ReviewPharmacoEconomics2014
Use of proton pump inhibitors for the provision of stress ulcer prophylaxis: clinical and economic consequences.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of pantoprazole vs. placebo on 1-year outcomes, resource use and employment status in ICU patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding: a secondary analysis of the SUP-ICU trial.Intensive care medicine · 2022Trial
- Appropriateness and inappropriate medication predictors of stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Assessment of adherence to the national stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines: A cross-sectional analysis.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023Article
- Impact of proton pump inhibitors on the in-hospital outcome of COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Complications and Pharmacologic Interventions of Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation During Critical Illness.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2018Review
- The impact of pharmaceutical interventions on the rational use of proton pump inhibitors in a Chinese hospital.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- Guidelines for proton pump inhibitor prescriptions in paediatric intensive care unit.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2017Observational
- Article
- Primum non nocere and challenging conventional treatment.Intensive care medicine · 2015Article
- Stress-related mucosal disease in the critically ill patient.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2015Review
- Evaluation of costs accrued through inadvertent continuation of hospital-initiated proton pump inhibitor therapy for stress ulcer prophylaxis beyond hospital discharge: a retrospective chart review.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The provision of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) for the prevention of clinically significant bleeding is widely recognized as a crucial component of care in critically ill patients. Nevertheless, SUP is often provided to non-critically ill patients despite a risk for clinically significant bleeding of roughly 0.1 %. The overuse of SUP therefore introduces added risks for adverse drug events and cost, with minimal expected benefit in clinical outcome. Historically, histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) have been the preferred agent for SUP; however, recent data have revealed proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) as the most common modality (76 %). There are no high quality randomized controlled trials demonstrating superiority with PPIs compared with H2RAs for the prevention of clinically significant bleeding associated with stress ulcers. In contrast, PPIs have recently been linked to several adverse effects including Clostridium difficile diarrhea and pneumonia. These complications have substantial economic consequences and have a marked impact on the overall cost effectiveness of PPI therapy. Nevertheless, PPI use remains widespread in patients who are at both high and low risk for clinically significant bleeding. This article will describe the utilization of PPIs for SUP and present the clinical and economic consequences linked to their use/overuse.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.