Prevention of peptic ulcer and dyspeptic symptoms with omeprazole in patients receiving continuous non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy. A Nordic multicentre study

The gastroduodenal toxicity of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a review of the literature

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are popular and important for the treatment of inflammation and pain. However, conventional NSAIDs are intrinsically toxic to the gastroduodenal (GD) mucosa. The literature can, and should, guide us towards safer prescribing of NSAIDs. Factors known to increase the risk of GD toxicity include: history of peptic ulcer disease; advanced age; high doses; and coadministration of aspirin, anticoagulants or corticosteroids. Patients with any one of these risk factors, with the possible exception of age alone, should receive gastroprotective prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors or misoprostol. Standard dose H2 antagonists do not protect against NSAID-induced gastric ulcers and are unsuitable for prophylaxis. Awareness of risk factors and appropriate prophylactic agents will minimize the risk to patients. Whether the new generation of highly selective COX-2 inhibitors and nitric oxide-donating NSAIDs are safer drugs in long-term use be remains to be proven, though initial clinical trial data are positive.

Pantoprazole versus one-week Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy for the prevention of acute NSAID-related gastroduodenal damage in elderly subjects

AIM

To compare the efficacy of pantoprazole vs. a one-week Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy for the prevention of NSAID-related gastroduodenal damage.

METHODS

Patients over 60 years old with symptoms and/or a history of ulcer who needed NSAID treatment were evaluated by endoscopy. H. pylori positive subjects who had no severe gastroduodenal lesions were randomized to take, concomitantly with NSAID therapy, either: (i) pantoprazole 40 mg daily plus amoxycillin 1 g b.d. and clarithromycin 250 mg b.d. for 1 week (35 subjects, Group PAC) or (ii) pantoprazole 40 mg daily for 1 month (34 subjects, Group P). Endoscopy was repeated after 1 month.

RESULTS

A significantly higher incidence of severe gastroduodenal damage was found in Group PAC than in Group P (29% vs. 9%, P<0.05). The percentages of patients worsened, unchanged and improved after 1 month were, respectively: Group PAC: 46%, 46%, and 9% and Group P: 7%, 65%, and 29% (P<0.0008). The percentage of H. pylori-negative subjects was 89% in Group PAC and 52% in Group P (P=0.0009). The incidence of gastroduodenal damage was higher in Group PAC treatment failures than in cured patients (50% vs. 25.8%, P=ns).

CONCLUSION

One month of pantoprazole was more effective than a proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy in the prevention of gastroduodenal damage in elderly H. pylori-positive NSAID users.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy

By inhibiting prostaglandin synthesis, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) compromise gastroduodenal defense mechanism including blood flow and mucus/bicarbonate secretion. This has led to NSAIDs being the most widely reported drug cause of adverse events. While NSAIDs also cause dyspepsia, inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis may reduce this from even higher levels that would otherwise prevail and mask ulcer-related dyspepsia, making anticipatory management difficult. On average, the risk of ulcer complications increases 4-fold, resulting in 1.25 additional hospitalizations per 100 patient-years according to one estimate. Older patients, those with a past history, and those taking anticoagulants or corticosteroids are at higher risk. Risk is dose dependent and is lower with ibuprofen at low doses than with other NSAIDs. It is unlikely that Helicobacter pylori increases the risk, and under some circumstances it may be protective. Selective inhibitors of the inducible cyclooxygenase 2 spare gastric mucosal prostaglandin synthesis and do not damage the gastric mucosa. Their place in therapy, compared with use of misoprostol or proton pump inhibitors, is currently emerging. Future competitors may include nitric oxide-donating, zwitterionic, or R-enantiomer NSAIDs.

Cost-effectiveness of strategies for primary prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced peptic ulcer disease

OBJECTIVE

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk of peptic ulcer disease by 5- to 7-fold in the first 3 months of treatment. This study examined the relative cost-effectiveness of different strategies for the primary prevention of NSAID-induced ulcers in patients that are starting NSAID treatment.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A decision analysis model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 6 prophylactic strategies relative to no prophylaxis for patients 65 years of age starting a 3-month course of NSAIDs: (1) testing for Helicobacter pylori infection and treating those with positive tests; (2) empiric treatment of all patients for Helicobacter pylori; (3) conventional-dose histamine2 receptor antagonists; (4) high-dose histamine2 receptor antagonists; (5) misoprostol; and (6) omeprazole. Costs were estimated from 1997 Medicare reimbursement schedules and the Drug Topics Red Book. Empiric treatment of Helicobacter pylori with bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline was cost-saving in the baseline analysis. Selective treatment of Helicobacter pylori, misoprostol, omeprazole, and conventional-dose or high-dose histamine2 receptor antagonists cost $23,800, $46,100, $34,400, and $15,600 or $21,500 per year of life saved, respectively, relative to prophylaxis. The results were sensitive to the probability of an ulcer, the probability and mortality of ulcer complications, and the cost of, efficacy of, and compliance with prophylaxis. The cost-effectiveness estimates did not change substantially when costs associated with antibiotic resistance of Helicobacter pylori were incorporated.

CONCLUSIONS

Several strategies for primary prevention of NSAID-induced ulcers in patients starting NSAIDs were estimated to have acceptable cost-effectiveness relative to prophylaxis. Empirically treating all patients for Helicobacter pylori with bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline was projected to be cost-saving in older patients.

The effects of omeprazole on healing and appearance of small gastric and duodenal lesions during dosing with diclofenac in healthy subjects

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with gastrointestinal mucosal damage. Omeprazole prevents the formation, and accelerates the healing, of NSAID-induced ulcers.

AIM

To test whether omeprazole accelerates healing of standardized gastroduodenal lesions in the presence of diclofenac.

METHODS

In a double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, crossover study, 12 healthy volunteers received consecutive, 2-week courses of omeprazole (40 mg o.d.) and placebo, in random order, with an intervening, 4-week washout period; diclofenac (50 mg t.d.s.), was given for the second week of each course. Five endoscopies were performed, one at the outset and the others before and after each course of diclofenac. Biopsies were taken from the endoscopically normal mucosa of the corpus, antrum and duodenum and also from any new mucosal lesion that developed after diclofenac. The sites of biopsies taken before each course of diclofenac were evaluated endoscopically after each course to assess the extent of healing according to a predetermined healing score scale.

