Variability in risk of gastrointestinal complications with individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: results of a collaborative meta-analysis

Proton pump inhibitors for gastroduodenal damage related to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin: twelve important questions for clinical practice

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin are among the most commonly used medications worldwide. Their use is associated with significant gastroduodenal adverse effects, including dyspepsia, bleeding, ulcer formation, and perforation. Given their long-term use by millions of patients, there is a substantial impact at the population level of these complications. In this evidence-based review, we have endeavored to answer 12 commonly encountered questions in clinical practice that deal with the following: extent of the problem of NSAID/aspirin-induced gastroduodenal damage and its impact on public health; role of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in the primary prevention, healing, and secondary prevention of NSAID/aspirin-induced gastroduodenal ulceration as assessed by using endoscopic end points; role of PPIs in the prevention of adverse clinical outcomes related to NSAID/aspirin use; whether PPIs are effective in NSAID-induced dyspepsia; comparison of PPI co-therapy with selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors for risk reduction of adverse clinical outcomes; role of PPIs in preventing rebleeding from aspirin +/- clopidogrel therapy in high-risk patients; identifying high-risk patients who can benefit from PPI co-therapy; the role of other gastroprotective agents for prevention of NSAID/aspirin-induced gastroduodenal damage; and the cost-effectiveness of and limitations to the use of PPIs for prevention of gastroduodenal damage related to the use of NSAIDs or aspirin. We then summarized our recommendations on the use of PPIs for the clinical management of patients using NSAIDs or aspirin.

Case report: peptic ulcer disease in a professional athlete

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) is a common problem that affects 4 million people in the United States. Although its prevalence has not been studied in the athletic population, one would suspect PUD would affect athletes at a similar rate or higher based on the predispositions to certain risk factors of this disease. This case report addresses the particular predispositions for PUD in a professional football athlete.

Randomized clinical comparisons of diclofenac concentration in the soft tissues and blood plasma between topical and oral applications

AIMS

To compare tissue concentrations of diclofenac resulting from topical and oral applications of diclofenac according to clinically recommended prescriptions.

METHODS

Diclofenac sodium was applied to 14 subjects (four male and 10 female), who were scheduled to undergo knee arthroplasty due to osteoarthritis, according to the oral or topical prescription (a capsule containing 37.5 mg diclofenac sodium or two tapes containing a total of 30 mg diclofenac sodium). At 12 h after prescription, the diclofenac concentration in the fat, muscle and synovial tissues was measured with liquid chromatography and mass analysis.

RESULTS

The diclofenac concentration in the muscle was significantly higher (P = 0.0196) after topical application (average 9.29 ng ml(-1)) than after oral application (0.66 ng ml(-1)), whereas there was no significant difference in the plasma diclofenac level (4.70 and 6.63 ng ml(-1)) between the two applications. The concentration in the synovial membrane was significantly (P = 0.0181) lower in the topical application (4.99 ng ml(-1)) than in the oral application (15.07 ng ml(-1)).

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas plasma levels resulting from topical and oral applications of diclofenac according to clinically recommended prescriptions were comparable, concentration levels in the muscle and synovial tissues were different.

Five-year efficacy and safety analysis of the Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib Trial

The Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib Trial examined the efficacy and safety of the cyclooxygenase (Cox)-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, for sporadic colorectal adenoma prevention in patients at high risk for colorectal cancer. The trial randomized 2,035 subjects to receive either placebo, celecoxib 200 mg twice daily, or celecoxib 400 mg twice daily. The primary study safety and efficacy analyses involved 3 years of treatment. The results showed significant antitumor effect but also indicated increased cardiovascular adverse events in patients treated with celecoxib compared with placebo. A total of 933 patients participated in an extension of the Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib Trial, with a planned total treatment and surveillance duration of 5 years. Study medication was stopped early, resulting in a median treatment duration of 3.1 years for those with a year 5 colonoscopy. Patients treated on the placebo arm had a cumulative adenoma incidence of 68.4% over 5 years of observation. This figure was 59.0% (P < 0.0001) for those receiving low-dose celecoxib, and 60.1% (P < 0.0001) for those receiving high-dose celecoxib. The cumulative incidence of advanced adenomas over 5 years was 21.3% of those taking placebo, 12.5% (P < 0.0001) of those taking low dose celecoxib and 15.8% (P < 0.0001) of those taking high-dose celecoxib. Investigator reported treatment emergent adverse events were similar across all treatment groups for categories including renal and hypertensive events and gastrointestinal ulceration and hemorrhage events. For a category composed of cardiovascular and thrombotic events, the risk relative to placebo was 1.6 (95% confidence interval, 1.0, 2.5) for those using 200 mg twice daily celecoxib and 1.9 (95% confidence interval, 1.2, 3.1) for those using 400 mg twice daily celecoxib. Secondary analysis showed an interaction between a baseline history of atherosclerotic heart disease and study drug use with respect to cardiovascular and thrombotic adverse events (P = 0.004). These results confirm the inhibitory effect of celecoxib on colorectal adenoma formation, and provide additional safety data indicating an elevated risk for cardiovascular and thrombotic adverse events, particularly for patients with preexisting atherosclerotic heart disease.

Onset of analgesia with sodium ibuprofen, ibuprofen acid incorporating poloxamer and acetaminophen--a single-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with post-operative dental pain

OBJECTIVE

To compare the onset of action and efficacy of sodium ibuprofen (ibuprofen sodium dihydrate) and ibuprofen acid incorporating poloxamer (ibuprofen/poloxamer) with that of acetaminophen and placebo in patients with post-operative dental pain.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, active comparator, two-centre study assessing the analgesic efficacy of sodium ibuprofen (512 mg, equivalent to 400 mg ibuprofen acid), ibuprofen/poloxamer (containing 400 mg ibuprofen acid and 120 mg poloxamer 407), acetaminophen (1000 mg) and placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe pain after third molar extraction (n = 322). Onset of action was assessed using the two-stopwatch technique, and pain intensity and relief were measured using validated traditional descriptor scales.

