Advertisement

Pantoprazole prophylaxis in ICU patients with high severity of disease: a post hoc analysis of the placebo-controlled SUP-ICU trial

  • Søren MarkerEmail author
  • Anders Perner
  • Jørn Wetterslev
  • Mette Krag
  • Theis Lange
  • Matt P. Wise
  • Mark Borthwick
  • Stepani Bendel
  • Frederik Keus
  • Anne Berit Guttormsen
  • Joerg C. Schefold
  • Morten Hylander Møller
  • The SUP-ICU investigators
Original

Abstract

Purpose

In the subgroup of patients with Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II > 53 in the Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit (SUP-ICU) trial, there was interaction (P = 0.049) suggesting increased mortality in patients allocated to pantoprazole as compared with placebo. We aimed to explore this further.

Methods

The SUP-ICU trial allocated acutely admitted adults at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding to pantoprazole vs placebo. In this post hoc study, we repeated all the preplanned analyses of SUP-ICU in patients with baseline SAPS II > 53.

Results

A total of 1140 patients had a complete SAPS II > 53 and were included. At 90 days, 272/579 patients (47%) assigned to pantoprazole had died, as compared with 229/558 patients (41%) assigned to placebo [relative risk 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–1.29]. This was supported by sensitivity analyses adjusted for risk factors and those in the per-protocol population. When accounting for patients with incomplete SAPS II in two additional analyses, the relative risk was 1.08; 95% CI 0.96–1.22 and 1.10; 95% CI 0.97–1.25. This was also observed for the secondary outcome days alive without life support. There were no differences between the intervention groups in the other secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

In this post hoc analysis of patients with high disease severity included in the SUP-ICU trial, we observed higher 90-day mortality and fewer days alive without life support with pantoprazole vs placebo. Some of this may have been explained by missing SAPS II data, but further research is needed to draw firm conclusions.

ClinicalTrials.gov

ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT02467621.

Keywords

Stress ulcer prophylaxis Stress ulceration Intensive care unit Gastrointestinal bleeding All-cause mortality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

All authors were involved in the conduct of the SUP-ICU trial. The authors thank everybody involved in the SUP-ICU trial: research staff and investigators, clinical staff, patients and their relatives.

Funding

The authors have received no specific funding for this study. The SUP-ICU trial was funded by Innovation Fund Denmark (4108-00011A) and supported by Rigshospitalet, the Capital Region of Denmark, the Regions of Denmark, the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Ehrenreich’s Foundation, Aase and Ejnar Danielsens Foundation, the Danish Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, the Danish Medical Association and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. The Department of Intensive Care at Rigshospitalet has received support for other research projects from Fresenius Kabi, Germany; CSL Behring, Switzerland; Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Denmark; and the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Denmark. The SUP-ICU trial was funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None for the present study. The Department of Intensive Care at Rigshospitalet receives support for other research projects from Fresenius Kabi, Germany; CSL Behring, Switzerland; Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Denmark; and the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Denmark. The authors report no conflicts of interest. All authors were involved in the conduct of the SUP-ICU trial.

Ethical approval

No additional approvals were needed for this post hoc sub-analysis of the SUP-ICU trial. All procedures in the SUP-ICU trial were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committees and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

