Comparison of Over-the-Scope Clips to Standard Endoscopic Treatment as the Initial Treatment in Patients With Bleeding From a Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Cause : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Current endoscopic methods in the control of acute nonvariceal bleeding have a small but clinically significant failure rate. The role of over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) as the first treatment has not been defined. OBJECTIVE: To compare OTSCs with standard endoscopic hemostatic treatments in the control of bleeding from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal causes. DESIGN: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03216395). SETTING: University teaching hospitals in Hong Kong, China, and Australia. PATIENTS: 190 adult patients with active bleeding or a nonbleeding visible vessel from a nonvariceal cause on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. INTERVENTION: Standard hemostatic treatment (n = 97) or OTSC (n = 93). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was 30-day probability of further bleeds. Other outcomes included failure to control bleeding after assigned endoscopic treatment, recurrent bleeding after initial hemostasis, further intervention, blood transfusion, and hospitalization. RESULTS: The 30-day probability of further bleeding in the standard treatment and OTSC groups was 14.6% (14 of 97) and 3.2% (3 of 93), respectively (risk difference, 11.4 percentage points [95% CI, 3.3 to 20.0 percentage points]; P = 0.006). Failure to control bleeding after assigned endoscopic treatment in the standard treatment and OTSC groups was 6 versus 1 (risk difference, 5.1 percentage points [CI, 0.7 to 11.8 percentage points]), respectively, and 30-day recurrent bleeding was 8 versus 2 (risk difference, 6.6 percentage points [CI, -0.3 to 14.4 percentage points]), respectively. The need for further interventions was 8 versus 2, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 4 versus 2, respectively. In a post hoc analysis with a composite end point of failure to successfully apply assigned treatment and further bleeds, the event rate was 15 of 97 (15.6%) and 6 of 93 (6.5%) in the standard and OTSC groups, respectively (risk difference, 9.1 percentage points [CI, 0.004 to 18.3 percentage points]). LIMITATION: Clinicians were not blinded to treatment and the option of crossover treatment. CONCLUSION: Over-the-scope clips, as an initial treatment, may be better than standard treatment in reducing the risk for further bleeding from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal causes that are amenable to OTSC placement. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: General Research Fund to the University Grant Committee, Hong Kong SAR Government.

Misoprostol Heals Small Bowel Ulcers in Aspirin Users With Small Bowel Bleeding.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is no effective treatment for aspirin-induced small bowel ulcer bleeding. We performed a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to determine whether misoprostol can heal small bowel ulcers in patients with small bowel bleeding who require continuous aspirin therapy. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 84 aspirin users with small bowel bleeding who required continued aspirin therapy in Hong Kong and Japan. Patients with small bowel ulcers or multiple erosions, detected by capsule endoscopy, were randomly assigned to groups that received either misoprostol (200 µg, 4 times daily; n = 42) or placebo (n = 42) for 8 weeks. All patients continued taking aspirin (100 mg, once daily). The primary end point was complete ulcer healing at follow-up capsule endoscopy. Secondary end points included changes in hemoglobin level and number of ulcer/erosions from baseline. RESULTS: Complete healing of small bowel ulcers was observed in 12 patients in the misoprostol group (28.6%; 95% CI, 14.9%-42.2%) and 4 patients in the placebo group (9.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-18.4%), for a difference in proportion of 19.0% (95% CI, 2.8%-35.3%; P = .026). The misoprostol group had a significantly greater mean increase in hemoglobin than the placebo group (mean difference, 0.70 mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.05-1.36; P = .035). The reduction in medium number of ulcers or erosions was significantly greater in the misoprostol group (from 6.5 [range, 1-85] to 2 [range, 0-25]) than in the placebo group (from 7 [range, 1-29] to 4 [range, 0-19] (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we found misoprostol to be superior to placebo in promoting healing of small bowel ulcers among aspirin users complicated by small bowel ulcer bleeding who require continuous aspirin therapy. However, use of misoprostol alone would provide only limited protection against aspirin on the small bowel. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01998776.

Gastrointestinal safety of celecoxib versus naproxen in patients with cardiothrombotic diseases and arthritis after upper gastrointestinal bleeding (CONCERN): an industry-independent, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Present guidelines are conflicting for patients at high risk of both cardiovascular and gastrointestinal events who continue to require non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We hypothesised that a cyclooxygenase-2-selective NSAID plus proton-pump inhibitor is superior to a non-selective NSAID plus proton-pump inhibitor for prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding in concomitant users of aspirin with previous ulcer bleeding. METHODS: For this industry-independent, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial done in one academic hospital in Hong Kong, we screened patients with arthritis and cardiothrombotic diseases who were presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, were on NSAIDs, and require concomitant aspirin. After ulcer healing, an independent staff member randomly assigned (1:1) patients who were negative for Helicobacter pylori with a computer-generated list of random numbers to receive oral administrations of either celecoxib 100 mg twice per day plus esomeprazole 20 mg once per day or naproxen 500 mg twice per day plus esomeprazole 20 mg once per day for 18 months. All patients resumed aspirin 80 mg once per day. Both patients and investigators were masked to their treatments. The primary endpoint was recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding within 18 months. The primary endpoint and secondary safety endpoints were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153660. FINDINGS: Between May 24, 2005, and Nov 28, 2012, we enrolled 514 patients, assigning 257 patients to each study group, all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat population. Recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 14 patients in the celecoxib group (nine gastric ulcers and five duodenal ulcers) and 31 patients in the naproxen group (25 gastric ulcers, three duodenal ulcers, one gastric ulcer and duodenal ulcer, and two bleeding erosions). The cumulative incidence of recurrent bleeding in 18 months was 5·6% (95% CI 3·3-9·2) in the celecoxib group and 12·3% (8·8-17·1) in the naproxen group (p=0·008; crude hazard ratio 0·44, 95% CI 0·23-0·82; p=0·010). Excluding patients who reached study endpoints, 21 (8%) patients in the celecoxib group and 17 (7%) patients in the naproxen group had adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment. No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: In patients at high risk of both cardiovascular and gastrointestinal events who require concomitant aspirin and NSAID, celecoxib plus proton-pump inhibitor is the preferred treatment to reduce the risk of recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Naproxen should be avoided despite its perceived cardiovascular safety. FUNDING: The Research Grant Council of Hong Kong.