RESULTS

Significantly more patients achieved confirmed perceptible pain relief and meaningful pain relief with sodium ibuprofen (96.3%, P < 0.0001) and ibuprofen/poloxamer (90.0%, P = 0.0005) than with acetaminophen (67.5%). The onset of action of both ibuprofen formulations was comparable with that of acetaminophen up to 45 min post-dose; a marked divergence in onset times in favour of the ibuprofen formulations occurred from 45 min onward. Mean values for the area under the pain relief and pain intensity differences curve (0-6 h) were significantly greater for sodium ibuprofen (3.46) and ibuprofen acid (3.49) than for acetaminophen (2.25) (P < 0.001). Other pain relief and pain intensity endpoints favoured both ibuprofen formulations over acetaminophen. Distractibility from pain (6 h) was significantly greater with the ibuprofen formulations than with acetaminophen (P = 0.008 for sodium ibuprofen; P = 0.03 for ibuprofen/poloxamer). In patients receiving ibuprofen, pain interfered less with daily activities (at 1 and 6 h) than in those receiving acetaminophen (P <or= 0.015). Both ibuprofen formulations had significantly better mean global assessment scores than acetaminophen (P < 0.001). Tolerability profiles of the ibuprofen formulations were comparable with that of acetaminophen.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with acetaminophen, sodium ibuprofen was associated with significantly greater analgesic efficacy, pain relief in a greater proportion of patients and greater patient satisfaction.

Discrepancy among observational studies: example of naproxen-associated adverse events

Background:

Observational studies assessing the cardiovascular adverse effect of naproxen have had conflicting results. It is not clear whether variation in population characteristics between studies may explain some of this discrepancy.

Objective:

To determine whether changes in patient characteristics of naproxen users occurred between 1999 and 2004 in Québec, Canada and to examine whether these temporal changes were accompanied by changes in estimates of naproxen-related hospitalizations for gastrointestinal (GI) ulcers and myocardial infarction, using provincial health services administrative databases.

Methods:

Demographic, pharmaceutical and physician billing records of patients 65 years and older, who received naproxen or acetaminophen prescriptions between 1999 and 2004 were used. Two identical cohort studies, labeled Study 1 and Study 2 were conducted and their results were compared. One study was confined to the time period 1999-2001 and the other to 2002-2004. Patient characteristics at index date (the date of the first naproxen or acetaminophen prescription during the corresponding period) were compared between the study cohorts in naproxen and acetaminophen users, respectively, and within each study cohort between naproxen and acetaminophen users, using logistic regression models. Cox regression models with time dependent exposure were used to assess the association between naproxen vs acetaminophen and hospitalizations for GI events or AMI, respectively within each study. Results were then compared between the two studies.

Results:

Study 1 (1999-2001) cohort included 240,568 patients (205,238 acetaminophen and 35,330 naproxen) and Study 2 (2002-2004) cohort included 213,802 patients (193,918 acetaminophen and 19,884 naproxen). Patient characteristics of naproxen and acetaminophen users differed between the two studies. Naproxen users in Study 2 vs Study 1 were slightly younger, less likely to be females, less likely to have concomitant GI disease, less likely to have osteoarthritis and other co-morbidities and more likely to have used proton pump inhibitors, antihypertensive agents, anticoagulants, clopidogrel and aspirin. In general, similar changes in patient characteristics were observed in acetaminophen users between the two study cohorts. Compared to acetaminophen (without aspirin), the estimates of the GI risks with naproxen whether, used with or without aspirin, were significantly higher in Study 2 vs Study 1 [Hazard Ratio (HR) (95% CI): 4.94 (3.48, 7.02)] vs [2.22 (1.62, 3.06)], naproxen with aspirin [4.94 (2.93, 8.33) vs 2.47 (1.48, 4.12)], and acetaminophen and aspirin: [2.31 (1.89, 2.82) vs 1.46 (1.20, 1.77)]. The estimate of the AMI risk with naproxen also seemed to be higher in Study 2 vs Study 1, however the increase was not statistically significant [HR (95% CI) in the naproxen group: 1.18 (0.83, 1.67) in Study 1 vs 0.94 (0.70, 1.25) in Study 2], naproxen with aspirin. [1.44 (0.95, 2.18) vs 1.05 (0.68, 1.61)]; and acetaminophen and aspirin. 1.15 (1.01, 1.30) vs 1.10 (0.97, 1.26).

Conclusion:

Variation in patient characteristics in naproxen users was observed between 1999 and 2004. This variation was likely to be accompanied by a variation in patient pre-disposition to GI events that may explain the increase in estimates of naproxen-related GI adverse events observed during this period.

Adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on the colon

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used, and a growing body of evidence suggests that they have adverse effects in the lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract in addition to the well-described toxicity in the upper GI tract. Among NSAID users who develop adverse GI effects, the proportion with lower GI events is as high as 40%. Most of the available evidence is taken from case-control studies and case reports; no large, randomized, placebo-controlled study has specifically set out to determine the magnitude of NSAID toxicity on the colon. However, the data suggest that NSAIDs cause a primary macroscopic colitis, collagenous colitis, an increased risk of complicated diverticular disease, and exacerbations of preexisting inflammatory bowel disease. Treatment depends on withdrawal of the causative drug.

Low back pain (acute)

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) affects about 70% of people in resource-rich countries at some point. Acute low back pain is usually perceived as self-limiting; however, one year later, as many as 33% of people still have moderate-intensity pain and 15% have severe pain. It has a high recurrence rate; 75% of those with a first episode have a recurrence. Although acute episodes may resolve completely, they may also increase in severity and duration over time.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of oral drug treatments for low back pain? What are the effects of local injections for low back pain? What are the effects of non-drug treatments for low back pain? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found 34 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, advice to stay active, analgesics (paracetamol, opioids), back exercises, back schools, bed rest, behavioural therapy, electromyographic biofeedback, epidural corticosteroid injections, lumbar supports, massage, multidisciplinary treatment programmes, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), spinal manipulation (in the short term), temperature treatments (short wave diathermy, ultrasound, ice, heat), traction, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS).

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain: an updated Cochrane review

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and COX-2 inhibitors in the treatment of nonspecific low back pain and to assess which type of NSAID is most effective.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

NSAIDs are the most frequently prescribed medications worldwide and are widely used for patients with low back pain. Selective COX-2 inhibitors are currently available and used for patients with low back pain.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to and including June 2007 if reported in English, Dutch, or German. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified trials. Randomized trials and double-blind controlled trials of NSAIDs in nonspecific low back pain with or without sciatica were included.

RESULTS

In total, 65 trials (total number of patients = 11,237) were included in this review. Twenty-eight trials (42%) were considered high quality. Statistically significant effects were found in favor of NSAIDs compared with placebo, but at the cost of statistically significant more side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than paracetamol for acute low back pain, but paracetamol had fewer side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than other drugs for acute low back pain. There is strong evidence that various types of NSAIDs, including COX-2 NSAIDs, are equally effective for acute low back pain. COX-2 NSAIDs had statistically significantly fewer side effects than traditional NSAIDs.

