Primary prevention of diclofenac associated ulcers and dyspepsia by omeprazole or triple therapy in Helicobacter pylori positive patients: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, clinical trial

NSAID-induced peptic ulcers and Helicobacter pylori infection: implications for patient management

The conflicting data about the influence of Helicobacter pylori infection on the ulcer risk in patients receiving NSAIDs can be accounted for by the heterogeneity of study designs and the diversified host response to H. pylori. Factors that will affect the outcome include the choice of H. pylori diagnostic tests, previous ulcer complications, concurrent use of acid suppressants, NSAID-naive versus long-term users, low-dose aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) versus non-aspirin NSAIDs and whether the result was derived from a pre-specified endpoint or post hoc subgroup analysis. Current evidence suggests that H. pylori eradication reduces the ulcer risk for patients who are about to start receiving NSAIDs but not for those who are already on long-term NSAID therapy. Since treatment with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) worsens H. pylori-associated corpus gastritis, H. pylori should be tested for, and eradicated if present, before starting long-term prophylaxis with PPIs. Patients with H. pylori infection and a history of ulcer complications who require NSAIDs should receive concomitant PPIs or misoprostol after curing the infection. Among patients receiving low-dose aspirin, who have H. pylori infection and previous ulcer complications, long-term treatment with a PPI further reduces the risk of complicated ulcers if H. pylori eradication fails or if patients use concomitant non-aspirin NSAIDs. Current data on the gastric safety of COX-2 selective NSAIDs in H. pylori-infected patients are conflicting. Limited data suggest that the gastroduodenal sparing effect of rofecoxib is negated by H. pylori infection in patients who have had prior upper gastrointestinal events. In light of potential cardiovascular risk with COX-2 selective NSAIDs, it is important to weigh the potential adverse effects against the benefits for an individual patient.

[Treatment of NSAIDs related dyspepsia]

NSAIDs-induced dyspepsia occurs in 10 to 30% of patients treated with NSAIDs, leading to discontinuation of treatment in 5 to 15%. Gastrointestinal tolerability of COX-2 selective inhibitors is better than for non-selective NSAIDs. Helicobacter pylori infection does not influence gastrointestinal tolerability of NSAIDs. Therefore, patients should not be tested and treated for H. pylori infection unless they have a history of peptic ulcer. Symptoms of NSAIDs-induced dyspepsia are poorly correlated with gastroduodenal mucosal damage. Therefore, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy should be performed only if symptom relief is not achieved with the first line empirical treatment and/or if symptoms suggestive of complications, such as bleeding, develop. Proton pump inhibitors appear to be the treatment of choice for NSAIDs-induced dyspepsia.

Helicobacter pylori public health implications

Population Helicobacter pylori screening and treatment has the potential to dramatically reduce global gastric cancer mortality. There is overwhelming evidence that the infection is a major cause of distal gastric adenocarcinoma. There is also randomized controlled trial evidence that H. pylori eradication reverses or ameliorates histological changes in the gastric mucosa that are important in carcinogenesis. Preliminary randomized controlled trial data suggest that screening and treatment may reduce the risk of gastric cancer although the number of cancer cases was small. Population H. pylori screening and treatment will also reduce mortality from peptic ulcer complications and reduce the burden of dyspepsia in the community. The reduction in health service dyspepsia costs means that this could be the first programme to pay for itself. From a scientific perspective, we still have insufficient evidence to conclude the benefits of population H. pylori screening are greater than the possible harms and we need more randomized controlled trial data. From a public health perspective however, sometimes screening programmes are developed with imperfect information. The medical community should be consistent and if we are instituting other population screening programmes without randomized controlled trial evidence then H. pylori testing and treatment should also be considered.

Impact de l’infection à Helicobacter pylori sur le risque de complications gastro-duodénales des traitements anti-inflammatoires non stéroïdiens

The interaction of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) and non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the development of gastro-duodenal ulcers and their complications is complex and controversial. From a clinical point of view, the question is whether or not H. pylori infection should be tested and eradicated in patients treated or about to be treated by NSAIDs or low-dose aspirin. Contradictory results have been reported in epidemiological studies. Recent data suggest that H. pylori-NSAID interaction may be different depending on the type of treatment, non aspirin NSAIDs or low-dose aspirin, the gastric or duodenal localization of ulcer and the strains of H. pylori. Controlled randomized studies suggest that eradication of H. pylori may be beneficial in NSAID-naïve patients but not in those already on long term NSAID therapy. Recommendations are proposed for different subgroups of patients. In NSAID users presenting with gastro-duodenal ulcer or complications, H. pylori screening and eradication are indicated. In patients treated or about to be treated by NSAIDs, the "test and treat" H. pylori strategy is recommended if there is a history of gastroduodenal ulcer or complications. Whether this strategy should be generalized preventively in patients without ulcer history is still controversial and deserves further studies.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase IIB Trial of the Cyclooxygenase Inhibitor Ketorolac as an Oral Rinse in Oropharyngeal Leukoplakia

