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.
Health care resource use
Intensive care
Long-term outcomes
Registry analysis
Stress ulcer prophylaxis
Journal
Intensive care medicine
ISSN: 1432-1238
Titre abrégé: Intensive Care Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7704851
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
30
08
2021
accepted:
16
01
2022
pubmed:
6
2
2022
medline:
31
3
2022
entrez:
5
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), including proton pump inhibitors, is widely used in the attempt to prevent this. In this secondary analysis of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit (SUP-ICU) trial, we assessed 1-year outcomes in the pantoprazole vs. placebo groups. In the SUP-ICU trial, 3298 acutely admitted ICU patients at risk of GI bleeding were randomly allocated, stratified for site, to pantoprazole or placebo. In this secondary analysis, we assessed clinically important GI bleedings in ICU and 1-year mortality, health care resource use (e.g. readmission with GI bleeding, use of home care and general practitioner), health care costs, and employment status for the Danish participants using registry data. Among the 2099 Danish participants, 2092 had data in the registries; 1045 allocated to pantoprazole and 1047 to placebo. The number of clinically important GI bleedings in ICU was 1.9 percentage points [95% CI 0.3-3.5] lower in the pantoprazole group vs. the placebo group, but none of the 1-year outcomes differed statistically significantly between groups, including total health care costs (€1954 [- 2992 to 6899]), readmission with GI bleeding (- 0.005 admissions [- 0.016 to 0.005]), 1-year mortality (- 0.013 percentage points [- 0.051 to 0.026]), and employment (- 0.178 weeks [- 0.390 to 0.034]). Among ICU patients at risk of GI bleeding, pantoprazole reduced clinically important GI bleeding in ICU, but this did not translate into a reduction in 1-year mortality, health care resource use or improvements in employment status.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35122105
doi: 10.1007/s00134-022-06631-2
pii: 10.1007/s00134-022-06631-2
doi:
Substances chimiques
Proton Pump Inhibitors
0
Pantoprazole
D8TST4O562
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02467621']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
426-434Subventions
Organisme : Innovationsfonden
ID : 4108-00011A
Informations de copyright
© 2022. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Griffith L, Walter S, Guyatt G, Meade M, Heyland D, Kirby A 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(6):368–375
doi: 10.1186/cc1071
Barletta JF, Sclar DA (2014) Use of proton pump inhibitors for the provision of stress ulcer prophylaxis: clinical and economic consequences. Pharmacoeconomics 32(1):5
doi: 10.1007/s40273-013-0119-5
Protocol SUP-ICU (2015) Stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitor (pantoprazole) in adult critically ill patients in the intensive care unit: a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, 3rd edn. KU: CRIC
Marker S, Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J, Lange T, Wise MP et al (2019) Pantoprazole in ICU patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding-1-year mortality in the SUP-ICU trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 63(9):1184–1190
doi: 10.1111/aas.13436
Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart G (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kruse M, Christiansen T (2011) Register-based studies of healthcare costs. Scand J Public Health 39(7):206
doi: 10.1177/1403494811404277
Thygesen LC, Daasnes C, Thaulow I, Brønnum-Hansen H (2011) Introduction to Danish (nationwide) registers on health and social issues: structure, access, legislation, and archiving. Scand J Public Health 39(7):12
doi: 10.1177/1403494811399956
Baadsgaard M, Quitzau J (2011) Danish registers on personal income and transfer payments. Scand J Public Health 39(7):103
doi: 10.1177/1403494811405098
Krag M, Marker S, Perner A, Wetterslev J, Wise MP, Schefold JC et al (2020) Pantoprazole in patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2018 379(23):2199–2208
Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J, Lange T, Wise MP, Borthwick M et al (2017) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit trial: detailed statistical analysis plan. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 61(7):859
doi: 10.1111/aas.12917
Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J, Wise MP, Borthwick M, Bendel S et al (2015) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit: an international survey of 97 units in 11 countries. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 59(5):576–585
doi: 10.1111/aas.12508
Kirch W (ed) (2008) Cost-consequence analysis. Encyclopedia of public health. Springer, Dordrecht
Hartfiel N, Edwards RT (2019) Cost-consequence analysis of public health interventions. In: Edwards RT, McIntosh E (eds) Applied health economics for public health practice and research, March edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
He N, Yan Y, Zhai S, Tan MC, Tansel A, Graham DY et al (2019) Pantoprazole in patients in the ICU. N Engl J Med 380(10):983–985
doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1900206
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383
doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8
Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Jean-Christophe L et al (2005) Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 43(11):1130–1139
doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83
Guan H, Bing LI, Couris CM, Fushimi K, Graham P, Hider P et al (2011) Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol 173(6):676–682
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq433
Ankjær-Jensen A, Rosling P, Bilde L (2006) Variable prospective financing in the Danish hospital sector and the development of a Danish case-mix system. Health Care Manag Sci 9(3):259–268
doi: 10.1007/s10729-006-9093-1
Statistics Denmark (2020) Elderly Indicator Dokumentation. https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/dokumentation/documentationofstatistics/elderly---indicators . Accessed 23 Dec 2020
Deb P, Norton EC, Manning WG (2017) Health econometrics using Stata. Stata Press, College Station
Statistics Denmark (2020) Consumer Price Index (pris112). Denmark StatBank, Copenhagen
Heerey A, McGowan B, Ryan M, Barry M (2002) Microcosting versus DRGs in the provision of cost estimates for use in pharmacoeconomic evaluation. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2(1):29–33
doi: 10.1586/14737167.2.1.29
Tan SS, Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Al MJ, Bouwmans CA, Hoogendoorn ME, Spronk PE et al (2008) A microcosting study of intensive care unit stay in the Netherlands. J Intensive Care Med 23(4):250
doi: 10.1177/0885066608318661
Drummond M, Manca A, Sculpher M (2005) Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 21(2):165–171
doi: 10.1017/S0266462305050221