CONCLUSION

The evidence from the 65 trials included in this review suggests that NSAIDs are effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with acute and chronic low back pain without sciatica. However, effect sizes are small. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a specific type of NSAID, which is clearly more effective than others. The selective COX-2 inhibitors showed fewer side effects compared with traditional NSAIDs in the randomized controlled trials included in this review. However, recent studies have shown that COX-2 inhibitors are associated with increased cardiovascular risks in specific patient populations.

Moderate and high affinity serotonin reuptake inhibitors increase the risk of upper gastrointestinal toxicity

OBJECTIVE

Serotonin release from platelets is important for regulating hemostasis. Some prior studies suggest an association between use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and gastrointestinal bleeding and a possible synergistic effect of these medications with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This study examined the effect of medications that inhibit serotonin uptake on upper gastrointestinal toxicity.

METHODS

359 case subjects hospitalized for upper gastrointestinal bleeding, perforation, or benign gastric outlet obstruction were recruited from 28 hospitals. 1889 control subjects were recruited by random digit dialing from the same region. Data were collected during structured telephone interviews. Antidepressant medications were characterized according to their affinity for serotonin receptors. Exposure to medications required use on at least 1 day during the week prior to the index date.

RESULTS

Any moderate or high affinity serotonin reuptake inhibitor (MHA-SRI) use was reported by 61 cases (17.1%) and 197 controls (10.4%). After adjusting for potential confounders, MHA-SRI use was associated with a significantly increased odds of hospitalization for upper gastrointestinal toxicity (adjusted OR = 2.0, 95%CI 1.4-3.0). A dose-response relationship in terms of affinity for serotonin uptake receptors was not observed (p = 0.17). No statistical interaction was observed for use of high dose NSAIDs or aspirin concomitantly with MHA-SRIs (p = 0.5). When MHA-SRIs were used concomitantly with high dose NSAIDs, the adjusted odds ratio for the association with upper gastrointestinal toxicity was 3.5 (95%CI 1.9-6.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of MHA-SRIs is associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for upper gastrointestinal toxicity.

Pain management in the hospitalized patient

Effective management of acute pain should be a primary goal of each health care provider. Acute pain is a complex medical problem with multiple possible etiologies. This article describes the pathophysiology of pain, discusses the ways to assess pain, and reviews the principles of acute pain management, including the use of both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic measures to treat pain.

Adverse drug interactions involving common prescription and over-the-counter analgesic agents

BACKGROUND

Eight analgesic preparations with approved indications for acute pain were among the top 200 drugs prescribed in the United States in 2006. In addition, an estimated 36 million Americans use over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics daily. Given this volume of use, it is not surprising that a number of drug interactions involving analgesic drugs have been reported.

OBJECTIVES

This article examines the pharmacologic factors that enhance the clinical relevance of potential drug interactions and reviews the literature on drug interactions involving the most commonly used analgesic preparations in the United States.

METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted for English-language articles published between January 1967 and July 2007. Among the search terms were drug interactions, acetaminophen, aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, NSAIDs, hydrocodone, oxycodone, codeine, tramadol, OTC analgesics, alcohol, ethanol, antihypertensive drugs, methotrexate, warfarin, SSRIs, paroxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline, citalopram, serotonin syndrome, MAOIs, and overdose. Controlled clinical trials, case-control studies, and case reports were included in the review.

RESULTS

A number of case reports and well-controlled clinical trials were identified that provided evidence of the relatively well known drug-drug interactions between prescription/OTC NSAIDs and alcohol, antihypertensive drugs, high-dose methotrexate, and lithium, as well as between frequently prescribed narcotics and other central nervous system depressants. In contrast, the ability of recent alcohol ingestion to exacerbate the hepatotoxic potential of therapeutic doses of acetaminophen is not supported by either case reports or clinical research. Use of ibuprofen according to OTC guidelines in patients taking cardioprotective doses of aspirin does not appear to interfere with aspirin's antiplatelet activity, whereas chronic prescription use of ibuprofen and other NSAIDs may interfere. Low-dose aspirin intake appears to abolish the gastroprotective effects of cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitors, including celecoxib. There is evidence of other less well known and potentially clinically significant drug-drug interactions, including the ability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors to inhibit the analgesic activity of tramadol and codeine through inhibition of their metabolic activation, to induce serotonin syndrome when used chronically in the presence of high doses of tramadol through synergistic serotonergic action, and to increase the potential for gastrointestinal bleeding associated with NSAID therapy through additive or supra-additive antiplatelet activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the widespread use of analgesic agents, the overall incidence of serious drug-drug interactions involving these agents has been relatively low. The most serious interactions usually involved other interacting drugs with low therapeutic indices or chronic and/or high-dose use of an analgesic and the interacting drug.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most frequently prescribed medications worldwide and are widely used for patients with low-back pain. Selective COX-2 inhibitors are currently available and used for patients with low-back pain.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to assess the effects of NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors in the treatment of non-specific low-back pain and to assess which type of NSAID is most effective.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to and including June 2007 if reported in English, Dutch or German. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials and double-blind controlled trials of NSAIDs in non-specific low-back pain with or without sciatica were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. All studies were also assessed on clinical relevance, from which no further interpretations or conclusions were drawn. If data were considered clinically homogeneous, a meta-analysis was performed. If data were lacking for clinically homogeneous trials, a qualitative analysis was performed using a rating system with four levels of evidence (strong, moderate, limited, no evidence).

MAIN RESULTS

In total, 65 trials (total number of patients = 11,237) were included in this review. Twenty-eight trials (42%) were considered high quality. Statistically significant effects were found in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo, but at the cost of statistically significant more side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than paracetamol for acute low-back pain, but paracetamol had fewer side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than other drugs for acute low-back pain. There is strong evidence that various types of NSAIDs, including COX-2 NSAIDs, are equally effective for acute low-back pain. COX-2 NSAIDs had statistically significantly fewer side-effects than traditional NSAIDs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from the 65 trials included in this review suggests that NSAIDs are effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with acute and chronic low-back pain without sciatica. However, effect sizes are small. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a specific type of NSAID which is clearly more effective than others. The selective COX-2 inhibitors showed fewer side effects compared to traditional NSAIDs in the RCTs included in this review. However, recent studies have shown that COX-2 inhibitors are associated with increased cardiovascular risks in specific patient populations.

Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants, and simple analgesics

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven to be very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing amongst available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.