Prevalence, distribution, and risk factor for colonic neoplasia in 1133 subjects aged 40-49 undergoing screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence is rising among <50-year olds. The objective of this study was to determine screening colonoscopy outcomes among 40- to 49-year olds, which are currently limited. METHODS: Asymptomatic 40- to 49-year olds underwent one time CRC screening colonoscopy at The Chinese University of Hong Kong between 2007 and 2011. Screening outcomes, including prevalence, distribution, and predictive factors for overall and specifically proximal colorectal neoplasia were determined. RESULTS: Among 1133 ethnic Chinese, colorectal neoplasia prevalence was 20.5%. In men, distal adenomas were associated with proximal colorectal neoplasia. Men, advancing age, a first degree relative (FDR) with CRC, and diabetes mellitus were independently associated with colorectal neoplasia. A colorectal neoplasia was three times more likely to be found in a 45- to 49-year-old man with FDR of CRC compared with a 40- to 44-year-old woman without a FDR of CRC. The numbers needed to screen one colorectal neoplasia, and one advanced neoplasm in the highest risk group of 45- to 49-year-old men with FDR with CRC were 2.8 (95% CI: 2.2-4.4) and 18.5 (95% CI: 8.9-39.2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal neoplasia prevalence in this 40- to 49-year-old Chinese cohort was higher than previous studies. Men, advancing age, FDR with CRC, and diabetes mellitus, can be used to risk stratify for neoplasia development. Men 45-49 years old with FDR with CRC represented the highest risk subgroup, with the lowest number needed to screen.

Celecoxib versus diclofenac plus omeprazole in high-risk arthritis patients: results of a randomized double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The gastric safety of cyclooxgenase-2 inhibitors and prophylactic antisecretory therapy in high-risk arthritis patients is unclear. We studied the ulcer incidence and factors predicting ulcer recurrence in a prospective, double-blinded trial. METHODS: We studied patients who presented with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated ulcer bleeding. After ulcer healing, patients who were negative for Helicobacter pylori were randomly assigned to celecoxib 200 mg twice a day plus omeprazole placebo once daily or diclofenac 75 mg twice daily plus omeprazole 20 mg once daily for 6 months. Patients underwent endoscopy if they developed recurrent bleeding. Those without recurrent events underwent endoscopy at their last follow-up visit. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-seven patients were enrolled; 24 had recurrent gastrointestinal complications. Among 259 patients without events, 222 underwent endoscopy (116 received celecoxib and 106 received diclofenac plus omeprazole). The probability of recurrent ulcers in 6 months was 18.7% in the celecoxib group and 25.6% in the diclofenac plus omeprazole group (difference, -6.7%; 95% CI: -17.8% to 3.9%) (P = 0.21). Combining bleeding and endoscopic ulcers, 24.1% in the celecoxib group and 32.3% in the diclofenac plus omeprazole group had recurrent ulcers in 6 months (difference, -8.2%; 95% CI: -19.5% to 2.9%) (P = 0.15). Treatment-induced significant dyspepsia (hazard ratio, 5.3; 95% CI: 2.6-10.8), age > or =75 (hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% CI: 1.1-3.5), and comorbidity (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI: 1.2-3.7) independently predicted ulcer recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previous ulcer bleeding, neither celecoxib nor diclofenac plus omeprazole adequately prevents ulcer recurrence. Treatment-induced significant dyspepsia is an indication for endoscopic evaluation.

Celecoxib versus diclofenac and omeprazole in reducing the risk of recurrent ulcer bleeding in patients with arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend that patients at risk for ulcer disease who require treatment for arthritis receive nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) that are selective for cyclooxygenase-2 or the combination of a nonselective NSAID with a proton-pump inhibitor. We assessed whether celecoxib would be similar to diclofenac plus omeprazole in reducing the risk of recurrent ulcer bleeding in patients at high risk for bleeding. METHODS: We studied patients who used NSAIDs for arthritis and who presented with ulcer bleeding. After their ulcers had healed, we randomly assigned patients who were negative for Helicobacter pylori to receive either 200 mg of celecoxib twice daily plus daily placebo or 75 mg of diclofenac twice daily plus 20 mg of omeprazole daily for six months. The end point was recurrent ulcer bleeding. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, which included 287 patients (144 receiving celecoxib and 143 receiving diclofenac plus omeprazole), recurrent ulcer bleeding occurred in 7 patients receiving celecoxib and 9 receiving diclofenac plus omeprazole. The probability of recurrent bleeding during the six-month period was 4.9 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 3.1 to 6.7) for patients who received celecoxib and 6.4 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 4.3 to 8.4) for patients who received diclofenac plus omeprazole (difference, -1.5 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -6.8 to 3.8). Renal adverse events, including hypertension, peripheral edema, and renal failure, occurred in 24.3 percent of the patients receiving celecoxib and 30.8 percent of those receiving diclofenac plus omeprazole. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a recent history of ulcer bleeding, treatment with celecoxib was as effective as treatment with diclofenac plus omeprazole, with respect to the prevention of recurrent bleeding. Renal toxic effects are common in high-risk patients receiving celecoxib or diclofenac plus omeprazole.