Misoprostol coadministered with diclofenac for prevention of gastroduodenal ulcers. A one-year study

Association between misoprostol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced kidney injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Misoprostol is a prostaglandin E1 analogue that is used to prevent nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastrointestinal disorders. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether use of misoprostol also decreases the risk of NSAID-induced kidney injury.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials that compared misoprostol vs. placebo in an adult patient population were selected. The primary outcome was kidney injury and the secondary outcome was severe adverse events. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were eligible for inclusion. Although the rates of kidney injury and severe adverse events did not differ significantly between misoprostol and placebo, a posthoc subgroup analysis that excluded studies in which different NSAIDs were used in the misoprostol and placebo groups suggested that misoprostol may reduce the risk of NSAID-induced kidney injury (risk difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.15 to -0.03, P < .01, I2  = 87%; evidence of very low certainty).

CONCLUSION

There is limited evidence that misoprostol reduces the risk of NSAID-induced kidney injury. Misoprostol possibly contributes to reducing the risk of kidney injury associated with chronic NSAID use. The findings of this meta-analysis suggest further high-quality clinical trials are warranted.

Clinical Guidelines for Drug-Related Peptic Ulcer, 2020 Revised Edition

Korean guidelines for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced peptic ulcer were previously developed in 2009 with the collaboration of the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research and Korean Society of Gastroenterology. However, the previous guidelines were based mainly upon a review of the relevant literature and expert opinion. Therefore, the guidelines need to be revised. We organized a guideline Development Committee for drug-related peptic ulcer under the auspices of the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research in 2017 and developed nine statements, including four for NSAIDs, three for aspirin and other antiplatelet agents, and two for anticoagulants through a de novo process founded on evidence-based medicine that included a literature search and a meta-analysis, A consensus was reached through the application of the modified Delphi method. The primary target of these guidelines is adult patients undergoing long-term treatment with NSAIDs, aspirin or other antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants. The revised guidelines reflect the expert consensus and is intended to assist clinicians in the management and prevention of drug-induced peptic ulcer and associated conditions.

[Clinical Guidelines for Drug-induced Peptic Ulcer, 2020 Revised Edition]

The Korean guidelines for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced peptic ulcers were previously developed under co-work with the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research and Korean Society of Gastroenterology at 2009. On the other hand, the previous guidelines were based mainly on a literature review and expert opinions. Therefore, the guidelines need to be revised. In this study, a guideline development committee for drug-induced peptic ulcers was organized under the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research in 2017. Nine statements were developed, including four for NSAID, three for aspirin and other antiplatelet agents, and two for anticoagulants through de novo processes based on evidence-based medicine, such as a literature search, meta-analysis, and the consensus was established using the modified Delphi method. The primary target of this guideline was adult patients taking long-term NSAIDs, aspirin, or other antiplatelet agent and anticoagulants. The revised guidelines reflect the consensus of expert opinions and are intended to assist relevant clinicians in the management and prevention of drug-induced peptic ulcers and associated conditions.

[Alflutop - in modern symptom - modifying osteoarthritis therapy]

One of the serious problems during the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) is the developing of adverse drug events during therapy. Nonsteroidal anti - inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the first drugs with the high incidence and severity of adverse events. This article describes OA treatment strategies approaches for OA are presented using the complex drug Alflutop, which has a composition similar to the human hyaline cartilage. The drug has anti - inflammatory and analgesic effects, normalizes the function of the affected joints, improves the quality of patients' life, also has a structure - modifying effect. Such therapy is safe, well tolerable for patients, and can be used used as a starting complex OA treatment.

Efficacy and tolerability of naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets compared with non-specific NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors: a systematic review and network analyses

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as non-selective NSAIDs (nsNSAIDs) or selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, are commonly prescribed for arthritic pain relief in patients with osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), or ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Treatment guidelines for chronic NSAID therapy include the consideration for gastroprotection for those at risk of gastric ulcers (GUs) associated with the chronic NSAID therapy. The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets for the relief of signs and symptoms of OA, RA, and AS, and to decrease the risk of developing GUs in patients at risk of developing NSAID-associated GUs. The European Medical Association has approved this therapy for the symptomatic treatment of OA, RA, and AS in patients who are at risk of developing NSAID-associated GUs and/or duodenal ulcers, for whom treatment with lower doses of naproxen or other NSAIDs is not considered sufficient. Naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets have been compared with naproxen and celecoxib for these indications in head-to-head trials. This systematic literature review and network meta-analyses of data from randomized controlled trials was performed to compare naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets with a number of additional relevant comparators. For this study, an original review examined MEDLINE®, Embase®, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register from database start to April 14, 2009. Using the same methodology, a review update was conducted to December 21, 2009. The systematic review and network analyses showed naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets have an improved upper gastrointestinal tolerability profile (dyspepsia and gastric or gastroduodenal ulcers) over several active comparators (naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, ketoprofen, etoricoxib, and fixed-dose diclofenac sodium plus misoprostol), and are equally effective as all active comparators in treating arthritic symptoms in patients with OA, RA, and AS. Naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets are therefore a valuable option for treating arthritic symptoms in eligible patients with OA, RA, and AS.