Anti-tumor effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on human ovarian cancers

Many reports have demonstrated that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) suppress malignant transformation and tumor growth, and some NSAIDs are expected to be new anti-cancer agents. In this study, we examined the anti-tumor effects of the non-specific cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors aspirin and piroxicam, and the selective COX-2 inhibitor meloxicam on xenotransplanted ovarian cancer. Tumor growth and survival were compared in female nu/nu mice, xenografted with subcutaneous OVCAR-3 tumors or with intraperitoneal DISS tumors and treated with aspirin (200 ppm in diet, everyday), piroxicam (150 ppm in diet, everyday) or meloxicam (162 ppm in diet, everyday). Al, of the agents tested significantly suppressed the growth of OVCAR-3 tumors xenotransplanted subcutaneously as compared to the control. There was a significant difference in inhibition of OVCAR-3 tumor growth between meloxicam and aspirin treatment. Meloxicam and piroxicam treatment significantly prolonged survival of mice with malignant ascites derived from DISS cells as compared to control and aspirin treatment. Mice treated with meloxicam survived significantly longer than those treated with piroxicam. There was no significant difference in survival between control and aspirin treatment. Necropsy revealed that one of the 6 cancer-bearing mice treated with piroxicam suffered from stomach perforation. These results indicate that a selective COX-2 inhibitor produces greater anti-tumor effect against ovarian cancer than a nonselective COX inhibitor and that meloxicam may have a potential of leading to a novel therapeutic strategy against ovarian cancer.

A composite screening tool for medication reviews of outpatients: general issues with specific examples

Regular performance of medication reviews is prominent among methods that have been advocated to reduce the extent and seriousness of drug-related problems, such as adverse drug reactions, drug-disease interactions, drug-drug interactions, drug ineffectiveness and cost ineffectiveness. Several screening tools have been developed to guide practising healthcare professionals and researchers in reviewing the medication patterns of elderly patients; however, each of these tools has its own limitations. This review discusses a wide range of general prescription-, treatment- and patient-related issues that should be taken into account when reviewing medication patterns by implicit screening. These include generic and therapeutic substitution; potentially superfluous or inappropriate medications; potentially inappropriate dosages or duration of treatment; drug-disease and drug-drug interactions; under-treatment; making use of laboratory test results; patient adherence, experiences and habits; appropriate dosage forms and packaging. A broad selection of specific examples and references that can be used as a basis for explicit screening of medication patterns in outpatients is also offered.

Perforated peptic ulcer and short-term mortality among tramadol users

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

* Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is a strong risk and prognostic factor for peptic ulcer perforation, and alternative analgesics are needed for high-risk patients. * Pain management guidelines propose tramadol as a treatment option for mild-to-moderate pain in patients at high risk of gastrointestinal side-effects, including peptic ulcer disease. * Tramadol may mask symptoms of peptic ulcer complications, yet tramadol's effect on peptic ulcer prognosis is unknown.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

* In this population-based study of 1271 patients hospitalized with peptic ulcer perforation, tramadol appeared to increase mortality at least as much as NSAIDs. * Among users of tramadol, alone or in combination with NSAIDs, adjusted 30-day mortality rate ratios were 2.02 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17, 3.48] and 1.32 (95% CI 0.89, 1.95), compared with patients who used neither tramadol nor NSAIDs.

AIM

Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increases risk and worsens prognosis for patients with complicated peptic ulcer disease. Therefore, patients who are at high risk of peptic ulcer often use tramadol instead of NSAIDs. Tramadol's effect on peptic ulcer prognosis is unknown. The aim was to examine mortality in the 30 days following hospitalization for perforated peptic ulcer among tramadol and NSAID users compared with non-users.

METHODS

The study was based on data on reimbursed prescriptions and hospital discharge diagnoses for the 1993-2004 period, extracted from population-based healthcare databases. All patients with a first-time diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer were identified, excluding those with previous ulcer diagnoses or antiulcer drug use. Cox regression was used to estimate 30-day mortality rate ratios for tramadol and NSAID users compared with non-users, adjusting for use of other drugs and comorbidity.

RESULTS

Of 1271 patients with perforated peptic ulcers included in the study, 2.4% used tramadol only, 38.9% used NSAIDs and 7.9% used both. Thirty-day mortality was 28.7% overall and 48.4% among users of tramadol alone. Compared with the 645 patients who used neither tramadol nor NSAIDs, the adjusted mortality rate in the 30 days following hospitalization was 2.02-fold [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17, 3.48] higher for the 31 'tramadol only' users, 1.41-fold (95% CI 1.12, 1.78) higher for the 495 NSAID users and 1.32-fold (95% CI 0.89, 1.95) higher for the 100 patients who used both drugs.

CONCLUSION

Among patients hospitalized for perforated peptic ulcer, tramadol appears to increase mortality at a level comparable to NSAIDs.

Osteoarthritis of the knee

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis of the knee affects about 10% of adults aged over 60 years, with risk increased in those with obesity, and joint damage or abnormalities. Progression of disease on x rays is commonplace, but x ray changes don't correlate well with clinical symptoms.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-surgical treatments for osteoarthritis of the knee? What are the effects of surgical treatments for osteoarthritis of the knee? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to October 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found 74 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, capsaicin, chondroitin, education to aid self-management, exercise and physiotherapy, glucosamine, insoles, intra-articular corticosteroids, intra-articular hyaluronan, joint bracing, knee replacement, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (including topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), opioid analgesics, osteotomy, simple analgesics, and taping.

Modulation of Hypericin Photodynamic Therapy by Pretreatment with 12 Various Inhibitors of Arachidonic Acid Metabolism in Colon Adenocarcinoma HT-29 Cells

One proposal to increase the efficiency of photodynamic therapy (PDT) is to accompany photosensitization with other treatment modalities, including modulation of arachidonic acid (AA) metabolism. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a combined modality approach employing 48 and 24 h pretreatment with various inhibitors of lipoxygenase (LOX; nordihydroguaiaretic acid, esculetin, AA-861, MK-886 and baicalein), cyclooxygenase (COX; diclofenac, flurbiprofen, ibuprofen, indomethacin, SC-560 and rofecoxib) and cytochrome P450-monooxygenase (proadifen) pathways, followed by hypericin-mediated PDT. Cytokinetic parameters like MTT assay, adherent and floating cell numbers, viability and cell cycle distribution analysis were examined 24 h after hypericin activation. Pretreatment of human colon cancer cells HT-29 prior to PDT with 5-LOX inhibitor MK-886 as well as 5, 12-LOX and 12-LOX inhibitors (esculetin and baicalein, respectively) resulted in significant and dose-dependent effects on all parameters tested. Pretreatment with diclofenac, flurbiprofen, ibuprofen and indomethacin, the nonspecific COX inhibitors, promoted hypericin-mediated PDT, but these effects were probably COX-independent. In contrast, application of SC-560 and rofecoxib, specific inhibitors of COX-1 and COX-2, respectively, attenuated PDT. Inhibition of P450 monooxygenase with proadifen implied also the significance of this metabolic pathway in cell survival and cell resistance to hypericin photocytotoxicity. In conclusion, our results testify that application of diverse inhibitors of AA metabolism may have different consequences on cellular response to hypericin-mediated PDT and that some of them could be considered for potentiation of PDT.

