Background: Although intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are considered at least as effective as H2-receptors antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients, there is no data on whether there is also the proof of no difference among these agents.
Methods: The clinical material was the same as that reported in previous meta-analyses and included all trials comparing intravenous PPIs vs. H2-receptor antagonists for SUP in critically ill patients. Our methodology was a combination of meta-analysis and equivalence testing based on confidence intervals (CIs). The end-point was the rate of overt bleeding. All PPIs evaluated in the included trials were separately studied. The equivalence margins were derived from power calculation data of the original trials.
Results: Our analysis involved 8 randomized trials for 851 patients. Two comparisons were made (pantoprazole vs. H2-receptor antagonists and omeprazole vs. H2-receptor antagonists). The following RDs were estimated: pantoprazole, RD = -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.5% to +1.2%; omeprazole, RD = -3.0%, 95% CI: -7.2% to +1.3%. The 95% CIs confidence intervals for RDs remained within the ± 6% margin. These results indicate that intravenous pantoprazole and intravenous omeprazole are equivalent, Conclusion: These two PPIs, when administered by intravenous route, are equivalent according to reasonable equivalence margins. This conclusion can be the basis to develop local acquisition tenders on these drugs. One advantage of this approach is that the feasibility of administrative decisions can directly be tested on clinical grounds and on the basis of standard evidence-based methods.