Implication of antithrombotic agents on potential bleeding from endoscopically determined peptic ulcers, incidentally detected as surrogate markers for nsaids-associated ulcers complication

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Little is known about the clinical significance of treatment for endoscopically determined peptic ulcers (EPU), incidentally detected as surrogate endpoints for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)-associated ulcers complication, such as overt bleeding and perforation. Even uncomplicated-EPU without overt bleeding signs when antithrombotic agents (AT) were cotherapied may be of potential bleeding sites. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether microcytic anemia, implying potential bleeding, is associated with NSAIDs-associated EPU or cotherapies with AT.

METHODS

Two hundred and thirty-eight outpatients with rheumatoid arthritis under long-term NSAIDs therapies underwent upper endoscopy and were divided into the following four groups according to the pattern (presence: + or absence: -) of AT cotherapy/EPU, respectively: A, -/- (n = 165); B, -/+ (n = 44); C, +/- (n = 25); and D, +/+ (n = 4).

RESULTS

EPU were found in 48 of the 238 studied patients (20.2%). After significant interactions among four groups hadstatistically been identified, hemoglobin (Hb) and mean corpuscular volume (MCV) as biomarkers for potential bleeding were compared between the groups.Hb and MCV were significantly lower in the D group than in the A,B, or C groups (Hb: P < 0.01, respectively; P < 0.05, MCV; P < 0.01 or P < 0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with NSAIDs-associated EPU and AT cotherapy indicated significantly more severe microcytic anemia pattern than those without EPU or AT cotherapy, despite no evidence of overt bleeding. Even uncomplicated-EPU without overt bleeding when ATs were cotherapied may be of potential bleeding sites.

Lafutidine prevents low-dose aspirin and loxoprofen induced gastric injury: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The concomitant use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is a risk factor for low-dose aspirin (LDA)-associated upper gastrointestinal toxicity. Lafutidine is an H2-receptor antagonist with gastroprotective activity, produced by acting on capsaicin-sensitive afferent neurons. To evaluate the preventive effect of lafutidine on gastric damage caused by LDA alone and by the combination of both LDA and loxoprofen, we conducted a clinical study using healthy volunteers.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study was carried out. Sixteen healthy volunteers without Helicobacter pylori infection were randomly assigned to two groups. Both groups received 81 mg of aspirin once daily for 14 days (on days 1 to 14) and 60 mg of loxoprofen three times daily for the last 7 days (on days 8 to 14). Placebo or 10 mg of lafutidine was administered twice daily for 14 days in each group. After a 2-week washout period, placebo and lafutidine were crossed over. Endoscopic findings of gastric mucosal damage were evaluated according to the modified Lanza score.

RESULTS

The mean modified Lanza score was 2.19 ± 1.06 (SD) for aspirin plus placebo as compared with 0.50 ± 0.77 for aspirin plus lafutidine (P < 0.001), and 3.00 ± 1.56 for aspirin plus loxoprofen and placebo as compared with 1.25 ± 1.37 for aspirin plus loxoprofen and lafutidine (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of loxoprofen to LDA increases gastric mucosal damage. Standard-dose lafutidine significantly prevents gastric mucosal damage induced by LDA alone or LDA plus loxoprofen in H. pylori-negative volunteers. Larger controlled studies are needed to strengthen these findings.

Evidence for endoscopic ulcers as meaningful surrogate endpoint for clinically significant upper gastrointestinal harm

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Surrogate endpoints are biomarkers intended to substitute for a clinical endpoint. Are endoscopic ulcers a useful surrogate endpoint for a biological progression to clinical endpoints of ulcer complications (perforation, ulcers, and bleeds), hospital admission, or death?

METHODS

Review of randomized trials, meta-analyses, clinical outcomes trials, and observational studies.

RESULTS

No large study examined both endoscopic and clinical endpoints. Endoscopic ulcers and clinically significant ulcer complications were affected in the same direction and to about the same extent in 4 distinct circumstances: (1) by risk factors-age, previous history of symptomatic ulcer or bleeding, Helicobacter pylori, aspirin; (2) in studies of antiulcer treatments with differing modes of action, especially in relation to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug toxicity, and Helicobacter pylori infection; (3) in studies evaluating ulcer complications with Cox-2 selective drugs and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; and (4) in studies of interventions in patients with high risk of recurrent ulcer bleed needing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy. All study designs showed consistent and reproducible effects on gastrointestinal ulcer complications paralleling endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent and plausible findings from disparate populations and designs make endoscopic ulcers a strong candidate for surrogacy, though direct progression from endoscopic ulcers to ulcer complications cannot be demonstrated. Large outcome studies are needed to establish the power of the surrogacy, absolute risk of clinical outcomes, and to identify the totality of risks and benefits of new pharmacologic therapies.

Prevention of NSAID-related upper gastrointestinal toxicity: a meta-analysis of traditional NSAIDs with gastroprotection and COX-2 inhibitors

Background:

Traditional NSAIDs (tNSAIDs) and COX-2 inhibitors (COX-2s) are important agents for the treatment of a variety or arthritic conditions. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of misoprostol, H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the prevention of tNSAID related upper gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, and to review the upper gastrointestinal (GI) safety of COX-2s.

