Once Versus Twice-Daily Oral Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy for Prevention of Peptic Ulcer Rebleeding: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After inpatient management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) due to peptic ulcer disease (PUD), oral proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy is recommended at discharge to decrease rebleeding risk and improve ulcer healing. Our aim is to determine whether once-daily oral PPI dosing at hospital discharge is associated with inferior 30-day rebleeding outcomes as compared to twice-daily dosing. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 233 patients admitted with signs and symptoms of upper GIB found to be due to PUD on upper endoscopy. After inpatient management, patients discharged on once-daily oral PPI were compared to those discharged on twice-daily therapy. We utilized propensity score matching based on Rockall scores to ensure the two groups were closely matched in terms of their baseline rebleeding risk. Primary outcome was the incidence of rebleeding within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, blood transfusion requirement, requirement for interventional radiology or surgery. RESULTS: Overall, 49 patients were discharged on once-daily and 184 on twice-daily PPI. Recurrent bleeding occurred in 18 patients (7.7%) within 30 days. There was no statistically significant difference in recurrent bleeding rates between once-daily (n = 7, 14.3%) as compared to twice-daily PPI (n = 11, 6%) (P = 0.053). In a 1:1 propensity score matched analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day recurrent bleeding rate between groups (14% once-daily vs. 4% twice-daily, P = 0.159). There were no differences in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily oral PPI dosing at hospital discharge was not associated with inferior outcomes compared to twice-daily dosing in patients hospitalized for upper GIB due to PUD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".