RESULTS

The healing scores observed after administration of placebo/diclofenac (median=0; range 0-6) and after omeprazole/diclofenac (median=0; range 0-6; P=0.17) did not differ. Small gastroduodenal lesions developed de novo in six subjects during placebo/diclofenac and in seven during omeprazole/diclofenac. Focal chemical gastropathy was observed only in close proximity to macroscopic lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

In healthy subjects, omeprazole does not accelerate the healing of pre-existing mucosal lesions or prevent the development of small diclofenac-induced mucosal lesions.

Efficacy of pantoprazole in the prevention of peptic ulcers, induced by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of pantoprazole in preventing gastrointestinal lesions in patients with rheumatic diseases receiving continuous, long-term treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

MATERIAL

This was a prospective, randomised, double-blind, unbalanced, placebo-controlled, parallel group study. Outpatients (n= 104, age range 22-80 years, mean age 59.5) with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis, requiring chronic intake of NSAIDs (at least 8 weeks prior to the start of the study), were randomised and enrolled to receive either 40 mg pantoprazole (n=70) or placebo (n=34) once daily, for 12 weeks. Patients had endoscopically confirmed gastric and duodenal lesions grade 0, 1 or 2 (Lanza classification grade 0: normal to hyperaemic mucosa; grade 1: 1 to 3 erosions, submucosal haemorrhage or petechiae, grade 2: 4 to 10 erosions, submucosal haemorrhages or petechiae). Clinical and endoscopic evaluations were performed at baseline, after 4, and 12 weeks. The primary end-point of the study was the incidence of gastric or duodenal ulcers after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Patients (n=95) were evaluated: 65 in the pantoprazole group and 30 in the placebo group. When considering all patients (those with Lanza score grade 0, 1, 2 at baseline), the overall proportion of patients in remission was 82% and 77% after 4 weeks, and 72% and 59% after 12 weeks in pantoprazole and placebo groups, respectively (cumulative survival analysis according to Kaplan-Meier). The difference between the treatment groups was even more marked when only those patients with normal mucosa at baseline (grade 0) were considered. After 12 weeks, the proportion of patients in remission was 82% (95% confidence limits 70% - 94% in the pantoprazole and 55% (95% confidence limits 33% - 77%) in the placebo treatment group, p=O.036. Adverse events were reported in 4% and 6% of patients in pantoprazole and placebo treatment groups, respectively

CONCLUSIONS

Pantoprazole 40 mg once daily was well tolerated and is more effective than placebo in the prevention of peptic ulcers in patients with rheumatic diseases who require continuous, long-term, treatment with NSAIDs.

A drug use evaluation of selected opioid and nonopioid analgesics in the nursing facility setting

OBJECTIVES

To determine the medical conditions for which selected analgesics are most frequently prescribed in nursing facilities (NFs), describe the use of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic pain therapies, and determine the frequency and quality of pain assessment in NF residents.

DESIGN

A multicenter, 3-month retrospective drug use evaluation conducted by consultant pharmacists.

SETTING

Eighty-nine NFs having no more than 25% of their patient census representing special populations (e.g., head trauma).

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 2065 adult NF residents who received at least one selected analgesic.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary indication for analgesics, pain type, method of pain assessment, nonpharmacologic therapies for pain, prescribed analgesics and regimens, and comorbid conditions were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 54.3% of residents had one indication for analgesic therapy, 31.0% had two indications, and 14.7% had three or more indications. Arthritis was the most prevalent indication for analgesics (41.7% of residents), followed by bone fracture (12.4%) and other musculoskeletal conditions (9.7%). More residents (76.8%) were reported to have chronic pain than acute pain (19.9%), and 3.0% had both chronic and acute pain. Pain type was unknown for 0.2% of residents. Observational pain assessments were used more frequently (for 55.9% of residents) than objective methods (16.6%), and pain was not assessed in 40.6% of residents. Most residents (69.4%) received no nonpharmacologic treatment for pain. Of the 2542 opioid and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescriptions, 67.6% were for opioids, 24.8% were for NSAIDs, and 7.6% were for tramadol. Propoxyphene-containing drugs were the most frequently prescribed opioid group, and propoxyphene with acetaminophen was the most frequently prescribed analgesic (35.6% of all analgesics). Most analgesics (63.2%) were prescribed on an as-needed (prn) basis.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings show a lack of adequate pain assessments, little use of nonpharmacologic interventions, and inappropriate use of analgesic medication. The small percentage of residents with chronic pain assessed objectively suggests the difficulty of monitoring pain progression in NFs. The prescribing of analgesic for most residents (with propoxyphene used most often, long-acting opioids used infrequently, and frequent prn use) was inconsistent with recommended pain therapy in older people and attests to the urgent need to educate NF practitioners on the appropriate use of analgesics.

NSAID-related gastrointestinal complications

Despite the common induction of gastrointestinal (GI) complications by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), many aspects of pathogenesis and management remain controversial. The most important complications are bleeding and perforation arising in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum due to NSAID effects on platelets and on a variety of mucosal lesions. Complications arise from preexisting peptic ulcer, NSAID-induced ulcers and erosions, and other lesions (not caused by NSAIDs) caused to bleed by NSAID-induced platelet dysfunction. Much confusion has arisen from the umbrella term "NSAID gastropathy" used to embrace a variety of pathogenetically distinct mucosal lesions. Failure to discriminate among the different forms of NSAID injury has hampered clinical investigation. This article offers general guidelines for prevention of NSAID complications, but there remain many unresolved issues, including the role of Helicobacter pylori infection. The best approach to management is to remove or reduce exposure to NSAIDs whenever possible. The newer NSAIDs (e.g., cyclo-oxygenase [COX]-2-selective inhibitors) have a much lower risk of endoscopic ulcers and minimal platelet effects, which are likely to translate into lower risk of GI complications. However, this benefit on clinical outcome remains to be established.

