The controlled study of efficacy and safety of infusion of ilaprazole sodium versus esomeprazole sodium in prevention of peptic ulcer rebleeding
申屠建中,季峰,黄刚,林佐光,马许辉,陈平湖,范惠珍,周辛欣,吴国兰
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn311367-20210713-00378
2021-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To explore the efficacy and safety of intermittent infusion of ilaprazole sodium and high-dose continuous infusion of esomeprazole sodium in preventing rebleeding in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic hemostasis.Methods:This is a multi-center, interval randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel controlled study. From March 3rd to June 15th, 2021, 151 patients with high risk of peptic ulcer bleeding and successfully underwent endoscopic hemostasis from 33 hospitals including the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine were enrolled. Patients were interval randomly divided into the trial group (74 cases) and the control group (77 cases). Patients in the trial group received intermittent intravenous infusion of ilaprazole sodium once daily (20 mg administered as a 60 min intravenous infusion on day 1, and 10 mg administered as a 30 min intravenous infusion on day 2 and 3); patients in the control group received continuous intravenous infusion of esomeprazole sodium for 72 h (esomeprazole sodium 80 mg at first dose in half an hour, and 8 mg per hour continuous intravenous infusion for 71.5 h). After intravenous infusion treatment, patients of both groups were given oral ilaprazole enteric-coated tablets, 10 mg each time, once a day for 4 d. The rebleeding rate after 72 h and within 7 d after treatment and the proportion of patients who received endoscopic retreatment or surgery due to rebleeding within 72 h after treatment were analysised based on the full analysis set (72 cases in the trial group and 75 cases in the control group); and the incidence rate of adverse reactions was observed in the two groups based on the safety analysis set (74 cases in the trial group and 76 cases in the control group). Chi-square test or Fisher exact probability test was used for statistical analysis.Results:There was no rebleeding case in the trial group within 72 h and 1 case of rebleeding within 7 d (1.39%, 1/72). In the control group, there was 1 case of rebleeding (1.33%, 1/75) within 72 h and 4 cases of rebleeding (5.33%, 4/75) within 7 d. There was no significant difference in rebleeding rate either after 72 h or within 7 d after treatment between the two groups (both P>0.05). Within 72 h of treatment, no patients in both groups needed endoscopic or surgical retreatment due to rebleeding. Adverse reactions occurred in 5 cases (6.8%, 5/74) and 6 cases (7.9%, 6/76) in the trial group and control group, respectively, which recovered spontaneously without treatment. No serious adverse reactions occurred in both groups. Conclusion:In patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding with successful endoscopic hemostasis, intermittent intravenous infusion of ilaprazole sodium has similar efficacy and safety as continuous high-dose intravenous infusion of esomeprazole sodium, but the dosage of intermitten regimen is less, the administration is more convenient, and it is worthy of clinical promotion.