PURPOSE

Nonselective cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors have been reported to decrease the frequency of upper aerodigestive cancers. Ketorolac tromethamine oral rinse has been shown to resolve another COX-dependent process, periodontal disease, without incurring gastrointestinal side effects. This trial evaluated if a topically delivered oral rinse containing ketorolac was as safe as and more effective than oral rinse alone in reducing the area of oral leukoplakia.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

57 patients were randomized (2:1 ratio) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of ketorolac (10 ml of a 0.1% ketorolac rinse solution; n = 38) or placebo (10 ml of rinse solution; n = 19) given twice daily for 30 s over 90 days. Primary end point was evaluated visually obtaining bidimensional measurement of the size of leukoplakia lesion(s) at entry and at 90 days. Secondary end point was histological assessment of the leukoplakia as sampled by serial punch biopsy and independently reviewed by three pathologists.

RESULTS

The patients included 67% males, 11% non-Caucasian, and 86% used tobacco with no significant differences between the two arms. Both rinses were well tolerated with good compliance, and there was no significant difference in adverse events (P = 0.27). Major response rate (complete response and partial response) was 30% for ketorolac and 32% for the placebo arm. There was no significant difference in change in histology between the two arms.

CONCLUSION

Local delivery of a COX-containing oral rinse was well tolerated but produced no significant reduction in the extent of leukoplakia compared with the placebo. However, the favorable response rate to placebo arm remains unexplained and additional investigation of the tissue penetration with ketorolac is warranted.

Review article: should NSAID/low-dose aspirin takers be tested routinely for H. pylori infection and treated if positive? Implications for primary risk of ulcer and ulcer relapse after initial healing

Helicobacter pylori infection and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can each result in gastric or duodenal ulcer(s) and ulcer complications. Together, H. pylori infection and NSAIDs account for approximately 90% of peptic ulcer disease. In 2003, the results of studies suggest, and guidelines recommend, the careful selection of anti-inflammatory drugs - NSAIDs or selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) based upon patients gastrointestinal history and use of aspirin therapy. Testing for, and cure of, H. pylori infection is recommended in patients prior to the initiation of NSAID therapy and in those who are currently receiving NSAIDs and have a history of dyspepsia, peptic ulcer or ulcer complications. For patients who present with peptic ulcer bleeding but require NSAIDs long-term, H. pylori eradication therapy should be considered, followed by continuous proton pump inhibitor prophylaxis to prevent re-bleeding, regardless of which kind of NSAID (nonselective NSAID /coxib) is being prescribed. Routine testing for, and eradication of, H. pylori infection has not been recommended for current takers of NSAIDs with no or low risk of complications. The management of patients taking low-dose aspirin is complex, but eradication of H. pylori infection alone in those with a past history of bleeding does not guarantee complete protection and therefore a proton pump inhibitor should also be given. The success of eradication therapy should always be confirmed, because of the risk of ulcer recurrence and bleeding in H. pylori-infected patients who require anti-inflammatory treatments.

Bleeding duodenal ulcer: comparison between Helicobacter pylori positive and Helicobacter pylori negative bleeders

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To provide a direct comparison of Helicobacter pylori-positive subjects bleeding from duodenal ulcer with H. pylori-negative ones, in terms of severity of bleeding and outcome.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A case-control study was prospectively conducted in 105 H. pylori-negative duodenal ulcer bleeders and same number of sex- and age-matched H. pylori-positive ones.

RESULTS

NSAID consumption was more common among H. pylori-negative subjects (81%) compared to their H. pylori-positive counterparts (58.1%, P < 0.001). H. pylori-negative bleeders were found to need more often haemostasis (55.2% versus 31.4%, P < 0.001) or surgical intervention (15.2% versus 4.8%, P = 0.011) and to have a greater proportion of rebleeding (32.4% versus 13.3%, P = 0.001), a more prolonged hospitalisation (11.6 +/- 4.1 versus 6.2 +/- 1.5 days, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of in-hospital mortality (15.2% versus 3.8%, P = 0.005). In the overall population (N = 210), H. pylori negativity, among other known risk factors, emerged as independent predictor (odds ratio: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.5, 11.2; P = 0.004) of an unfavourable outcome (surgery or death).