Methods:

An extensive literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prophylactic agents used for the prevention of upper GI toxicity, and RCTs that assessed the GI safety of the newer COX-2s. Meta-analysis was performed in accordance with accepted techniques.

Results:

39 gastroprotection and 69 COX-2 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Misoprostol, PPIs, and double doses of H2RAs are effective at reducing the risk of both endoscopic gastric and duodenal tNSAID-induced ulcers. Standard doses of H2RAs are not effective at reducing the risk of tNSAID-induced gastric ulcers, but reduce the risk of duodenal ulcers. Misoprostol is associated with greater adverse effects than the other agents, particularly at higher doses. COX-2s are associated with fewer endoscopic ulcers and clinically important ulcer complications, and have fewer treatment withdrawals due to GI symptoms than tNSAIDS. Acetylsalicylic acid appears to diminish the benefit of COX-2s over tNSAIDs. In high risk GI patients, tNSAID with a PPI or a COX-2 alone appear to offer similar GI safety, but a strategy of a COX-2 with a PPI appears to offer the greatest GI safety.

Conclusion:

Several strategies are available to reduce the risk of upper GI toxicity with tNSAIDs. The choice between these strategies needs to consider patients’ underlying GI and cardiovascular risk.

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.

Bisphosphonate increases risk of gastroduodenal ulcer in rheumatoid arthritis patients on long-term nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug therapy

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients are at increased risk of peptic ulcers (PU) induced by nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, the impact of potential drug interactions on the development of PU has yet to be determined in a daily clinical setting. The aim was to estimate the clinical important interactions for PU presented by comedication in Japanese RA outpatients on long-term NSAID treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study enrolled 196 consecutive RA outpatients on NSAID medication for at least 3 months. Potential risk factors for endoscopic PU were analyzed in RA outpatients on longterm NSAID treatment.

RESULTS

PU incidence was 31% with bisphosphonate co-therapy and 17% without the co-therapy. PU incidence was only 5% in subjects with proton pump inhibitors (PPI) or prostaglandin E1 analogues (PG) co-therapy, 14% with histamine-H(2) receptor antagonists(H2RA) co-therapy, and 27% without anti-ulcer agents. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, bisphosphonate co-therapy remained a significant risk factor for PU (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.09-4.81). Other risk factors for ulcer development were advanced age (greater than 60 years) and smoking (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.03-6.49 and OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.13-5.53, respectively.) Factors that significantly reduced the incidence of PU were H2RA or PPI/PG cotherapies (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12-0.68.).

CONCLUSIONS

Bisphosphonate co-therapy as well as advanced age and smoking was found to be a significant risk factor in PU, while co-therapies of standard-dose H2RA or PPI/PG proved effective in preventing PU in Japanese RA patients on long-term NSAID treatment.

Costs and effects of various analgesic treatments for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

To assess the balance between costs and upper gastrointestinal (GI) side effects of treatment with celecoxib, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) alone, NSAID plus misoprostol, NSAID plus histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H(2)RA), NSAID plus proton pump inhibitor (PPI), and Arthrotec in The Netherlands.

METHODS

A model was used to convene data from various sources on the probability of GI side effects and resource use. The probabilities of GI side effects for celecoxib and NSAIDs alone were derived from trial data. Calculations were based on 6 months of treatment, and were from a societal perspective. Distinction was made between low-, medium-, and high-risk patients. An extensive probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to address uncertainty.

RESULTS

Assuming an average patient, the total costs per 6 months of therapy were: celecoxib 255 Euro, NSAIDs alone 166 Euro, NSAID plus misoprostol 285 Euro, NSAID plus H(2)RA 284 Euro, NSAID plus PPI 243 Euro, and Arthrotec 187 Euro. Treatment with celecoxib was associated with the lowest number of GI side effects and related deaths. Incremental costs per life-year saved for Arthrotec compared to NSAIDs alone were 5676 Euro for all patients and 526 Euro for medium-to-high-risk patients, whereas for high-risk patients, Arthrotec dominated NSAID alone. For celecoxib compared to Arthrotec, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were 56,667 Euro, 33,684 Euro, and 15,429 Euro, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Assuming a limit of 20,000 Euro per life-year gained, from an economic point of view, Arthrotec is the preferred treatment when all patients or medium-to-high-risk patients are considered. In high-risk patients, celecoxib is the preferred treatment strategy.

Systematic review: ulcer definition in NSAID ulcer prevention trials

BACKGROUND

In clinical trials of peptic ulcer prevention, the most appropriate definition of an ulcer remains challenging.

AIMS

To evaluate the ulcer definitions used in clinical trials of ulcer prevention among non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users and to determine whether any specific definition is preferred.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the PubMed, Medline and EMBASE databases was conducted. Results were limited to full papers published in English from June 1987 to June 2007 that met the following criteria: randomized, controlled non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug trials of > or =8 weeks' duration, with a primary end point of ulcer upon endoscopy.