Quantitative estimation of rare adverse events which follow a biological progression: a new model applied to chronic NSAID use

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) alone are unlikely to provide reliable estimates of the incidence of rare events because of their limited size. Cohort, case control, and other observational studies have large numbers but are vulnerable to various kinds of bias. Wanting to estimate the risk of death from bleeding or perforated gastroduodenal ulcers with chronic usage of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with greater precision, we developed a model to quantify the frequency of rare adverse events which follow a biological progression. The model combined data from both RCTs and observational studies. We searched systematically for any report of chronic (>/=2 months) use of NSAIDs which gave information on gastroduodenal ulcer, bleed or perforation, death due to these complications, or progression from one level of harm to the next. Fifteen RCTs (19364 patients exposed to NSAIDs for 2-60 months), three cohort studies (215076 patients redeeming a NSAID prescription over a 3-12 month period), six case-control studies (2957 cases) and 20 case series (7406), and case reports (4447) were analysed. In RCTs the incidence of bleeding or perforation in 6822 patients exposed to NSAIDs was 0.69%; two deaths occurred. Of 11040 patients with bleeding or perforation with or without NSAID exposure across all reports, 6-16% (average 12%) died; the risk was lowest in RCTs and highest in case reports. Death from bleeding or perforation in all controls not exposed to NSAIDs occurred in 18 out of 849489 (0.002%). From these numbers we calculated the number-needed-to-treat for one patient to die due to gastroduodenal complications with chronic (>/=2 months) NSAIDs as 1/((0.69x¿6-16%, average 12%¿)-0.002%))=909-2500 (average 1220). On average 1 in 1200 patients taking NSAIDs for at least 2 months will die from gastroduodenal complications who would not have died had they not taken NSAIDs. This extrapolates to about 2000 deaths each year in the UK.

Gastrointestinal bleeding in older people

Aging is associated with an increased rate of comorbidity, greater medication use, and atypical clinical presentations. The aging of the population makes the evaluation and management of gastrointestinal bleeding in older people a special and increasingly common clinical challenge. The unique features and common causes of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding in older people are reviewed. Important management issues considered include hemodynamic resuscitation, anticoagulation, and endoscopic and surgical therapy.

How does Helicobacter pylori infection interact with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs?

There have been conflicting clinical data on whether Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) contributes to the pathogenesis of ulcers induced by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The discrepant findings reflect the complex interaction between H. pylori and NSAIDs, which has generated divergent results under different clinical conditions. This chapter reviews the pathogenetic mechanisms in ulcer formation that are common to H. pylori and NSAIDs, and explains how a better understanding of these factors might resolve some of the controversies. Existing evidence indicates that the interaction between H. pylori and NSAIDs is not an 'all-or-none' relationship. Factors such as previous exposure to NSAIDs, a past history of ulcer complication, gastric acid output, neutrophil infiltration, concurrent acid suppressive therapy and the type of NSAID used (aspirin versus non-aspirin NSAIDs) would influence the role of H. pylori as a risk factor in NSAID users. Recommendations on H. pylori eradication for different subgroups of NSAID users are proposed.

Management of gastroduodenal ulcers caused by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality, probably resulting in the death of 1200 patients per annum in the UK. The main mechanism of toxicity involves an inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis that results in mucosal erosion as a result of the abrogation of defence mechanisms. However, acid peptic attack can deepen this initial injury. Thus, logical treatments include prostaglandin analogues as 'replacement therapy', acid suppression, enteric coating to avoid topical effects and the use of safer NSAIDs, including those that have little or no effect on gastric mucosal prostaglandin synthesis. There is less logic to the strategy of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication, and the status of this approach is controversial. Overall, proton pump inhibitors have the best profile of efficacy and side-effects for the healing and prevention of NSAID-associated ulcers. Misoprostol is also effective and appears to be superior to proton pump inhibitors for superficial erosive injury. Early indications are that selective inhibitors of the inducible cyclooxygenase-2 enzyme have little or no effect in causing ulcers. Growing experience with these agents will probably revolutionize the management of patients with arthritic conditions. However, the increasing use of low-dose aspirin for cardiovascular prophylaxis means that gastroenterologists will have to continue to grapple with the problems of NSAID-associated ulcers for some time to come.

Prevention of chronic NSAID induced upper gastrointestinal toxicity

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are important agents in the management of arthritic and inflammatory conditions, and are among the most frequently prescribed medications in North America and Europe. However, there is overwhelming evidence linking these agents to a variety of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effectiveness of common interventions for the prevention of NSAID induced upper GI toxicity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A literature search was conducted, according to the Cochrane methodology for identification of randomized controlled trials in electronic databases, including MEDLINE from 1966 to January 2000, Current Contents for 6 months prior to January 2000, Embase to Febuary 1999, and a search of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register from 1973 to 1999. Recent conference proceedings were reviewed and content experts and companies were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of prostaglandin analogues (PA), H2-receptor antagonists (H2RA) or proton pump inhibitors (PPI) for the prevention of chronic NSAID induced upper GI toxicity were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data regarding population characteristics, study design, methodological quality and number of patients with endoscopic ulcers, ulcer complications, symptoms, overall drop-outs, drop outs due to symptoms. Dichotomous data was pooled using Revman V3.1. Heterogeneity was evaluated using a chi square test.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-three RCTs met the inclusion criteria. All doses of misoprostol significantly reduced the risk of endoscopic ulcers. Misoprostol 800 ug/day was superior to 400 ug/day for the prevention of endoscopic gastric ulcers (RR=0.18, and RR=0. 38 respectively, p=0.0055). A dose response relationship was not seen with duodenal ulcers. Misoprostol caused diarrhea at all doses, although significantly more at 800ug/day than 400ug/day (p=0.0012). Misoprostol was the only prophylactic agent documented to reduce ulcer complications. Standard doses of H2RAs were effective at reducing the risk of endoscopic duodenal (RR=0.24; 95% CI: 0.10-0. 57) but not gastric ulcers(RR=0.73; 95% CI:0.50-1.09). Both double dose H2RAs and PPIs were effective at reducing the risk of endoscopic duodenal and gastric ulcers (RR=0.44; 95% CI:0.26-0.74 and RR=0.37;95% CI;0.27-0.51 respectively for gastric ulcer), and were better tolerated than misoprostol.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Misoprostol, PPIs, and double dose H2RAs are effective at preventing chronic NSAID related endoscopic gastric and duodenal ulcers. Lower doses of misoprostol are less effective and are still associated with diarrhea. Only Misoprostol 800ug/day has been directly shown to reduce the risk of ulcer complications.