CONCLUSIONS

Duodenal ulcer bleeding in H. pylori-negative subjects appears to be more severe, to have a higher rate of rebleeding, and to lead more often to surgery or fatality compared to the vast majority of H. pylori-positive duodenal ulcer bleeders.

Assessment of the safety of selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors: where are we in 2003?

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most widely used drugs worldwide despite their well-documented adverse gastrointestinal (GI) effects. The risk of developing a severe GI event varies from patient to patient and NSAID to NSAID. Selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors (coxibs) have been designed to have similar efficacy but less GI toxicity than traditional NSAIDs, and have been shown to have an improved GI tolerability and less adverse events across a range of different GI safety assessments. In clinical trials, particularly VIGOR and CLASS, rofecoxib and celecoxib, respectively, significantly reduce the risk of ulcers and ulcer complications than nonselective NSAID comparators with ulcer rates comparable to placebo. The real benefit of a coxib comes from the sparing of the thromboxane and hence preservation of normal platelet function. Thus, there is less risk of bleeding with selective inhibition of COX-2, which is the most common and serious complication of non-selective NSAIDs. Moreover, bleeding can occur anywhere in the GI tract. Although some concern has been raised about the cardiovascular safety of coxibs, when used in recommended doses, there is no convincing evidence that patients treated with a coxib have an increased risk of cardiovascular thrombotic events. Different approaches have been advocated to minimize NSAID-related GI toxicity. Choice of less harmful NSAIDs such as coxib has been one of the strategies promoted in guidelines. The introduction of coxibs with a higher benefit-risk ratio has dramatically changed the therapeutic scenario for anti-inflammatory treatment in the clinical practice.

Helicobacter pylori and nonmalignant diseases

Eradication of Helicobacter pylori has lead to a significant decrease in the prevalence of peptic ulcer disease world-wide. Despite the fact that H. pylori eradication is the only way to cure peptic ulcer disease, a substantial number of patients still need antisecretory agents to be symptoms-free after eradication. During the past year several randomized controlled trials on H. pylori eradication in patients taking NSAIDs have been published but contradictory results have been obtained. In certain parts of the world, NSAIDs are becoming the main cause of peptic ulcer disease complications such as bleeding or perforation. Some patients with nonulcer dyspepsia do benefit from eradication of H. pylori as was shown in several studies. Long-term trials with cost/efficacy analysis are still needed to demonstrate the benefit of H. pylori eradication over acid inhibition in this group of patients. H. pylori prevalence is lower in patients with gastro-esophageal reflux disease, but according to recent systematic reviews it varies geographically. There are more data now to show that eradication of H. pylori in duodenal ulcer patients does not increase the incidence of GERD. The 'test and treat' strategy for patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia was strongly supported by both meta-analysis and the results of recent randomized controlled trials. Even in developed countries where the prevalence of H. pylori decreases, this strategy allows resolution of symptoms in a larger number of patients with dyspepsia compared to empirical treatment with proton pump inhibitors and reduces the endoscopic workload.

Review article: NSAIDs, gastroprotection and cyclo-oxygenase-II-selective inhibitors

In patients at high risk of NSAID-associated serious upper gastrointestinal complications, gastroprotection with misoprostol or a proton pump inhibitor should be considered. Only misoprostol, 800 micro g/day, has been shown to reduce serious upper gastrointestinal complications in a large clinical outcome trial. The benefit of Helicobacter pylori eradication in reducing NSAID-associated gastrointestinal toxicity is controversial, and routine testing for and eradication of H. pylori in NSAID users are not currently advised. The gastrointestinal safety of rofecoxib and celecoxib has been assessed in large clinical outcome trials which, on first analysis, show benefits over non-selective NSAIDs in the incidence of serious upper gastrointestinal complications. However, longer term gastrointestinal data from the celecoxib study (CLASS) and cardiovascular adverse event data from the rofecoxib study (VIGOR) have questioned the risk-benefit profile of these new drugs and, until they are better understood, it seems sensible not to use them routinely in large numbers of individuals. The gastrointestinal safety of meloxicam and etodolac has not been adequately assessed in such trials. Therefore, evidence for their use instead of non-selective NSAIDs, or instead of celecoxib or rofecoxib, is not robust.