RESULTS

Forty five publications met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Overall, an ulcer diameter of > or =3 mm was used in 25 publications and most included a description of ulcer depth. Of the remainder, ulcer was defined as any lesion with unequivocal/observable depth (with no lower limit for ulcer diameter; five publications) or an excavated mucosal break >3 mm (one publication), whereas nine defined a minimum ulcer size of > or =5 or >5 mm. Ulcer definition was unclear in the remaining five publications.

CONCLUSION

In clinical trials of ulcer prevention among non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users, a gastric or duodenal lesion > or =3 mm in diameter with significant depth is the preferred definition.

Assessing the efficacy of famotidine and rebamipide in the treatment of gastric mucosal lesions in patients receiving long-term NSAID therapy (FORCE--famotidine or rebamipide in comparison by endoscopy)

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and Helicobacter pylori infection are major causes of gastric mucosal lesions. In Japan, histamine-2 receptor antagonists are frequently prescribed, but the literature regarding their efficacy is limited. In this study, we compare the effects of famotidine and rebamipide on NSAID-associated gastric mucosal lesions using upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

This study examined 112 patients taking NSAIDs for either gastric hemorrhage or erosion. Before treatment, the patients were assessed by endoscopy. Using blind randomization, patients were divided into two groups: group F (famotidine, 20 mg/day) and group R (rebamipide, 300 mg/day). Efficacy was examined 4 weeks later using endoscopy.

RESULTS

After treatment, the Lanza score decreased significantly in group F (P < 0.001) but not in group R (P = 0.478). The change in the Lanza score in group F was significantly greater (P = 0.002) than that in group R.

CONCLUSIONS

Famotidine was superior to rebamipide in treating NSAID-associated mucosal lesions.

Prevention of ulcers by esomeprazole in at-risk patients using non-selective NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors

OBJECTIVES

Proton pump inhibitors reduce ulcer recurrence in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) users, but their impact in at-risk ulcer-free patients using the current spectrum of prescribed agents has not been clearly defined. We assessed esomeprazole for ulcer prevention in at-risk patients (> or = 60 yr and/or ulcer history) taking NSAIDs, including COX-2 inhibitors. Such studies are particularly relevant, given that concerns regarding adverse cardiovascular outcomes among COX-2 inhibitor users may prompt re-evaluation of their use.

METHODS

We conducted two similar double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter studies; VENUS (United States) and PLUTO (multinational). A total of 844 and 585 patients requiring daily NSAIDs, including COX-2 inhibitors were randomized to receive esomeprazole (20 or 40 mg) or placebo, daily for 6 months.

RESULTS

In the VENUS study, the life table estimated proportion of patients who developed ulcers over 6 months (primary variable, intent-to-treat population) was 20.4% on placebo, 5.3% on esomeprazole 20 mg (p < 0.001), and 4.7% on esomeprazole 40 mg (p < 0.0001). In the PLUTO study, the values were 12.3% on placebo, 5.2% with esomeprazole 20 mg (p = 0.018), and 4.4% with esomeprazole 40 mg (p = 0.007). Significant reductions were observed for users of both non-selective NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors. Pooled ulcer rates for patients using COX-2 inhibitors (n = 400) were 16.5% on placebo, 0.9% on esomeprazole 20 mg (p < 0.001) and 4.1% on esomeprazole 40 mg (p= 0.002). Esomeprazole was well tolerated and associated with better symptom control than placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

For at-risk patients, esomeprazole was effective in preventing ulcers in long-term users of NSAIDs, including COX-2 inhibitors.

Appropriate choice of proton pump inhibitor therapy in the prevention and management of NSAID-related gastrointestinal damage

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with gastrointestinal adverse effects, ranging from dyspepsia and peptic ulcer disease to more serious complications such as haemorrhage or perforation. NSAID-induced gastrointestinal toxicity is a significant medical problem worldwide. Misoprostol is effective in reducing NSAID-induced mucosal damage, but patient compliance is limited by poor tolerance. Histamine receptor antagonists are relatively effective against duodenal ulcers but offer no significant protection against gastric ulcers. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), such as pantoprazole, omeprazole and lansoprazole, have been shown to be effective in preventing the development of gastric and duodenal ulcers in high-risk patients taking NSAIDs. PPI therapy is also beneficial in healing NSAID-induced ulcers and preventing their recurrence in patients requiring ongoing NSAID therapy. PPIs have an excellent safety profile, and pantoprazole--with its low potential for drug-drug interactions--is particularly suitable for administration to elderly patients who often require concomitant treatment with other medications.

Preventive therapy for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced ulcers in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the current situation and a prospective controlled-study of the preventive effects of lansoprazole or famotidine

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence for the efficacy of preventive medications for peptic ulcers (PUs) among long-term users of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in Japan.

AIM

To estimate the preventive effect by normal dose, not high-dose histamine-H2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) for NSAID-induced ulcers.

METHODS

We designed two different studies to assess the efficacy of anti-ulcer agents in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients treated over a long term with NSAIDs. An investigative survey divided patients into those not taking anti-ulcer agents (non-medication group); those taking mucosal protective agents (mucosal protectant group), H2RA (H2RA group), proton pump inhibitors (PPI group), or a prostaglandin E1 analog (PG) (PG group). The second study compared prospectively the preventive effects of either famotidine 20 mg bd (famotidine group) or lansoprazole 15 mg daily (lansoprazole group) in patients with PU scars.