Irritable bowel syndrome clinical trial design: future needs

This article addresses a series of points that should be considered in the design of future clinical trials in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). A precise, uncontroversial definition of the disorder and the affected patient is required that accurately describes the condition that practitioners recognize intuitively exists. Regarding patient source and selection, the principle should be applied that patients be recruited to trials from all sources to which an indication is intended. Because abdominal pain is the most central symptom of IBS, it should be used as the primary trial endpoint. Because there are currently no effective treatments, placebo-controlled trials pose no ethical problems. High placebo responses may equally well be the temporary spontaneous improvements that are characteristic of the condition. Clinical trials should be designed to meet specific aims of treatments: when taken as single doses to terminate an attack of pain; when taken over a brief period of time to speed resolution of a period of exacerbation of IBS; when taken after termination of a period of activity to prevent relapse; when taken regularly on a long-term basis to reduce the days on which a number of symptoms are experienced; when taken in form of discrete courses of treatment designed to achieve a pivotal change in the natural history of the condition.

Review article: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated gastrointestinal complications--guidelines for prevention and treatment

Chronic ingestion of NSAIDs increases the risk for gastrointestinal complications, which range from dyspepsia to gastrointestinal bleeding, obstruction, and perforation. Among patients using NSAIDs, 0.1 to 2.0% per year suffer serious gastrointestinal complications. Patients who require analgesic therapy should be carefully assessed for the lowest possible dosage and shortest duration of NSAID use and for the potential of treatment with a non-NSAID pain reliever. These patients should also be assessed for factors that increase their risk of gastrointestinal complications, including increased age, concomitant anticoagulant or corticosteroid use, and past history of NSAID-associated gastrointestinal complications. The exact association between Helicobacter pylori infection and NSAID-related ulcer disease is unclear, and the routine testing and treatment of all NSAID using patients for H. pylori infection is not recommended at this time. NSAID-using patients who suffer from dyspepsia should have NSAIDs discontinued, the dosage changed, or be changed to a different class of NSAID. If NSAIDs cannot be discontinued, then an antisecretory agent should be initiated. Misoprostol prevents NSAID-associated gastrointestinal complications. Proton pump inhibitors are the most effective at healing NSAID-associated ulcers among patients who cannot discontinue NSAID therapy.

Preventing NSAID Toxicity to the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract

Prevention of gastrointestinal toxicity begins with the selection of an appropriate analgesic or anti-inflammatory agent. For conditions without inflammation, such as some cases of osteoarthritis, an analgesic with no risk for gastrointestinal toxicity is appropriate. Risk factors for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related complications include advanced age; history of ulcer disease or gastrointestinal bleeding; concomitant corticosteroid or anticoagulant use; use of high-dose or multiple NSAIDs; and certain chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease. If an NSAID must be used in a patient with risk factors, the patient should receive the lowest-risk NSAID and, in most cases, co-therapy to reduce the risk for NSAID-associated ulcers and their complications. The PGE1 prostaglandin analogue misoprostol is highly efficacious for the prevention of both gastric and duodenal ulcers and has also been shown to reduce the incidence of NSAID-induced ulcer complications. Side effects, such as diarrhea, may limit patient acceptance of the drug. Acid suppression with traditional ulcer-healing doses of H2-blockers significantly reduces rates of duodenal ulcer but is ineffective in reducing gastric ulceration. More potent acid inhibition with double-dose H2-blockers reduces rates of both gastric and duodenal ulcers. Proton-pump inhibitors, such as omeprazole, have been shown to prevent gastric and duodenal ulcers with an efficacy equal to that of misoprostol. They also reduce NSAID-related dyspepsia. Specific cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors are associated with a markedly reduced rate of endoscopic ulcers. Very high-risk patients who receive these agents may still require co-therapy to prevent complications or reduce dyspepsia. This protocol may be changed by the results of long-term gastrointestinal outcome studies now underway.

Prophylaxis and treatment of NSAID-induced gastroduodenal disorders

A significant percentage of patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) experience some type of adverse gastrointestinal symptoms, lesions of the gastroduodenal tract being clinically the most relevant. NSAIDs cause gastrointestinal damage by 2 independent mechanisms: a topical effect, which is pH and pKa related, and a systemic effect mediated by cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibition with a reduction in prostaglandin synthesis. Using endoscopy, gastroduodenal lesions identified include subepithelial haemorrhages, erosions and ulcers. The prevalence of ulceration in NSAID users has been reported as being between 14 and 31% with a 2-fold higher frequency of gastric ulcers compared with duodenal ulcers. Among the strategies used to decrease the risk of ulcer development are: (i) the use of analgesics other than NSAIDs; (ii) use of the lowest possible dosage of NSAID; (iii) the use of a COX-2 selective NSAID; (iv) the use of low doses of corticosteroids instead of NSAIDs; (v) avoidance of concomitant use of NSAIDs and corticosteroids; and (vi) use of preventive therapy. In an attempt to reduce the incidence of NSAID-induced gastrointestinal lesions, the following approaches have been proposed: (i) use of the prostaglandin analogue misoprostol, which is an antiulcer drug which has been proven to be as effective in the prevention of NSAID-induced gastric and duodenal ulcers as in the reduction of serious upper gastrointestinal complications; (ii) histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2 antagonists), e.g. ranitidine, cimetidine and famotidine, which are useful in the prevention of NSAID-induced duodenal ulcers during long term treatment, but not in the prevention of NSAID-induced gastric ulcers; (iii) proton pump inhibitors, e.g omeprazole, and pantoprazole, whose efficacy in preventing NSAID-associated ulcers has been recently demonstrated; and (iv) barrier agents, e.g. sucralfate, which cannot be recommended as prophylactic agents to prevent NSAID-induced gastropathy. The first step in the treatment of NSAID-associated ulcers lies in a reduction in the dosage of the NSAID or discontinuation of the drug. If NSAID treatment cannot be withdrawn, a proton pump inhibitor appears to be the most effective treatment in healing ulcers, accelerating the slow healing observed with H2 antagonists.

