Somberg 2008.
Methods | Multi‐centre open‐label randomised controlled trial | |
Participants |
Baseline characteristics Number randomised: 202 participants Number analysed: 202 participants Pantoprazole (40 mg per 24 hours)
Pantoprazole (40 mg per 12 hours)
Pantoprazole (80 mg per 24 hours)
Pantoprazole (80 mg per 12 hours)
Pantoprazole (80 mg per 8 hours)
Cimetidine
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Baseline characteristics: Groups were similar with respect to age, gender, and race. Trauma was the main cause for admission, and coagulopathy was present in 2 participants from the pantoprazole group |
|
Interventions |
Pantoprazole
Cimetidine
Adherence to regimen: Quote: "Subjects received study medication within 24 hours of the precipitating stress event and treatment was to be continued for at least 48 hours and up to 7 days. Patients were considered as completers if they received the study medication as described and participated in the study for at least 48 hours" Of 202 participants, 144 remained NPO, while 58 participants were switched over to enterally feed, mainly on day 2 (48 participants) "32 patients (16%) prematurely discontinued from the study. The most frequent reason for premature discontinuation was removal or inability to maintain tolerate NG/OG tube. Other reasons for premature discontinuation from the study included adverse events (3 in total, 2 in pantoprazole and 1 in cimetidine) or legal guardian request" Duration of trial: June 2000 to September 2001 Duration of follow up: up to 30 days |
|
Outcomes |
Outcomes sought in review and reported in trial (none of these were primary outcomes of interest for this study)
Outcomes sought but not reported in trial
Outcomes reported but not used in review
|
|
Notes |
Setting: 14 ICU centres across the United States Source of funding: Quote: "Supported by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Collegeville, PA" Ethics approval: Quote: "The study conducted according to declaration of Helsinki and its amendments. and was approved by the independent ethics committee or institutional review board at each ICU centre" Informed consent: Quote: "Written informed consent was obtained from all patients or their legal representatives before enrolment" Clinical trials registration: ‐ Sample size calculation: The sample size of 30 patients per group was chosen based on a common standard deviation of 24% for the primary end point (pH response associated with each treatment group), and there was approximately 80% power to detect a mean difference of 18% for treatment group comparisons Additonal notes:H influenzae was one of the most common bacterial isolates among participants who developed pneumonia. The pantoprazole arms were combined to form a common interventional arm vs the H2 receptor antagonist as the review did not aim to investigate efficacy on the basis of dose or mode of administration in the same drug |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "...the study centre called the central randomisation centre to obtain the treatment assignment..." Comment: Sequence generation was probably done |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "...the study centre called the central randomisation centre to obtain the treatment assignment..." Comment: Allocation was probably concealed |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Quote: "One physician per patient remained blinded to the patients treatment assignment and pH data to assess patient’s safety” Comment: Each patient had a physician in charge, who was blinded. Unclear on how this was possible, as it is not a placebo‐controlled trial, and all other personnel were aware of the intervention |
Blinding (detection bias) Clinically important upper GI bleeding | Low risk | Comment: unclear on blinding of outcome assessors. GI bleeding was an objective outcome detected as per the definition in the study protocol |
Blinding (detection bias) Nosocomial pneumonia | Low risk | Comment: unclear on blinding of outcome assessors. VAP was detected as per the definition in the study protocol |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Adverse reactions of interventions | Low risk | Comment: unclear on blinding of outcome assessors. However, owing to the objective nature of the outcomes of interest, the likelihood of detection bias is low |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: All randomised participants completed the trial and were included in the final analysis. There were no treatment withdrawals and no trial group changes |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Comment: All intended outcomes were analysed and reported |
Other bias | Low risk | Comment: Study was supported by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Collegeville, PA. The role of the sponsor in the conduct and reporting of the trial is unclear |