RESULTS

The prevalence of PU in the H2RA group was significantly lower compared to the mucosal protectant group (P < 0.05), and the mucosal protectant group was not significantly different to the non-medication group. The prospective study revealed that the PU onset rate of the famotidine group was 8% (1/13), and lansoprazole group was 15% (2/13), indicating no significant differences between the two.

CONCLUSIONS

In Japan, normal-dose H2RA is expected to be a new PU preventive treatment strategy in patients requiring long-term NSAID therapy.

Reducing Clinically Significant Gastrointestinal Toxicity Associated with Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the efficacy of treatment strategies to reduce clinically significant gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

DATA SOURCES:

A MEDLINE search (1966–November 2003) was performed to identify relevant articles. Key search terms included proton-pump inhibitors, histamine H2 antagonists, misoprostol, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitors, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents, stomach ulcer, prevention, and economics. Additional references were obtained from cross-referencing the bibliographies of selected articles.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION:

All information obtained from the MEDLINE search was reviewed. To provide the most clinically relevant information, only randomized controlled trials are included in this review.

DATA SYNTHESIS:

Clinically significant upper gastrointestinal adverse events, such as ulcers and ulcer complications, associated with NSAIDs are a cause of significant morbidity and mortality in the US. Interest in strategies to reduce the risk of these adverse events is high among clinicians and patients. Misoprostol, high-dose H2-receptor antagonists, proton-pump inhibitors, and COX-2 inhibitors have been shown to reduce this risk. Misoprostol and proton-pump inhibitors are more effective than H2-receptor antagonists; dose-related diarrhea limits the clinical utility of misoprostol. These strategies may not provide enough protection in patients taking concomitant low-dose aspirin therapy or patients with a history of ulcer complications.

CONCLUSIONS:

COX-2 inhibitors and proton-pump inhibitors are effective and well-tolerated therapies to reduce clinically significant upper gastrointestinal adverse events associated with NSAIDs.

Ulcer formation with low-dose enteric-coated aspirin and the effect of COX-2 selective inhibition: a double-blind trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We assessed the risk of ulcers with low-dose aspirin and the interaction of low-dose aspirin with a COX-2 selective inhibitor in a double-blind trial that compared placebo, low-dose aspirin, rofecoxib + low-dose aspirin, and ibuprofen.

METHODS

Osteoarthritis patients > or =50 years of age without ulcers or erosive esophagitis at baseline endoscopy were assigned randomly to placebo, enteric-coated aspirin 81 mg/day, rofecoxib 25 mg combined with aspirin 81 mg/day, or ibuprofen 800 mg 3 times a day. Repeat endoscopies were performed at 6 and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

The 12-week cumulative incidence of ulcers was placebo (N = 381) 5.8%, aspirin (N = 387) 7.3%, rofecoxib combined with aspirin (N = 377) 16.1%, and ibuprofen (N = 374) 17.1% (P < 0.001 for rofecoxib combined with aspirin and for ibuprofen vs. each of placebo and aspirin). Over 12 weeks, mean increases in the number of erosions were placebo 0.17, aspirin 0.85 (P = 0.002 vs. placebo), rofecoxib combined with aspirin 1.67, and ibuprofen 1.91 (both P < 0.001 vs. aspirin and placebo).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose aspirin alone did not significantly increase ulcer incidence. Addition of a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitor to low-dose aspirin increased ulcer incidence, to a rate not significantly less than a nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) alone. Determining the relative impact of COX-2 selective inhibitors and nonselective NSAIDs on gastrointestinal mucosal injury in low-dose aspirin users will require further study.

Traitements curatif et préventif des ulcères gastro-duodénaux induits par les AINS

The use of treatments to heal or to prevent nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) associated gastroduodenal lesions is based on replacement of mucosal prostaglandin deficiency or inhibition of acid secretion. Four-week acid suppression by proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with 7-day eradication triple therapy in Helicobacter pylori positive patients is effective in healing gastric and duodenal ulcer upon discontinuation of NSAIDs. In the event NSAIDs must be continued, PPIs (omeprazole 20 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg) are more effective than H2-blockers and cytoprotective agents (sucralfate, misoprostol) to heal mucosal lesions. In long-term prevention studies, omeprazole 20 mg, lansoprazole 15 mg, and pantoprazole 20 mg significantly reduce gastric and duodenal ulcer rates. Misoprostol 800 microg is as effective as PPIs for preventing symptomatic and complicated gastric ulcers, but less effective to prevent duodenal ulcer, with a high rate of adverse effects such as diarrhea. Helicobacter pylori eradication in infected patients decrease the risk of NSAIDs-associated lesions but is less effective than concomitant antisecretory treatment. Current data from comparative studies of PPIs vs ranitidine or misoprostol are in favor of the PPIs as well tolerated and effective drugs in the prophylaxis of NSAIDs-related gastroduodenal lesions in high-risk patients.