Gastrointestinal effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory therapy

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely prescribed for the treatment of many conditions including rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, gouty arthritis, the joint and muscle discomfort associated with systemic lupus erythematosus, and other musculoskeletal disorders. Yet, their benefits, which are believed to be a result of their ability to inhibit cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), are accompanied by considerable toxicity. NSAIDs' untoward effects are attributed to their inhibition of the constitutively expressed enzyme cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1), with attendant suppression of the synthesis of prostanoids, substances that mediate key homeostatic functions. Side effects include suppression of hemostasis through inhibition of platelet aggregation, adverse effects in patients with heart failure and cirrhosis, and those with certain renal diseases, as well as complicating antihypertensive therapies involving diuretics or beta-adrenoceptor blockade. Perhaps most importantly, NSAIDs disrupt the gastrointestinal mucosal-protective and acid-limiting properties of prostaglandins, frequently leading to upper gastrointestinal erosions and ulceration, with possible subsequent hemorrhage and perforation. These complications can be reduced through identification of patients at risk, with circumspect use of NSAIDs, careful functional monitoring, and, in the case of gastrointestinal toxicity, co-administration of such agents as misoprostol or omeprazole. However, these strategies introduce complexity into the treatment paradigm. Moreover, side effects and adverse events may be significantly reduced through the use of COX-2-specific inhibitors, new agents that alleviate pain and inflammation without the liability for adverse events caused by COX-1 inhibition.

Does eradication of Helicobacter pylori impair healing of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug associated bleeding peptic ulcers? A prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Despite the widely accepted view that Helicobacter pylori is the most important cause of peptic ulcer disease, recent studies have suggested that the microbe protects against nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-associated gastroduodenal lesions and promotes ulcer healing. We investigated the effects of H. pylori eradication on the healing of NSAID-associated bleeding peptic ulcers.

METHODS

Chronic NSAID users presenting with peptic ulcer haemorrhage underwent endoscopy to secure haemostasis and to document H. pylori infection by rapid urease test and culture. They were prospectively randomized to receive either omeprazole (20 mg once daily) for 8 weeks or a 1-week course of triple therapy (bismuth subcitrate 120 mg, tetracycline 500 mg, metronidazole 400 mg, all given four times daily) plus omeprazole (20 mg once daily) for 8 weeks. Endoscopy was repeated after 8 weeks. Final H. pylori status was determined by a 13C-urea breath test that was performed at least 4 weeks after discontinuation of omeprazole.

RESULTS

195 H. pylori-infected NSAID users, complicated by bleeding ulcers, were randomized to receive omeprazole alone (102) or triple therapy plus omeprazole (93). 174 patients returned for second endoscopy at 8 weeks (91 in the omeprazole group, 83 in the triple therapy group). Urea breath test was negative in 14% in the omeprazole group vs. 92% in the triple therapy group (P < 0.001). Complete ulcer healing was achieved in 88 (97%) patients in the omeprazole group and 77 (93%) in the triple therapy group (P=0. 31). On intention-to-treat analysis, ulcers were healed in 86% of the omeprazole group and 83% of the triple therapy group (P=0.50). There was no significant difference in the healing rates of gastric or duodenal ulcers between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Eradication of H. pylori did not impair the healing of NSAID-associated bleeding peptic ulcers.

Agents used in the prevention and treatment of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated symptoms and ulcers

Coprescription of gastroprotective agents is a common practice for patients requiring nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy, although there is limited evidence that some of these agents are effective. The prostaglandin analog misoprostol and the proton pump inhibitor omeprazole appear to be efficacious in decreasing NSAID-associated ulcers. Misoprostol has also been shown to decrease NSAID-associated gastrointestinal (GI) complications by 40% compared with placebo. Despite the efficacy of these drugs, their effectiveness in the general population has not yet been adequately determined with respect to reduction of symptoms and improvement in patient quality of life. Sucralfate and bismuth appear to be largely ineffective, and histamine receptor antagonists, when given at traditional ulcer-healing doses, decrease symptoms and duodenal ulcers only. The issue of outcomes research, therefore, needs to be more fully incorporated into any analysis of the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of the widespread clinical use of such gastroprotective drugs.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-related gastrointestinal toxicity: definitions and epidemiology

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-associated gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity is a broad topic encompassing symptoms as well as severe GI complications. GI bleeding and perforation are the 2 overlapping components that account for the majority of deaths and disability associated with these drugs. Abnormal gastric endoscopic profiles as well as symptoms such as heartburn, pain, and dyspepsia are common in NSAID users, but no correlation has been found between these factors and the occurrence of the more severe complications; therefore, neither symptoms nor endoscopic observations can necessarily be considered reliable predictors of future outcomes. Confounding factors can increase the risk of complications, and specific NSAIDs vary in the magnitude and type of risk attending their use. Recent studies have focused on the contribution of nonprescription NSAIDs to total complications, and combined with evidence suggesting that the risk is greatest during the first month of NSAID use, it is apparent that NSAID toxicity is an acute as well as a chronic problem.

Randomised controlled trial of Helicobacter pylori eradication in patients on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: HELP NSAIDs study. Helicobacter Eradication for Lesion Prevention

BACKGROUND

The effect of Helicobacter pylori in patients receiving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is unclear. We investigated the effects of H. pylori eradication in patients with current or previous peptic ulceration, dyspepsia, or both who continued to use NSAIDs.

