Daren K Heyland1, Arthur R H van Zanten2, Teodoro Grau-Carmona3, David Evans4, Albertus Beishuizen5, Jeroen Schouten6, Oscar Hoiting6, Maria Luisa Bordejé7, Kenneth Krell8, David J Klein9, Jesus Gonzalez10, Aitor Perez10, Randy Brown11, Joyce James11, M Scott Harris12,13. 1. Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada. 2. Gelderse Vallei Hospital, Ede, The Netherlands. 3. Hospital Universitario Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain. 4. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 5. Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. 6. Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 7. Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain. 8. Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center, Idaho Falls, ID, USA. 9. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 10. Pivotal SL, Madrid, Spain. 11. Lyric Pharmaceuticals, San Francisco, CA, USA. 12. Lyric Pharmaceuticals, San Francisco, CA, USA. harris@middleburgconsultants.com. 13. Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. harris@middleburgconsultants.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Enteral feeding intolerance (EFI) is a frequent problem in the intensive care unit (ICU), but current prokinetic agents have uncertain efficacy and safety profiles. The current study compared the efficacy and safety of ulimorelin, a ghrelin agonist, with metoclopramide in the treatment of EFI. METHODS: One hundred twenty ICU patients were randomized 1:1 to ulimorelin or metoclopramide for 5 days. EFI was diagnosed by a gastric residual volume (GRV) ≥ 500 ml. A volume-based feeding protocol was employed, and enteral formulas were standardized. The primary end point was the percentage daily protein prescription (%DPP) received by patients over 5 days of treatment. Secondary end points included feeding success, defined as 80% DPP; gastric emptying, assessed by paracetamol absorption; incidences of recurrent intolerance (GRV ≥ 500 ml); vomiting or regurgitation; aspiration, defined by positive tracheal aspirates for pepsin; and pulmonary infection. RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients were randomized and received the study drug (ulimorelin 62, metoclopramide 58). Mean APACHE II and SOFA scores were 21.6 and 8.6, and 63.3% of patients had medical reasons for ICU admission. Ulimorelin and metoclopramide resulted in comparable %DPPs over 5 days of treatment (median [Q1, Q3]: 82.9% [38.4%, 100.2%] and 82.3% [65.6%, 100.2%], respectively, p = 0.49). Five-day rates of feeding success were 67.7% and 70.6% when terminations unrelated to feeding were excluded, and there were no differences in any secondary outcomes or adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both prokinetic agents achieved similar rates of feeding success, and no safety differences between the two treatment groups were observed.
PURPOSE: Enteral feeding intolerance (EFI) is a frequent problem in the intensive care unit (ICU), but current prokinetic agents have uncertain efficacy and safety profiles. The current study compared the efficacy and safety of ulimorelin, a ghrelin agonist, with metoclopramide in the treatment of EFI. METHODS: One hundred twenty ICU patients were randomized 1:1 to ulimorelin or metoclopramide for 5 days. EFI was diagnosed by a gastric residual volume (GRV) ≥ 500 ml. A volume-based feeding protocol was employed, and enteral formulas were standardized. The primary end point was the percentage daily protein prescription (%DPP) received by patients over 5 days of treatment. Secondary end points included feeding success, defined as 80% DPP; gastric emptying, assessed by paracetamol absorption; incidences of recurrent intolerance (GRV ≥ 500 ml); vomiting or regurgitation; aspiration, defined by positive tracheal aspirates for pepsin; and pulmonary infection. RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients were randomized and received the study drug (ulimorelin 62, metoclopramide 58). Mean APACHE II and SOFA scores were 21.6 and 8.6, and 63.3% of patients had medical reasons for ICU admission. Ulimorelin and metoclopramide resulted in comparable %DPPs over 5 days of treatment (median [Q1, Q3]: 82.9% [38.4%, 100.2%] and 82.3% [65.6%, 100.2%], respectively, p = 0.49). Five-day rates of feeding success were 67.7% and 70.6% when terminations unrelated to feeding were excluded, and there were no differences in any secondary outcomes or adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both prokinetic agents achieved similar rates of feeding success, and no safety differences between the two treatment groups were observed.
Authors: J C Montejo; E Miñambres; L Bordejé; A Mesejo; J Acosta; A Heras; M Ferré; F Fernandez-Ortega; C I Vaquerizo; R Manzanedo Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Pierre Singer; Annika Reintam Blaser; Mette M Berger; Waleed Alhazzani; Philip C Calder; Michael P Casaer; Michael Hiesmayr; Konstantin Mayer; Juan Carlos Montejo; Claude Pichard; Jean-Charles Preiser; Arthur R H van Zanten; Simon Oczkowski; Wojciech Szczeklik; Stephan C Bischoff Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2018-09-29 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Annika Reintam Blaser; Joel Starkopf; Waleed Alhazzani; Mette M Berger; Michael P Casaer; Adam M Deane; Sonja Fruhwald; Michael Hiesmayr; Carole Ichai; Stephan M Jakob; Cecilia I Loudet; Manu L N G Malbrain; Juan C Montejo González; Catherine Paugam-Burtz; Martijn Poeze; Jean-Charles Preiser; Pierre Singer; Arthur R H van Zanten; Jan De Waele; Julia Wendon; Jan Wernerman; Tony Whitehouse; Alexander Wilmer; Heleen M Oudemans-van Straaten Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Daniel L Southren; Alexa D Nardone; Adeniran A Haastrup; Russel J Roberts; Marvin G Chang; Edward A Bittner Journal: Nutr Clin Pract Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 3.204
Authors: Eman Mohamed Elmokadem; Radwa Maher El Borolossy; Ahmed M Bassiouny; Maha Gamil Hanna; Ebtissam Abdel Ghaffar Darweesh; Nagwa A Sabri Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Gianfabio Giorgioni; Fabio Del Bello; Wilma Quaglia; Luca Botticelli; Carlo Cifani; E Micioni Di Bonaventura; M V Micioni Di Bonaventura; Alessandro Piergentili Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 7.446