The CINOD, AZD3582, exhibits an improved gastrointestinal safety profile compared with naproxen in healthy volunteers

COX-inhibiting nitric oxide donators (CINODs) are a new class of drugs in development for the treatment of acute and chronic pain. They comprise a COX-inhibiting moiety linked to a nitric-oxide-donating component and are designed to provide an innovative mechanism of action of balanced COX inhibition and controlled nitric oxide donation. Through these pathways, CINODs should provide analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy, while offering gastrointestinal safety through the tissue-protective effects of nitric oxide donation. AZD3582 [4-(nitrooxy)butyl-(2S)-2-(6-methoxy-2-naphthyl)propanoate] is the first agent in the CINOD class to enter extensive clinical development. Pre-clinical studies demonstrate that AZD3582 has a superior gastrointestinal safety profile to naproxen, while demonstrating analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy. In healthy human volunteers, AZD3582 caused little gastrointestinal damage compared with equimolar doses of naproxen. Studies to evaluate the longer-term gastrointestinal safety of AZD3582, alongside its efficacy in alleviating chronic and acute pain, are ongoing.

[Economic evaluation of a new selective COX-2 NSAID, rofecoxib, in a real practice context]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the economic and health consequences of the use of a new COX-2 anti-inflammatory drug.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis by modelling three options for prescribing non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) in patients diagnosed with arthrosis and undergoing long-term NSAID treatment. Option 1: NSAID prescription without gastric protection for low-risk patients, and with gastric protection for patients running a medium or high risk of developing complications (current procedure). Option 2: exclusive prescription of rofecoxib (25 mg/day) for all patients (high and low risk). Option 3: single-therapy rofecoxib (25 mg/day) prescription for patients sensitive to combined treatment (NSAIDs and gastric protection) due to the risk of complications. In each case, resources and expected clinical benefits were accounted for by the calculation of the cost of avoidance of each moderate or high gastro-intestinal side-effect (GISE) (symptomatic ulcer or complication) avoided. The direct economic impact on the centre of passing from option 1 to any of the other two options was calculated.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

The study, conducted in the Barceloneta Primary Care Centre, included in its modelling the 124 patients diagnosed with arthrosis who received NSAIDs continuously during the year 2000.

RESULTS

Option 2 supposed avoiding 1.5 cases of GISE (0.5 symptomatic ulcers and 0.9 serious complications), to an additional cost of 336 566.78 euros. Each case avoided would cost 24,641.50 euros; and each serious case avoided 38,464.79 euros. Option 3 avoided 0.25 cases of serious complication, at an additional cost of 9,015.18 euros. Avoiding one case would cost 37,262.75 euros.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall health benefits arising from the universal or partial introduction of a selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAID involve a unit cost of 24,040.48 or 36,060.73 euros, depending on the option. The impact on the Centre s pharmaceutical budget would increase by 1.3% under option 2, and by 0.35% under option 3.

Incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers associated with valdecoxib compared with that of ibuprofen and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether valdecoxib, at chronic arthritis doses, has the characteristics of a cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX-2) specific inhibitor, as measured by a reduced incidence of upper-gastrointestinal ulceration compared with conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

METHODS

This double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study compared the incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers associated with valdecoxib 10 mg daily (q.d.) and 20 mg q.d. with that of ibuprofen 800 mg three times daily (t.i.d.) or diclofenac 75 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) when administered over a 12-week period. The incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers was assessed by upper-gastrointestinal endoscopy, performed at baseline and again at the end of week 12 (or at early study termination). Efficacy assessments were performed at baseline and at weeks 2, 6 and 12 using Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments of Arthritis.

RESULTS

A total of 1052 osteoarthritis patients were enrolled into the trial. The incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers over 12 weeks was 5% in patients receiving valdecoxib 10 mg q.d., 4% in patients receiving valdecoxib 20 mg q.d., 7% in patients receiving placebo, 16% in patients receiving ibuprofen 800 mg t.i.d. (P <0.05 v. placebo), and 17% in patients receiving diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d. (P <0.05 v. placebo). The incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers at week 12 seen in the ibuprofen 800 mg t.i.d. and diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d. groups was significantly higher than that in the valdecoxib 10 mg q.d. and valdecoxib 20 mg q.d. groups (P <0.05). The incidence rates of gastroduodenal ulcers were not significantly different between the valdecoxib treatment groups or between valdecoxib- and placebo-treated patients. Efficacy responses to valdecoxib 10 mg and 20 mg q.d. were significantly greater than placebo and comparable with both ibuprofen 800 mg t.i.d. and diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study demonstrate that valdecoxib has an upper-gastrointestinal safety profile typical of a COX-2 specific inhibitor. Overall, the data indicate that administration of valdecoxib offers similar efficacy for the treatment of osteoarthritis but improved upper-gastrointestinal safety compared with the conventional NSAIDs, ibuprofen and diclofenac, based on the significantly lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers detected by endoscopy.