METHODS

285 patients were randomly assigned omeprazole 20 mg, amoxycillin 1000 mg, and clarithromycin 500 mg, twice daily (n=142, H. pylori eradication treatment), or omeprazole with placebo antibiotics (n=143, controls) for 1 week. All patients received omeprazole 20 mg once daily for 3 weeks until endoscopy, and, if the ulcer was not healed, 40 mg once daily until repeat endoscopy at 8 weeks. Ulcer-free patients with mild dyspepsia continued NSAIDs but not antiulcer treatment. We investigated ulcers with endoscopy at 1, 3, and 6 months and with carbon-13-labelled urea breath test at 3 months.

FINDINGS

The estimated probability of being ulcer-free at 6 months was 0.56 (95% CI 0.47-0.65) on eradication treatment and 0.53 (0.44-0.62) on on control treatment (p=0.80). Time to treatment failure did not differ between groups for ulcers or dyspepsia alone, per-protocol analysis, or final H. pylori status. 66% (58-74) of the eradication group compared with 14% (8-20) of the control group had a final negative H. pylori result (p<0.001). Fewer baseline gastric ulcers healed among eradication-treatment patients than among controls (72 vs 100% at 8 weeks, p=0.006).

INTERPRETATION

H. pylori eradication in long-term users of NSAIDs with past or current peptic ulcer or troublesome dyspepsia led to impaired healing of gastric ulcers and did not affect the rate of peptic ulcers or dyspepsia over 6 months.

Omeprazole. A review of its use in Helicobacter pylori infection, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcers induced by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Omeprazole is a well studied proton pump inhibitor that reduces gastric acid secretion. This review examines its use in Helicobacter pylori infection, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) with or without oesophagitis and gastrointestinal damage caused by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Optimal omeprazole regimens for anti-H. pylori therapy are those that administer the drug at a dosage of 40 mg/day (in 1 or 2 divided doses) for 7, 10 or 14 days in combination with 2 antibacterial agents. As a component of 3-drug regimens in direct comparative studies, omeprazole was at least as effective as lansoprazole, pantoprazole, bismuth compounds and ranitidine. However, a meta-analysis suggests that triple therapies with omeprazole are more effective than comparable regimens containing ranitidine, lansoprazole or bismuth. Omeprazole also appears to be successful in triple therapy regimens used in children with H. pylori infection. In patients with acute GORD with oesophagitis, omeprazole is at least as effective as lansoprazole or pantoprazole in promoting healing, and superior to ranitidine, cimetidine or cisapride in oesophagitis healing and symptom relief. Omeprazole was similar to lansoprazole and superior to ranitidine in preventing oesophagitis relapse in patients with all grades of oesophagitis, but may be superior to lansoprazole or pantoprazole in patients with more severe disease. More patients with symptomatic GORD without oesophagitis experienced symptom relief after short term treatment with omeprazole than with ranitidine, cisapride or placebo, and symptoms were more readily prevented by omeprazole than by cimetidine or placebo. Omeprazole was effective in healing and relieving symptoms of reflux oesophagitis in children with oesophagitis refractory to histamine H2 receptor antagonists. Omeprazole is superior to placebo in preventing NSAID-induced gastrointestinal damage in patients who must continue to take NSAIDs. It is also similar to misoprostol and superior to ranitidine in its ability to heal NSAID-induced peptic ulcers and erosions, and superior to misoprostol, ranitidine or placebo in its ability to prevent relapse. In long and short term studies, omeprazole was well tolerated, with diarrhoea, headache, dizziness, flatulence, abdominal pain and constipation being the most commonly reported adverse events. Usual omeprazole dosages, alone or combined with other agents, are 10 to 40 mg/day for adults and 10 to 20 mg/day for children.

CONCLUSIONS

Omeprazole is a well studied and well tolerated agent effective in adults or children as a component in regimens aimed at eradicating H. pylori infections or as monotherapy in the treatment and prophylaxis of GORD with or without oesophagitis or NSAID-induced gastrointestinal damage.

Proton pump inhibitors. Pharmacology and rationale for use in gastrointestinal disorders

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are drugs which irreversibly inhibit proton pump (H+/K+ ATPase) function and are the most potent gastric acid-suppressing agents in clinical use. There is now a substantial body of evidence showing improved efficacy of PPIs over the histamine H2 receptor antagonists and other drugs in acid-related disorders. Omeprazole 20 mg/day, lansoprazole 30 mg/day, pantoprazole 40 mg/day or rabeprazole 20 mg/day for 2 to 4 weeks are more effective than standard doses of H2-receptor antagonists in healing duodenal and gastric ulcers. Patients with gastric ulcers should receive standard doses of PPIs as for duodenal ulcers but for a longer time period (4 to 8 weeks). There is no conclusive evidence to support the use of a particular PPI over another for either duodenal or gastric ulcer healing. For Helicobacter pylori-positive duodenal ulceration, a combination of a PPI and 2 antibacterials will eradicate H. pylori in over 90% of cases and significantly reduce ulcer recurrence. Patients with H. pylori-positive gastric ulcers should be managed similarly. PPIs also have efficacy advantages over ranitidine and misoprostol and are better tolerated than misoprostol in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In endoscopically proven gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, standard daily doses of the PPIs are more effective than H2-receptor antagonists for healing, and patients should receive a 4 to 8 week course of treatment. For severe reflux, with ulceration and/or stricture formation, a higher dose regimen (omeprazole 40 mg, lansoprazole 60 mg, pantoprazole 80 mg or rabeprazole 40 mg daily) appears to yield better healing rates. There is little evidence that PPIs lead to resolution of Barrett's oesophagus or a reduction of subsequent adenocarcinoma development, but PPIs are indicated in healing of any associated ulceration. In Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, PPIs have become the treatment of choice for the management of gastric acid hypersecretion.

Gastrointestinal side effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

The gastrointestinal (GI) tract is the most common location for side effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These drugs may cause problems in any part of the GI tract, from the esophagus to the rectum. The severity of these side effects ranges from nuisance symptoms such as dyspepsia to life-threatening ulcer complications. The diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of the various GI side effects of these commonly prescribed drugs are reviewed in this article.

Omeprazole 20 or 40 mg daily for healing gastroduodenal ulcers in patients receiving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are strongly associated with gastroduodenal ulcers, and the management of patients with NSAID-associated ulcers represents a common clinical dilemma.