Risk of peptic ulcer hospitalizations in users of NSAIDs with gastroprotective cotherapy versus coxibs

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The primary strategies to reduce the risk of serious gastropathy caused by traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are use of a coxib or concurrent use of a proton pump inhibitor or double-dose histamine-2 receptor antagonist. However, the relative clinical effectiveness of these therapeutic alternatives is understudied.

METHODS

We studied peptic ulcer hospitalizations in a cohort of Tennessee Medicaid enrollees between 1996 and 2004. To decrease potential "channeling" bias, the study included only new episodes of prescribed NSAID or coxib use and controlled for multiple baseline risk factors for upper gastrointestinal disease. There were 234,010 and 48,710 new episodes of NSAID and coxib use, respectively, with 363,037 person-years of follow-up and 1223 peptic ulcer hospitalizations.

RESULTS

Current users of NSAIDs with no gastroprotective cotherapy had an adjusted incidence of peptic ulcer hospitalizations of 5.65 per 1000 person-years, 2.76 (95% confidence interval, 2.35-3.23) times greater than that for persons not currently using either NSAIDs or coxibs. This risk was reduced by 39% (16%-56%, 95% CI) for current users of NSAIDs with gastroprotective cotherapy and 40% (23%-54%) for current users of coxibs without such cotherapy. Concurrent users of NSAIDs and proton pump inhibitors had a 54% (27%-72%) risk reduction, very similar to the 50% (27%-66%) reduction for concurrent users of proton pump inhibitors and coxibs.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that coprescribing a proton pump inhibitor with an NSAID is as effective as use of a coxib for reducing the risk of NSAID-induced gastropathy.

Preventive effects of rebamipide on NSAID-induced gastric mucosal injury and reduction of gastric mucosal blood flow in healthy volunteers

The precise mechanisms of acute damage and the role of gastric mucosal blood flow in gastric mucosal injury induced by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the preventive effect of rebamipide on gastric mucosal injury and reduction of gastric mucosal blood flow (GMBF) after ibuprofen administration. Twenty healthy volunteers were randomized two groups. The rebamipide group took ibuprofen, 1800 mg/day, and rebamipide, 100 mg t.i.d., for 7 days. The placebo group took ibuprofen, 1800 mg/day. The numbers of gastric ulcer subjects were three in the placebo group and zero in the rebamipide group. The mean modified Lanza score after ibuprofen administration was significantly higher in the placebo group than the rebamipide group (2.9+/-1.7 vs. 1.3+/-1.0, respectively; P=0.032). The GMBF of the placebo group was significantly decreased at antrum from baseline, from 2.8+/-0.5 to 2.0+/-0.5 tissue perfusion units (P=0.005). There was no difference in GMBF change in the rebamipide group. Gastric mucosal injury was correlated with GMBF reduction in antrum (r=-0.677, P=0.001). In conclusion, it is suggested that the decrease in GMBF may have been associated with NSAID-induced gastric mucosal injury, and rebamipide may have prevented NSIAD-induced gastric mucosal injury by maintaining GMBF in healthy subjects.

"Cervia II Working Group Report 2006": guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in Italy

Proper management of Helicobacter pylori infection in clinical practice--when supported by evidence-based data--is expected to produce substantial cost-efficacy advantages. This consideration has prompted the Cervia Working Group to organise a meeting of experts to update the National Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori infection in Italy. Recommendations in the new European Guidelines were considered in the National setting, here in the light of factors such as the incidence of gastric cancer and gastric lymphoma, the accessibility to different diagnostic tools, the prevalence of bacterial resistance against antibiotics, and the availability of different drugs. The main revisions in respect to the previous guidelines include H. pylori eradication in non-ulcer dyspepsia patients and in non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug users, as well as in patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and iron deficiency anaemia. The stool antigen test is now accepted as a valid test for confirmation of H. pylori eradication following therapy. New therapeutic approaches have been recommended for both first- (sequential therapy) and second-line (levofloxacin-based) treatment in our country.

Risk of upper gastrointestinal events with the use of various NSAIDs: a case-control study in a general population

OBJECTIVE

The gastrointestinal (GI) safety of different non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in a real-life setting remains ill defined. The aim of this study was to examine the risk of upper GI events associated with various NSAIDs in a general population.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A nationwide, register-based, matched case-control study was carried out in outpatient residents of Finland in 2000-04. Cases with upper GI events (n=9191) were drawn from the Hospital Discharge Register and individually matched to controls (n=41,780) from the Population Register.

RESULTS

The semi-selective NSAIDs (nimesulide, nabumetone, meloxicam, etodolac) had the highest odds ratio for upper GI events even after adjusting for various potential confounders (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 3.63; 95% CI 3.08-4.28), followed by non-selective (2.98; 2.70-3.29) and COX-2 selective NSAIDs (2.53; 2.09-3.07). When the current use of semi-selective NSAIDs was compared with that of non-selective and COX-2 selective NSAIDs, the AORs were 1.54 (1.13-2.09) and 1.67 (1.10-2.53), respectively. The AORs for the use of COX-2 selective NSAIDs did not differ statistically from the non-selective NSAIDs (AOR 0.92; 0.65-1.31). The AORs for individual NSAIDs varied across and within categories.

CONCLUSIONS

As a group, the GI safety of the COX-2 selective NSAIDs was not demonstrated as definitively superior to non-selective NSAIDs. Semi-selective NSAIDs do not seem to offer any GI advantage over other NSAIDs.

A Quality Use of Medicines program for general practitioners and older people: a cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of an educational Quality Use of Medicines program, delivered at the level of general practice, on medicines use, falls and quality of life in people aged > or = 65 years.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in 2002.

SETTING

General practices in the Hunter Region, New South Wales, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty general practitioners recruited 849 patients to participate in the study.