Reduced incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers with celecoxib, a novel cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, compared to naproxen in patients with arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) block prostaglandin production by inhibiting cyclooxygenase (COX); they are believed to cause gastroduodenal damage by inhibiting the COX-1 isoform and to have analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects by inhibiting the COX-2 isoform. As compared to conventional NSAIDs, celecoxib, a COX-2 specific inhibitor, has been shown in previous single posttreatment endoscopy studies to be associated with lower gastroduodenal ulcer rates. In response to concerns that such studies may under-represent ulceration rates, the present serial endoscopy study was designed to compare cumulative gastroduodenal ulcer rates associated with the use of celecoxib to those of naproxen, a conventional NSAID.

METHODS

In this double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study, 537 patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were randomized to treatment with celecoxib 200 mg b.i.d. (n = 270) or naproxen 500 mg b.i.d. (n = 267) for 12 wk. Gastroduodenal damage was determined from esophagogastroduodenoscopy after 4, 8, and 12 wk of therapy. Arthritis efficacy was evaluated with Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments.

RESULTS

Gastroduodenal ulcer rates after celecoxib and naproxen treatment were 4% versus 19% in the 0-4 wk interval (p < 0.001), 2% versus 14% in the 4-8 wk interval (p < 0.001), and 2% versus 10% in the 8-12 wk interval (p < 0.001), respectively. After 12 wk of treatment, the cumulative incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers was 9% with celecoxib and 41% with naproxen. In the celecoxib group, gastroduodenal ulcers were significantly associated with Helicobacter pylori status (p < 0.05), concurrent aspirin usage (p = 0.001), and a history of ulcer (p = 0.010), but not with disease type (OA/RA), age, gender, other relevant medical histories, or concurrent corticosteroid or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs usage (p > 0.05). Celecoxib produced a significantly lower incidence rate of both gastric (p < 0.001) and duodenal (p < 0.030) ulcers. The two agents produced similar improvements in Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments of arthritis efficacy. The incidence of adverse events and withdrawal rates did not differ significantly between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

As compared to naproxen (500 mg b.i.d.), use of celecoxib (200 mg b.i.d.), a COX-2 specific agent, at the recommended RA dose and twice the most frequently prescribed OA dose, was associated with lower rates of gastric, duodenal, and gastroduodenal ulcers but had comparable efficacy, in patients with OA and RA.

Approaches to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in the high-risk patient

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are probably the most common cause of gastroduodenal injury in the United States today. Approximately half of patients who regularly take NSAIDs have gastric erosions, and 15%-30% have ulcers when they are examined endoscopically. However, the incidence of clinical gastrointestinal (GI) events caused by NSAIDs is much lower. Clinical upper GI events may occur in 3%-4.5% of patients taking NSAIDs, and serious complicated events develop in approximately 1.5%. However, the risk varies widely in relationship to clinical features such as history of ulcers or GI events, age, concomitant anticoagulant or steroid use, and NSAID dose. This review discusses the risks of clinical GI disease in NSAID users, the predictors of increased risk, and strategies for prevention of NSAID-associated GI disease.

Approaches to healing and prophylaxis of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated ulcers

Treating and preventing peptic ulcers associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) calls for clinical judgment. Physicians must weigh their patients' need for anti-inflammatory therapy against their individual risks for ulcer development; their likelihood of coping with an ulcer complication if it should develop; and the economics, efficacy, and tolerability of various treatment and prevention options. This article considers some general strategies common to both treatment and prevention. Data from randomized trials that can guide clinicians and their patients as they attempt to heal an established NSAID ulcer or prevent one occurring in the future are also reviewed.

Economic evaluation of celecoxib, a new cyclo-oxygenase 2 specific inhibitor, in Switzerland

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to predict the cost effectiveness of celecoxib, a cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX-2) specific inhibitor, in the treatment of arthritis patients in Switzerland.

METHODS

We applied a decision analytical model to compare the effects of 6 months' treatment with the following: (i) celecoxib; (ii) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) alone; NSAID protected with (iii) proton pump inhibitor (PPI), (iv) histamine H2 receptor antagonist (H2RA), or (v) misoprostol; and (vi) diclofenac/misoprostol. Treatment costs included drug acquisition and the management of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects, classified as GI discomfort, symptomatic ulcer, anaemia and serious GI events (requiring hospitalisation). Probabilities were derived from celecoxib clinical trials and the literature. Drug utilisation patterns and treatment costs reflecting Swiss practice were obtained from local sources. Analysis was from the public health insurers' perspective. A range of sensitivity analyses was performed.

RESULTS

For the base case of patients at typical risk (0.56% per 6 months) of serious GI events, the total expected costs of 6 months' treatment were as follows: celecoxib 435 Swiss francs (SwF); NSAID alone SwF510; diclofenac/misoprostol SwF522; and other protected NSAID regimens between SwF1034 and SwF1415. Celecoxib remained the lowest costing treatment over all categories of GI risk. Celecoxib generated 115 expected adverse events per 1000 patients per 6 months, followed by NSAID + PPI (119), NSAID + H2RA (154), NSAID + misoprostol (202), diclofenac/misoprostol (203), and NSAID alone (220), again for the base case. The cost per adverse event averted for celecoxib compared with NSAIDs alone was estimated in a stochastic version of the model using Monte Carlo simulation. In 95% of 500 iterations, celecoxib was predicted to save both costs and adverse events, thus dominating NSAIDs alone; the maximum cost per adverse event averted was SwF440.