AIM

To assess NSAID-associated ulcer healing during treatment with either standard (20 mg) or high dosage (40 mg) omeprazole.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty-nine patients chronically ingesting diclofenac, ketoprofen, indomethacin or naproxen for osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, who had abdominal pain and an endoscopically proven gastroduodenal ulcer, were evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, dose regimen trial with omeprazole 20 mg o.m. (n = 81) or omeprazole 40 mg o.m. (n = 88). Ulcer healing was assessed endoscopically at 4 and 8 weeks in the case of unhealed ulcers. Patients continued their usual daily dose of anti-inflammatory medication throughout the study period.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-six patients completed the study (77 patients taking 20 mg omeprazole and 79 patients taking 40 mg omeprazole); 12 patients were lost during follow-up and one patient reported an adverse event. Cumulative ulcer intention-to-treat healing rates at 8 weeks were 88% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 79-95%) for the 20 mg omeprazole group and 96.2% (95% CI = 89-99%) for the 40 mg group, and 97.1% (95% CI = 90-100%) for the 20 mg omeprazole group and 98.6% (95% CI = 93-100%) for the 40 mg group by per protocol analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Symptom relief did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Both standard and high doses of omeprazole are equally safe and effective regimens for the treatment of NSAID-induced gastroduodenal ulcers when anti-inflammatory treatment is not discontinued.

Pharmacologic management of pain and inflammation in athletes

This article attempts to concisely present some of the scientific basis of the pharmacology of anti-inflammatory medications. The clinical use and application of anti-inflammatories is also addressed. The information is designed to assist the clinician to develop a sound approach in selecting the appropriate treatment plan for their patients.

Progress in prophylaxis against nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated ulcers and erosions. Omeprazole NSAID Steering Committee

Four large clinical studies have shown that omeprazole, 20 mg once daily, is effective in preventing the significant gastroduodenal consequences of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In the Scandinavian Collaborative Ulcer Recurrence (SCUR) study, patients were randomized (without initial endoscopy) to receive omeprazole or placebo for up to 3 months. Of the patients treated with omeprazole, 24.7% experienced treatment failure, compared with 50.0% of those on placebo. Fewer patients in the omeprazole group than in the placebo group developed a peptic ulcer (4.7% versus 16.7%, respectively) or dyspeptic symptoms (8.2% versus 20.0%, respectively). In the Omeprazole versus Placebo as Prophylaxis of Ulcers and Erosions from NSAID Treatment (OPPULENT) study, patients were also randomized to receive omeprazole or placebo. The estimated probability of remaining in remission for 6 months while receiving omeprazole was 0.78, compared with 0.53 for placebo. Fourteen (16.5%) patients on placebo developed peptic ulcer(s), compared with three (3.6%) patients on omeprazole. The Omeprazole versus Misoprostol for NSAID-Induced Ulcer Management (OMNIUM) study consisted of a healing and a prophylactic phase. Patients who successfully completed the healing phase were re-randomized to receive omeprazole, misoprostol, or placebo for up to 6 months. In patients receiving omeprazole, 36.5% experienced treatment failure, compared with 48.6% of those on misoprostol, and 67.7% of those on placebo. Omeprazole and misoprostol appeared to be equally effective in preventing gastric ulcer; by contrast, omeprazole was highly effective in preventing duodenal ulcer, when compared with misoprostol and placebo. The Acid Suppression Trial: Ranitidine versus Omeprazole for NSAID-Associated Ulcer Treatment (ASTRONAUT) study also consisted of a healing and a prophylactic phase. Patients who successfully completed the healing phase were re-randomized to receive omeprazole or ranitidine for up to 6 months. In patients receiving omeprazole, 26.2% experienced treatment failure, compared with 37.7% of those on ranitidine. The percentages of patients with a peptic ulcer relapse were 5.7% for omeprazole and 19.5% for ranitidine. The data show that omeprazole is an effective and well-tolerated agent for both primary and secondary (maintenance) prophylaxis in patients receiving NSAIDs.

Dyspepsia: current understanding and management

Dyspepsia, defined as "pain or discomfort centered in the upper abdomen" is reported by one in four adults in Western societies. The most important causes are non-ulcer (functional) dyspepsia, peptic ulcer, gastroesophageal reflux, and, rarely, gastric cancer. Persons with heartburn alone are not considered to have dyspepsia. The division of dyspepsia into symptom-based subgroups (ulcer-like, dysmotility-like, reflux-like, and unspecified dyspepsia) has proven to be of doubtful value for the clinician, as it has a low predictive value for identifying the causes of dyspepsia. Upper endoscopy remains the "gold standard" test; ultrasound and blood tests have a low yield. The role of Helicobacter pylori in peptic ulcer disease is well known, but the clinical role of the infection in non-ulcer dyspepsia remains very controversial. In uninvestigated dyspeptic patients who are H. pylori infected based on a non-invasive test, empiric anti-H. pylori therapy is a reasonable and probably cost-effective option. In documented non-ulcer dyspepsia, prokinetics are superior to placebo while antisecretory therapy is of less certain efficacy.

Omeprazole compared with misoprostol for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Omeprazole versus Misoprostol for NSAID-induced Ulcer Management (OMNIUM) Study Group

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol is effective for ulcers associated with the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) but is often poorly tolerated because of diarrhea and abdominal pain. We compared the efficacy of omeprazole and misoprostol in healing and preventing ulcers associated with NSAIDs.

METHODS

In a double-blind study, we randomly assigned 935 patients who required continuous NSAID therapy and who had ulcers or more than 10 erosions in the stomach or duodenum (or both) to receive 20 mg or 40 mg of omeprazole orally in the morning or 200 microg of misoprostol orally four times daily. Patients were treated for four weeks or, in the absence of healing, eight weeks. Treatment success was defined as the absence of ulcers and the presence of fewer than five erosions at each site and not more than mild dyspepsia. We then randomly reassigned 732 patients in whom treatment was successful to maintenance therapy with 20 mg of omeprazole daily, 200 microg of misoprostol twice daily, or placebo for six months.