INTERVENTION

Education (academic detailing, provision of prescribing information and feedback); medication risk assessment; facilitation of medication review; financial incentives.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PRIMARY MEASURES

a composite score reflecting use of benzodiazepines, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and thiazide diuretics; secondary measures: use of medication reviews, occurrence of falls, quality of life (as assessed by SF-12 and EQ-5D survey scores.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, participants in the intervention group had increased odds of having an improved medication use composite score (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.21-2.85) at 4-month follow-up but not at 12 months. At 4-month follow-up, the intervention group had reduced odds of using NSAIDs (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.99) and showed a non-significant reduction in use of benzodiazepines (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.20-1.30) and thiazide diuretics (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.48-1.01). Changes in drug use were not significant at 12-month follow-up. At 12 months, intervention-group participants had lower adjusted ORs (AORs) for having a fall (AOR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41-0.91), injury (AOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32-0.96), and injury requiring medical attention (AOR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.70). Quality-of-life scores were unaffected by the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Education and systems for medication review conducted by GPs can be used to improve use of medicines. These interventions are associated with a reduction in falls among older people, without adverse effects on quality of life.

WITHDRAWN: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most frequently prescribed medications worldwide and are widely used for patients with low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of NSAIDs in the treatment of non-specific low back pain and to assess which type of NSAID is most effective.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Medline and Embase databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) up to and including September 1998 if reported in English, Dutch or German. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials and double-blind controlled trials of NSAIDs in non-specific low back pain with or without radiation were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors blinded with respect to authors, institution and journal independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. A methodological quality score was applied, and studies meeting at least six of 11 specified criteria were considered high quality studies. If data were considered clinically homogeneous, a meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effects model for statistically homogeneous subgroups and a random effects model for statistically heterogeneous subgroups. If data were considered clinically heterogeneous, a qualitative analysis was performed using a rating system with four levels of evidence (strong, moderate, limited, no).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 51 trials (total number of patients = 6057) were included in this review, of which 46 were published in English and five in German. Sixteen trials (31%) were of high quality. The pooled Relative Risk for global improvement after one week was 1.24 (95% CI 1.10 , 1.41) and for additional analgesic use 1.29 (95% CI 1.05 , 1.57), indicating a statistically significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo. The results of the qualitative analysis showed that there is conflicting evidence (level 3) that NSAIDs are more effective than paracetamol for acute low back pain, and that there is moderate evidence (level 2) that NSAIDs are not more effective than other drugs for acute low back pain. There is strong evidence (level 1) that various types of NSAIDs are equally effective for acute low back pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the evidence from the 51 trials included in this review suggests that NSAIDs are effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with acute low back pain. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a specific type of NSAID which is clearly more effective than others. Sufficient evidence on chronic low back pain is still lacking.

Adherence to gastroprotection and the risk of NSAID-related upper gastrointestinal ulcers and haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) complications are a well-recognized risk of NSAID treatment, requiring preventive measures in high-risk patients. Adherence to gastroprotective agents (GPAs) in NSAID users has been suggested to be suboptimal.

AIM

To investigate the association between adherence to GPAs (proton pump inhibitors or H(2)-receptor antagonists) and the risk of NSAID-related UGI ulcers or haemorrhage in high-risk patients.

METHODS

A population-based nested case-control study was conducted within a cohort of new NSAID users with at least one risk factor for a NSAID-related UGI complication, identified in the Dutch IPCI database during 1996-2005. Adherence to GPAs was calculated as the proportion of NSAID treatment days covered (PDC) by a GPA prescription. Multivariate conditional logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Fifteen percent of the non-selective NSAID users received GPAs. The risk of a NSAID-related UGI complication among NSAID users increased 16% for every 10% decrease in adherence. Compared to patients with a PDC of >80%, patients with PDCs of 20-80% and <20% had a 2.5-fold (95% CI: 1.0-6.7) respectively 4.0-fold (95% CI: 1.2-13.0) increased risk.

CONCLUSION

There is a strong inverse relationship between adherence to GPAs and the risk of UGI complications in high-risk NSAID users.

Diclofenac potassium 12.5mg tablets for mild to moderate pain and fever: a review of its pharmacology, clinical efficacy and safety

Non-prescription (over-the-counter [OTC]) analgesics are used for the short-term treatment of acute painful conditions of mild to moderate intensity in everyday life. Well documented safety and efficacy, a rapid onset of action and a flexible daily dosing regimen are essential in this context. Film-coated, immediate-release, low-dose diclofenac potassium, developed for OTC use, offers a flexible daily dosing regimen with an initial dose of two tablets (2 x 12.5mg) followed by one or two tablets up to a maximum daily dose of six tablets (75 mg/day). The maximum plasma drug concentration is reached 30 minutes after administration, and the mean terminal half-life is 1-2 hours, allowing a 4- to 6-hour duration of activity, depending on the condition. Thirteen randomised, double-blind trials with both placebo and active controls have demonstrated the efficacy of diclofenac potassium 12.5mg tablets in conditions suitable for treatment with OTC medication, for example, acute lower back pain, headache, acute pain after dental extraction, symptoms of cold and influenza (including fever), and dysmenorrhoea. A single dose of diclofenac potassium 12.5mg is the lowest recommended effective dose. A two-tablet single dose of 25mg is at least as effective as ibuprofen 400mg. A flexible dosing regimen of an initial two tablets followed by one or two tablets up to a total daily dose of 75 mg is as effective as ibuprofen used in comparable fashion up to a total daily dose of 1200 mg. The incidence of adverse events in patients taking single or multiple doses of diclofenac potassium is similar to that of ibuprofen and placebo. In a safety study conducted to compare diclofenac potassium with ibuprofen for up to 3 months in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, no differences in the pattern of adverse events were noted. There was no evidence of either hepatic injury or cardiovascular safety-related issues at any time during the study. Patients are generally capable of taking diclofenac potassium appropriately. A maximum OTC treatment duration of 5 days for pain and 3 days for fever is recommended.

An economic model of long-term use of celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis

Background

Previous evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of the cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex, Pfizer Inc, USA) have produced conflicting results. The recent controversy over the cardiovascular (CV) risks of rofecoxib and other coxibs has renewed interest in the economic profile of celecoxib, the only coxib now available in the United States. The objective of our study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of celecoxib compared with nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) in a population of 60-year-old osteoarthritis (OA) patients with average risks of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) complications who require chronic daily NSAID therapy.

Methods

We used decision analysis based on data from the literature to evaluate cost-effectiveness from a modified societal perspective over patients' lifetimes, with outcomes expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity tests were performed to evaluate the impacts of advancing age, CV thromboembolic event risk, different analytic horizons and alternate treatment strategies after UGI adverse events.

Results

Our main findings were: 1) the base model incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for celecoxib versus nsNSAIDs was $31,097 per QALY; 2) the ICER per QALY was $19,309 for a model in which UGI ulcer and ulcer complication event risks increased with advancing age; 3) the ICER per QALY was $17,120 in sensitivity analyses combining serious CV thromboembolic event (myocardial infarction, stroke, CV death) risks with base model assumptions.

Conclusion

Our model suggests that chronic celecoxib is cost-effective versus nsNSAIDs in a population of 60-year-old OA patients with average risks of UGI events.

Determinants of the short-term gastric damage caused by NSAIDs in man

BACKGROUND

The short-term gastric damage seen with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in man may involve inhibition of cyclooxygenase (COX-1) and COX-2 as well as the topical irritancy, which is dependant on the acidity (pKa) and/or lipophilicity (log P(7.4)).

AIM

To study the quantitative relationship between NSAID-induced short-term gastric damage, their physicochemical properties and contrasting roles of COX-1 and COX-2 inhibition.

METHODS

We identified studies that allowed a qualitative comparison of the gastric injury (Lanza scores) induced by NSAIDs with their pKa and log P(7.4). Damage was correlated with gastric COX inhibition and potency to inhibit COX-1 and 2 and their COX-2/COX-1 selectivity ratio.

RESULTS

The gastric damage correlates significantly with pKa (r = -0.69; P < 0.01), log P (r = -0.58, P < 0.05) and potency of the NSAIDs to inhibit COX-1 (r = -0.61, P < 0.02), but not with COX-2 inhibition or COX-2/COX-1 selectivity.

CONCLUSION

Against a background of COX-1 and COX-2 inhibition, the physicochemical properties of NSAID appear to play an important role in short-term gastric damage.

NSAIDs

INTRODUCTION

NSAIDs are widely used. Almost 10% of people in The Netherlands used a non-aspirin NSAID in 1987, and the overall use was 11 defined daily doses per 1000 population per day. In Australia in 1994, overall use was 35 defined daily doses per 1000 population a day, with 36% of the people receiving NSAIDs for osteoarthritis, 42% for sprain and strain or low back pain, and 4% for rheumatoid arthritis; 35% of the people receiving NSAIDs were aged over 60 years.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: Are there any important differences between NSAIDs? What are the effects of topical NSAIDs; and of co-treatments to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects of NSAIDs? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to December 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found 35 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review we present information relating to the benefits and harms of the following interventions: alternative analgesics, H(2) blockers, misoprostol, NSAIDs (systemic, topical, differences in efficacy between, dose-response relationship of), proton pump inhibitors.

Small bowel mucosal injury is reduced in healthy subjects treated with celecoxib compared with ibuprofen plus omeprazole, as assessed by video capsule endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Small bowel mucosal injury associated with non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is being increasingly recognized.

AIM

To evaluate the incidence of small bowel injury in healthy subjects receiving celecoxib or ibuprofen plus omeprazole using video capsule endoscopy (VCE).

METHODS

Subjects with normal baseline VCE were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib 200 mg b.d., ibuprofen 800 mg t.d.s. plus omeprazole 20 mg o.d. or placebo for 2 weeks. The primary end point was mean number of small bowel mucosal breaks per subject. Secondary end points included correlation of faecal calprotectin levels with the primary outcome.

RESULTS

After treatment, the mean number of small bowel mucosal breaks per subject and the percentage of subjects with mucosal breaks were 0.7/25.9% for ibuprofen/omeprazole compared with 0.2/6.4% for celecoxib and 0.1/7.1% placebo (both comparisons P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between celecoxib and placebo in any measure. Mean increases in faecal calprotectin levels were higher in subjects receiving ibuprofen/omeprazole compared with celecoxib (P < 0.001), but no correlation was determined between these levels and small bowel mucosal breaks.

CONCLUSIONS

Among healthy subjects with no baseline endoscopic lesions, celecoxib was associated with significantly fewer small bowel mucosal breaks than ibuprofen/omeprazole as assessed by VCE.

Rapid online-SPE-MS/MS method for ketoprofen determination in dermal interstitial fluid samples from rats obtained by microdialysis or open-flow microperfusion

Pharmacokinetic studies of topical ketoprofen formulations using continuous sampling techniques such as microdialysis (MD) or open-flow microperfusion (OFM) require sensitive assays due to small sample volumes. A simple and easy online-SPE-MS/MS method for ketoprofen analysis was developed for both MD and OFM samples obtained from rat dermal tissue. The quantification range is 25-5000 ng/ml with a limit of detection of 3 ng/ml using only 10 microl sample volume. The method is characterized by a simple setup using a short polymeric SPE column (OASIS HLB) for desalting with 1.5 min run times in combination with a sensitive MS detection in negative ESI MRM mode. An easy sample workup procedure was used which enables high throughput analysis of a large number of samples for pharmacokinetic studies. In addition, a commercial available (fenoprofen) as well as an isotopically labelled (deuterated ketoprofen) standard were investigated as potential internal standards. The method was validated according to FDA guidelines for bioanalytical validation in terms of accuracy, intra-batch and inter-batch precision, linearity, matrix effect, recovery and stability for both internal standards. Accuracies were 98-113% (fenoprofen) and 95-108% (deuterated ketoprofen), intra-batch precision was 2-3% R.S.D. (fenoprofen) and 2-6% R.S.D. (deuterated ketoprofen), and inter-batch precision was 2-6% R.S.D. (fenoprofen) and 3-6% R.S.D. (deuterated ketoprofen) over the entire quantification range. The presented method was applied to dermal interstitial fluid samples obtained in a topical administration study of ketoprofen in rats.

Cyclooxygenase-2 selectivity of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular accident

AIM

To assess degree of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selectivity of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and risk of myocardial infarction (MI) or cerebrovascular accident (CVA).

METHODS

Prescription fill data were linked to medical records of a merged VA-Medicare dataset. NSAIDs were categorized by Cox-2 selectivity. Incidence of CVA and MI within 180 days of index prescription was assessed using Cox-proportional hazards models adjusted for gender, race, cardiovascular and pharmacological risk factors and propensity for prescription of highly COX-2 selective NSAIDs.

RESULTS

Of 384,322 patients (97.5% men and 85.4% white), 79.4% were prescribed a poorly selective, 16.4% a moderately selective and 4.2% a highly selective NSAID. There were 985 incident cases of MI and 586 cases of CVA in >145 870 person-years. Highly selective agents had the highest rate of MI (12.3 per 1000 person-years; [95% CI: 12.2-12.3]) and CVA (8.1 per 1000 person-years; [95% CI: 8.0-8.2]). Periods without NSAID exposure were associated with lowest risk. In adjusted models, highly selective COX-2 selective NSAIDs were associated with a 61% increase in CVA and a 47% increase in MI, when compared with poorly selective NSAIDs.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of MI and CVA increases with any NSAID. Highly COX-2 selective NSAIDs confer the greatest risk.

