ArticleAnnals of intensive care2026
Efficacy and safety of ilaprazole for stress ulcer - associated upper gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority phase 3 trial.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Ilaprazole in preventing stress ulcer-associated upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Design: A Randomized, Double-Blind, non-inferiority Phase 3 Trial. Setting: 70 hospitals across China from July 16, 2021, to April 28, 2022. Patients: 441 Patients (mean age 59 years; 150 female) at high risk for stress ulcer bleeding requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were enrolled. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either Ilaprazole (10 mg once daily, first dose doubled; 220 patients) or esomeprazole (40 mg twice daily; 221 patients). Measurements and main results: 441 patients (mean age 59 years; 150 female) were enrolled: 220 received Ilaprazole and 221 received esomeprazole. In FAS set, the primary endpoint occurred in 213 (96.80%) patients in the Ilaprazole and 215 (97.30%) in esomeprazole arms (Absolute Risk Difference: -0.47, 95% CI: -4.02, 3.03, p = 0.772). Secondary outcomes showed comparable incidences of clinically insignificant UGI bleeding, any gastrointestinal bleeding, 28-day mortality, ICU mortality, and pneumonitis. Adverse events were similar between groups, but Ilaprazole had a significantly lower incidence of hepatobiliary disorders (0.9% vs. 5%, p = 0.012). Conclusions: Ilaprazole demonstrated non-inferiority to esomeprazole in preventing UGI bleeding in critically ill patients at high risk of stress ulcer.
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.