134_2019_5589_MOESM1_ESM.docx (92 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 92 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J et al (2016) Stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor versus placebo in critically ill patients (SUP-ICU trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 17:205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J et al (2015) Prevalence and outcome of gastrointestinal bleeding and use of acid suppressants in acutely ill adult intensive care patients. Intensive Care Med 41:833–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook DJ, Griffith LE, Walter SD et al (2001) The attributable mortality and length of intensive care unit stay of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Crit Care 5:368–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W et al (2017) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med 43:304–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J et al (2015) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit: an international survey of 97 units in 11 countries. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 59:576–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Le Gall J-R, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F (1993) A new simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American Multicenter Study. JAMA 270:2957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krag M, Marker S, Perner A et al (2018) Pantoprazole in patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU. N Engl J Med 379:2199–2208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J et al (2017) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit trial: detailed statistical analysis plan. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 61:859–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    von Elm E, Egger M, Altman DG et al (2007) Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 335:806–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holst LB, Haase N, Wetterslev J et al (2014) Lower versus higher hemoglobin threshold for transfusion in septic shock. N Engl J Med 371:1381–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jakobsen JC, Tamborrino M, Winkel P et al (2015) Count data analysis in randomised clinical trials. J Biomet Biostat 6:227Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Macias WL, Nelson DR, Williams M et al (2005) Lack of evidence for qualitative treatment by disease severity interactions in clinical studies of severe sepsis. Crit Care 9:R607–R622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alhazzani W, Guyatt G, Alshahrani M et al (2017) Withholding pantoprazole for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a pilot randomized clinical trial and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 45:1121–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alhazzani W, Alshamsi F, Belley-Cote E et al (2018) Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Intensive Care Med 44:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cook D, Guyatt G (2018) Prophylaxis against upper gastrointestinal bleeding in hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 378:2506–2516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Selvanderan SP, Summers MJ, Finnis ME et al (2016) Pantoprazole or placebo for stress ulcer prophylaxis (POP-UP). Crit Care Med 44:1842–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacLaren R, Reynolds PM, Allen RR (2014) Histamine-2 receptor antagonists vs proton pump inhibitors on gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage and infectious complications in the intensive care unit. JAMA Intern Med 174:564–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Charlot M, Ahlehoff O, Norgaard ML et al (2010) Proton-pump inhibitors are associated with increased cardiovascular risk independent of clopidogrel use: a nationwide cohort study. Ann Intern Med 153:378–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sehested TSG, Gerds TA, Fosbøl EL et al (2018) Long-term use of proton pump inhibitors, dose-response relationship, and associated risk of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction. J Intern Med 283:268–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sedgwick P (2014) Randomised controlled trials: subgroup analyses. BMJ 349:g7513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH et al (2007) Statistics in medicine—reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 357:2189–2194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1992) A consumer’s guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 116:78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sun X, Briel M, Walter SD, Guyatt GH (2010) Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 340:850–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Granholm A, Møller MH, Krag M et al (2016) Predictive performance of the simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) II and the initial sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score in acutely ill intensive care patients: post-hoc analyses of the SUP-ICU inception cohort study. PLoS One 11:e0168948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barkun A, Bardou M (2018) Proton-pump inhibitor prophylaxis in the ICU—benefits worth the risks? N Engl J Med 379:2263–2264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J et al (1996) The SOFA (sepsis-related organ failure assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med 22:707–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Søren Marker
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Anders Perner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jørn Wetterslev
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mette Krag
    • 1
    • 2
  • Theis Lange
    • 4
    • 5
  • Matt P. Wise
    • 6
  • Mark Borthwick
    • 7
  • Stepani Bendel
    • 8
  • Frederik Keus
    • 9
  • Anne Berit Guttormsen
    • 10
    • 11
  • Joerg C. Schefold
    • 12
  • Morten Hylander Møller
    • 1
    • 2
  • The SUP-ICU investigators
  1. 1.Department of Intensive Care 4131Copenhagen University Hospital, RigshospitaletCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Centre for Research in Intensive Care (CRIC)Copenhagen University Hospital, RigshospitaletCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention ResearchCopenhagen University Hospital, RigshospitaletCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Section of BiostatisticsUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  5. 5.Center for Statistical SciencePeking UniversityBeijingChina
  6. 6.Department of Adult Critical CareUniversity Hospital of WalesCardiffUK
  7. 7.Pharmacy DepartmentOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustOxfordUK
  8. 8.Department of Intensive Care MedicineKuopio University HospitalKuopioFinland
  9. 9.Department of Critical CareUniversity Medical Center Groningen, University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  10. 10.Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive CareHaukeland University HospitalBergenNorway
  11. 11.Department of Clinical MedicineUiBBergenNorway
  12. 12.Department of Intensive Care MedicineInselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations