Indications and hemoglobin thresholds for red blood cell transfusion and iron replacement in adults with gastrointestinal bleeding: An algorithm proposed by gastroenterologists and patient blood management experts

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion has long been the cornerstone of treatment for anemia due to GI bleeding. However, blood is not devoid of potential adverse effects, and it is also a precious resource, with limited supplies in blood banks. Nowadays, all patients should benefit from a patient blood management (PBM) program that aims to minimize blood loss, optimize hematopoiesis (mainly by using iron replacement therapy), maximize tolerance of anemia, and avoid unnecessary transfusions. Integration of PBM into healthcare management reduces patient mortality and morbidity and supports a restrictive RBC transfusion approach by reducing transfusion rates. The European Commission has outlined strategies to support hospitals with the implementation of PBM, but it is vital that these initiatives are translated into clinical practice. To help optimize management of anemia and iron deficiency in adults with acute or chronic GI bleeding, we developed a protocol under the auspices of the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology, in collaboration with healthcare professionals from 16 hospitals across Spain, including expert advice from different specialties involved in PBM strategies, such as internal medicine physicians, intensive care specialists, and hematologists. Recommendations include how to identify patients who have anemia (or iron deficiency) requiring oral/intravenous iron replacement therapy and/or RBC transfusion (using a restrictive approach to transfusion), and transfusing RBC units 1 unit at a time, with assessment of patients after each given unit (i.e., “don’t give two without review”). The advantages and limitations of oral versus intravenous iron and guidance on the safe and effective use of intravenous iron are also described. Implementation of a PBM strategy and clinical decision-making support, including early treatment of anemia with iron supplementation in patients with GI bleeding, may improve patient outcomes and lower hospital costs

Prevalence of severe esophagitis in Spain. Results of the PRESS study (Prevalence and Risk factors for Esophagitis in Spain: A cross-sectional study)

Background The current prevalence of esophagitis in southern Europe is unknown. In addition, the risk factors for reflux esophagitis are not fully understood. Objective The objective of this article is to assess the prevalence and risk factors for esophagitis in Spain. Methods A prospective, observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study (PRESS study) was conducted among 31 gastrointestinal endoscopy units throughout Spain. A total of 1361 patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were enrolled. Sociodemographic, clinical and treatment data were recorded. Results A total of 95% of patients were Caucasian and 52% were male (mean age: 5317 years). The most frequent symptoms prompting endoscopy were heartburn (40%), regurgitation (26%) and dysphagia (15%). Fifty-four percent of patients undergoing endoscopy were receiving proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment. Esophagitis (mainly mild-moderate) was present in 154 (12.4%) patients. The severe form was recorded in only 11 (0.8%) patients. Multivariate analysis results indicated that the likelihood of esophagitis was higher in men (OR=1.91, 95% CI=1.31-2.78), in patients with high GERD-Q scores (OR=1.256, 95% CI=1.176-1.343), weight increase (OR=1.014, 95% CI=1.003-1.025) and high alcohol consumption (OR=2.49, 95% CI=1.16-5.36). Conclusion Severe esophagitis is a rare finding in the Spanish population. Male gender, high GERD-Q score, weight increase and high alcohol consumption are main risk factors for its appearance

Open questions and misconceptions in the diagnosis and management of anemia in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding

Despite high prevalence of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) in patients with acute or chronic gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), IDA and iron deficiency (ID) are frequently untreated. Reasons may be misconceptions about the impact and diagnosis of IDA and the efficacy of new treatments. Addressing these misconceptions, this article summarizes current evidence for better understanding and management of GIB-associated IDA. Despite only few controlled studies evaluated the efficacy of iron treatment in patients with GIB, there is consistent evidence suggesting that: (a) IDA should be diligently investigated, (b) effective treatment of ID/IDA improves outcomes such as health-related quality of life and can avoid severe cardiovascular consequences, and (c) intravenous iron should be considered as well-tolerated treatment in this setting. Overall, the misconceptions and practices outlined in this article should be replaced with strategies that are more in line with current guidelines and best practice in GIB and other underlying conditions of ID/IDA.A pesar de la alta prevalencia de anemia por déficit de hierro (ADH) en pacientes con hemorragia digestiva (HD) aguda o crónica, la ADH y el déficit de hierro (DH) son frecuentemente infratratados. Diversos conceptos erróneos sobre el impacto, el diagnóstico y la eficacia de los nuevos tratamientos de la ADH probablemente lo justifican. Para abordar estos errores conceptuales, este artículo resume la evidencia actual para una mejor comprensión y manejo de la ADH. A pesar de que existen pocos estudios controlados que hayan evaluado la eficacia del tratamiento con hierro en pacientes con HD, hay evidencia que sugiere que: (a) la ADH debe ser investigada diligentemente; (b) el tratamiento eficaz del DH/ADH mejora la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud y puede evitar relevantes complicaciones cardiovasculares, y (c) el hierro intravenoso debe ser considerado como un tratamiento bien tolerado en este contexto. En general, los conceptos erróneos y las prácticas inadecuadas descritas en este artículo deben ser reemplazados por estrategias que estén más en línea con las directrices actuales y buenas prácticas clínicas en HD y otras condiciones causantes del DH/ADHinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Safe use of proton-pump inhibitors

Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most widely used drug classes worldwide. Their discovery goes back to the 1980s, when the significance of H+/K+-ATPase in gastric acid production was established. The market launch of PPIs, which inhibit this enzyme by direct, irreversible binding, paved the way to a new age in the management of gastrointestinal conditions related to stomach acid secretion (1)

Practical considerations in the management of proton-pump inhibitors

Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most active ingredients prescribed in Spain. In recent decades there has been an overuse of these drugs in both outpatient clinics and hospitals that has lead to a significant increase in healthcare spending and to an increase in the risk of possible side effects. It is important for health professionals to know the accepted indications and the correct doses for the use of these drugs. On the market there are different types of PPI: omeprazole, pantoprazole, lansoprazole, rabeprazole and esomeprazole. Omeprazole is the oldest and most used PPI, being also the cheapest. Although there are no important differences between PPIs in curing diseases, esomeprazole, a new-generation PPI, has proved to be more effective in eradicating H. pylori and in healing severe esophagitis compared to other PPIs. In recent years the use of generic drugs has spread; these drugs have the same bioavailability than the original drugs. In the case of PPIs, the few comparative studies available in the literature between original and generic drugs have shown no significant differences in clinical efficacy