An evidence-based update on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including both traditional nonselective NSAIDs and the selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, are widely used for their anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects. NSAIDs are a necessary choice in pain management because of the integrated role of the COX pathway in the generation of inflammation and in the biochemical recognition of pain. This group of drugs has recently come under scrutiny because of recent focus in the literature on the various adverse effects that can occur when applying NSAIDs. This review will provide an educational update on the current evidence of the efficacy and adverse effects of NSAIDs. It aims to answer the following questions: (1) are there clinically important differences in the efficacy and safety between the different NSAIDs, (2) if there are differences, which are the ones that are more effective and associated with fewer adverse effects, and (3) which are the effective therapeutic approaches that could reduce the adverse effects of NSAIDs. Finally, an algorithm is proposed which delineates a general decision-making tree to select the most appropriate analgesic for an individual patient based on the evidence reviewed.

Use of cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibitors (COX-2) and prescription non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) in UK and USA populations. Implications for COX-2 cardiovascular profile

BACKGROUND

COX-2 and NSAIDS differ in their gastrointestinal (GI) and cardiovascular (CV) toxicity from pharmacological, clinical and epidemiologic point of views.

OBJECTIVE

Describe the patterns of use of NSAIDS and COX-2 in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database in UK and the PharMetrics database in USA.

METHODS

We examined the experience of 10 distinct cohorts of new users of diclofenac, naproxen, ibuprofen, piroxicam, other NSAIDS, meloxicam, celecoxib, etoricoxib, rofecoxib and valdecoxib. The study period was 1 January 1995 through 2004 (31 March in UK and 28 February in USA). We collected information on covariates including history of upper GI disease, CV disease, hepatic disease, dosage, concomitant medication, and visits to a rheumatologist.

RESULTS

We identified 486 076 unique patient-drug pairs in UK and 1 533 239 in USA. In UK population 78 201 (16%) were COX-2 users and in PharMetrics 324 206 (21%) were COX-2 users. Diclofenac and ibuprofen (NSAIDS), and celecoxib and rofecoxib (COX-2) were the agents prescribed most frequently. The duration of therapy was longer among celecoxib and rofecoxib users than among other users. More COX-2 users than NSAIDS users received concomitant gastroprotective agents (GPA), corticosteroids and anti-platelet therapy, and had a history of thromboembolic events and hypertension. PharMetrics patients were prescribed higher doses of NSAIDS and COX-2. The use of any single agent for more than 90 days was uncommon, but more frequent in PharMetrics. Switching was uncommon and was generally to a NSAID.

DISCUSSION

Our results confirm some previous findings from other authors such as the presence of both GI and CV channelling to COX-2 agents but refute others, such as the frequency of drug switching between these agents. The typical use of COX-2 agents in practice is for shorter duration, and at lower doses, than was employed in randomized clinical trials. This difference may help clarify the apparent discrepancy with respect to CV toxicity between the results from clinical trials, which showed a higher CV risk with these drugs, and non-experimental epidemiologic studies, which showed lower or no increase in risk.

Risk of upper gastrointestinal complications among users of traditional NSAIDs and COXIBs in the general population

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Traditional nonaspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs) have been associated with a 3- to 5-fold increased risk in upper gastrointestinal complications (UGIC). Whether use of selective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase-2 (COXIBs) will translate into a clinically relevant reduced toxicity has not been widely investigated in the general population.

METHODS

We conducted a nested case control study using The Health Improvement Network Database identifying 1561 cases of UGIC between January 2000 and 2005. A random sample of 10,000 controls was frequency matched to the cases by age, sex, and calendar year.

RESULTS

The adjusted relative risk (RR) of UGIC associated with current use was 3.7 (95% CI: 3.1-4.3) for tNSAIDs and 2.6 (95% CI: 1.9-3.6) for COXIBs. Daily dose was a predictor of increased risk for both tNSAIDs and COXIBs. Users of tNSAIDs with a prolonged plasma half-life or slow release formulations had an augmented risk of UGIC. Overall, the estimate of RR associated with COXIBs was 0.8 (95% CI: 0.6-1.1) compared with current use of tNSAIDs, and, among nonusers of aspirin, the corresponding estimate of RR associated with COXIBs was 0.6 (95% CI: 0.4-0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

COXIBs present a better upper gastrointestinal safety than tNSAIDs, although the risk of UGIC for an individual drug is determined by its daily dose and plasma drug exposure in addition to its selectivity for cyclooxygenase-2. Also, concomitant use of aspirin is a strong effect modifier of COXIBs that negates the superior gastrointestinal safety over tNSAIDs in the absence of aspirin use.

Antipyretic analgesics: nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, selective COX-2 inhibitors, paracetamol and pyrazolinones

Antipyretic analgesics are a group of heterogeneous substances including acidic (nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, NSAIDs) and nonacidic (paracetamol, pyrazolinones) drugs. Moreover, various selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors with improved gastrointestinal tolerability as compared with conventional NSAIDs have been established for symptomatic pain treatment in recent years. The present review summarizes the pharmacology of all of these drugs with particular emphasis on their rational use based on the diverse pharmacokinetic characteristics and adverse drug reaction profiles. Referring to the current debate, potential mechanisms underlying cardiovascular side effects associated with long-term use of COX inhibitors are discussed.

Ibuprofen: A Journey from Prescription to Over-the-Counter Use

Ibuprofen was the first non-aspirin non-steroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) to be approved for over-the-. counter (OTC) use and is widely considered to be the best tolerated drug of its class. Low-dose, OTC ibuprofen has been used for pain relief for over 30 years without any obvious major health issues. However, there is no clear differentiation between the OTC and prescription doses of ibuprofen, and their respective effects. Adverse reactions to ibuprofen appear to be dose and duration dependent, and this may be the reason for the observed tolerability of the drug at OTC doses. OTC ibuprofen is at least as effective as aspirin and more effective than paracetamol. The tolerability concerns associated with higher dose NSAIDs currently do not apply to low-dose, short-term use of ibuprofen for common pain. Ibuprofen is associated with the least risk of GI complications compared with other NSAIDs and is considered relatively benign in overdose. This review will aim to distinguish the safety of OTC or non-prescription use of ibuprofen from its prescription use.