission, the need for blood transfusion, rebleeding requiring surgery and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Duration of admission correlated with all scores in controls, but correlations were significantly weaker in ATD users. Rank correlation coefficients in control versus ATD: 0.45 vs 0.20 for Blatchford; 0.48 vs 0.32 for Rockall and 0.42 vs 0.26 for Charlson (all p<0.001). The need for transfusion was best predicted by Blatchford (p<0.001 vs Rockall and Charlson in both ATD users and controls), but all scores performed less well in ATD users. Area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUC) in control versus ATD: 0.90 vs 0.85 for Blatchford; 0.77 vs 0.61 for Rockall and 0.69 vs 0.56 for Charlson (all p<0.005). In predicting surgery, Rockall performed best; while mortality was best predicted by Charlson with lower AUCs in ATD patients than controls (p<0.05). Stratification showed the scores' performance to be age-dependent. CONCLUSIONS: Blatchford score was the strongest predictor of transfusion, Rockall's had the strongest correlation with duration of admission and with rebleeding requiring surgery and Charlson was best in predicting 30-day mortality. Modifications of these systems should be explored to improve their efficiency in ATD users.