RESULTS

At eight weeks, treatment was successful in 76 percent of the patients given 20 mg of omeprazole (233 of 308), 75 percent of those given 40 mg of omeprazole (237 of 315), and 71 percent of those given misoprostol (212 of 298). The rates of gastric-ulcer healing were significantly higher with 20 mg of omeprazole (but not 40 mg of omeprazole) than with misoprostol. Healing rates among patients with duodenal ulcers were higher with either dose of omeprazole than with misoprostol, whereas healing rates among patients with erosions alone were higher with misoprostol. More patients remained in remission during maintenance treatment with omeprazole (61 percent) than with misoprostol (48 percent, P=0.001) and with either drug than with placebo (27 percent, P<0.001). There were more adverse events during the healing phase in the misoprostol group than in the groups given 20 mg and 40 mg of omeprazole (59 percent, 48 percent, and 46 percent, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall rates of successful treatment of ulcers, erosions, and symptoms associated with NSAIDs were similar for the two doses of omeprazole and misoprostol. Maintenance therapy with omeprazole was associated with a lower rate of relapse than misoprostol. Omeprazole was better tolerated than misoprostol.

A comparison of omeprazole with ranitidine for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Acid Suppression Trial: Ranitidine versus Omeprazole for NSAID-associated Ulcer Treatment (ASTRONAUT) Study Group

BACKGROUND

Suppressing acid secretion is thought o reduce the risk of ulcers associated with regular use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), but the best means of accomplishing this is uncertain.

METHODS

We studied 541 patients who required continuous treatment with NSAIDs and who had ulcers or more than 10 erosions in either the stomach or duodenum. Patients were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with omeprazole, 20 mg or 40 mg orally per day, or ranitidine, 150 mg orally twice a day, for four or eight weeks, depending on when treatment was successful (defined as the resolution of ulcer and the presence of fewer than five erosions in the stomach, and fewer than five erosions in the duodenum, and not more than mild dyspepsia). We randomly assigned 432 patients in whom treatment was successful to maintenance treatment with either 20 mg of omeprazole per day or 150 mg of ranitidine twice a day for six months.

RESULTS

At eight weeks, treatment was successful in 80 percent (140 of 174) of the patients in the group given 20 mg of omeprazole per day, 79 percent (148 of 187) of those given 40 mg of omeprazole per day, and 63 percent (110 of 174) of those given ranitidine (P<0.001 for the comparison with 20 mg of omeprazole and P=0.001 for the comparison with 40 mg of omeprazole). The rates of healing of all types of lesions were higher with omeprazole than with ranitidine. During maintenance therapy, the estimated proportion of patients in remission at the end of six months was 72 percent in the omeprazole group and 59 percent in the ranitidine group. The rates of adverse events were similar between groups during both phases. Both medications were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with regular use of NSAIDs, omeprazole healed and prevented ulcers more effectively than did ranitidine.

Clinical economics review: gastrointestinal complications of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most widely used symptomatic remedies for rheumatic disorders. Their major side-effects involve the gastrointestinal tract and, while the stomach is often the prime focus of adverse reactions, the whole gut may be involved. A number of strategies have been used to reduce both the incidence of side-effects and their economic consequences. Decreased NSAID use can be achieved both by rational prescribing and by active promotion of other, usually non-pharmacological, methods of controlling symptoms. Prescribing NSAIDs based on their cost assumes all have equal efficacy and side-effects, which is demonstrably untrue. Picking the least toxic NSAID is more logical. Most of the larger studies and meta-analyses available concentrate on older NSAIDs and risk overlooking the advantages of newer preparations which have been shown to be cost beneficial by more comprehensive economic analyses. Misoprostol prophylaxis has been the subject of a number of economic evaluations which, until recently, were based on extrapolations rather than clinical data. There are now good clinical data available which show a small but significant reduction in major side-effects at the expense of an increase in minor but unpleasant ones. Proton pump inhibitors appear to offer the same degree of gastroprotection as misoprostol, with the additional benefit of symptom relief. Economic data regarding the costs and benefits of prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors are not yet available. There is still a need for a more comprehensive evaluation of the benefits of NSAIDs in different clinical situations to balance against the costs of adverse reactions.

Randomised trial of eradication of Helicobacter pylori before non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy to prevent peptic ulcers

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori infection is common in patients with peptic ulcers caused by the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). But the pathogenic role of H pylori in this disease is controversial. We studied the efficacy of eradication of H pylori in the prevention of NSAID-induced peptic ulcers.

METHODS

We recruited patients with musculoskeletal pain who required NSAID treatment. None of the patients had previous exposure to NSAID therapy. Patients who had H pylori infection but no pre-existing ulcers on endoscopy were randomly allocated naproxen alone (750 mg daily) for 8 weeks or a 1-week course of triple therapy (bismuth subcitrate 120 mg, tetracycline 500 mg, metronidazole 400 mg, each given orally four times daily) before administration of naproxen (750 mg daily). Endoscopy was repeated after 8 weeks of naproxen treatment or when naproxen treatment was stopped early because of bleeding or intractable dyspepsia. All endoscopic examinations were done by one endoscopist who was unaware of treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the cumulative rate of gastric and duodenal ulcers.

FINDINGS

202 patients underwent endoscopic screening for enrolment in the trial, and 100 eligible patients were randomly assigned treatment. 92 patients completed the trial (47 in the naproxen group, 45 in the triple-therapy group). At 8 weeks, H pylori had been eradicated from no patients in the naproxen group and 40 (89%) in the triple-therapy group (p < 0.001). 12 (26%) naproxen-group patients developed ulcers: five had ulcer pain and one developed ulcer bleeding. Only three (7%) patients on triple therapy had ulcers, and two of these patients had failure of H pylori eradication (p = 0.01). Thus, 12 (26%) patients with persistent H pylori infection but only one (3%) with successful H pylori eradication developed ulcers with naproxen (p = 0.002).

INTERPRETATION

Eradication of H pylori before NSAID therapy reduces the occurrence of NSAID-induced peptic ulcers.