CONCLUSIONS

Celecoxib is predicted to be the most cost effective of the treatments considered for managing arthritis patients in Switzerland. A policy of switching patients from NSAIDs to celecoxib is predicted to be cost saving for public health insurers, while reducing the burden of iatrogenic GI side effects. Greater cost savings would be realised when patients are switched from NSAIDs used with gastroprotective agents. Models such as this can provide a useful but simplified view of treatment outcomes and predicted results require prospective validation in clinical practice.

A framework for evaluating the clinical consequences of initial therapy with NSAIDs, NSAIDs plus gastroprotective agents, or celecoxib in the treatment of arthritis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to provide a framework for estimating the economic efficiency of nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), concomitant gastroprotective agents (GPAs) to reduce the risk of NSAID toxicity, and celecoxib, a specific cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor. Concomitant GPA therapies considered include one of the following: proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) plus NSAIDs, histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) plus NSAIDs, misoprostol plus NSAIDs, and a single tablet formulation of diclofenac/misoprostol.

DESIGN

The study employs a decision-tree framework to establish probabilities of upper gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events occurring over a 6-month time frame. Celecoxib clinical trial data are used to establish probabilities of upper GI events for celecoxib and NSAIDs, and published literature is used to predict upper GI events for the other concomitant therapies. Upper GI adverse events included in the decision-tree are as follows: GI discomfort, symptomatic ulcer, serious GI complications (with and without death), and anaemia with occult bleeding.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

Clinical probabilities indicate celecoxib has significant tolerability and safety advantages compared with nonselective NSAIDs. Celecoxib also reduces the risk of GI adverse events to a similar or superior degree when compared with reductions observed with NSAIDs with concomitant GPAs.

CONCLUSION

Use of celecoxib is expected to significantly reduce the economic costs of GI toxicity and its associated morbidity.

An economic model for determining the costs and consequences of using various treatment alternatives for the management of arthritis in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To construct a decision analytical model to compare the costs and clinical consequences of treating patients with celecoxib or various nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)/gastrointestinal (GI) co-therapy regimens for the management of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. The model quantified the number of patients expected to experience any GI complication commonly associated with NSAID therapy.

DESIGN

Resource use for the treatment of each GI complication in the model was estimated after consulting Canadian experts. Standard unit costs from Ontario were applied to resources to calculate the cost of each complication.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

The model revealed that the NSAID-alone regimen was associated with the lowest cost [$262 Canadian dollars ($Can) per patient per 6 months] followed by the celecoxib regimen ($Can273), diclofenac/misoprostol ($Can365), NSAID + histamine H2 receptor antagonist ($Can413), NSAID + misoprostol ($Can421), and NSAID + proton pump inhibitor ($Can731). A break-even analysis showed that up to 80% of the study cohort could be treated with celecoxib instead of the NSAID-alone regimen without increasing the health system's overall budget. Celecoxib was associated with the fewest GI-related deaths, hospitalised events; symptomatic ulcers, and cases of anaemia. The celecoxib regimen was also associated with the fewest cases of upper GI distress. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the model was most sensitive to the distribution of GI risk in the population and to the ingredient costs of the treatment alternatives.

CONCLUSIONS

This model indicates that the use of celecoxib could lead to the avoidance of a significant number of NSAID-attributable GI adverse events, and the incremental cost of using celecoxib for arthritis patients > or = 65 years of age in place of current treatment alternatives would not impose an excessive incremental impact on a Canadian provincial healthcare budget.

Randomized trial of low-dose misoprostol and naproxen vs. nabumetone to prevent recurrent upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage in users of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic misoprostol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with low gastric toxicity (nabumetone) has been shown to reduce mucosal injury.

AIM

To compare nabumetone vs. co-therapy of naproxen with low-dose misoprostol for secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in NSAID users.

METHODS

NSAID users presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding were enrolled if they required long-term NSAIDs. After ulcer healing, they were randomized to receive: naproxen (500-1000 mg/day) and misoprostol (200 microg b.d.), or nabumetone (1000-1500 mg/day) and placebo misoprostol for 24 weeks. The primary end-point was recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The secondary end-point was the proportion of patients suffering from major gastrointestinal events including ulcer bleeding, symptomatic ulcers and severe dyspepsia.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (misoprostol/naproxen 45, nabumetone 45). Recurrent bleeding occurred in 10 patients (22.2%) receiving misoprostol/naproxen compared with three (6.7%) receiving nabumetone (relative risk 3.33, 95% CI: 0.98-11.32, P=0.069). The proportion of patients suffering from major gastrointestinal events at 24 weeks was 31.1% in the misoprostol/naproxen group and 28.9% in the nabumetone group.

CONCLUSIONS

Misoprostol/naproxen is not superior to nabumetone for secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Neither low-dose misoprostol nor nabumetone is adequate for high-risk NSAID users.

Gastrointestinal-related healthcare resource usage associated with a fixed combination of diclofenac and misoprostol versus other NSAIDs

OBJECTIVE

To compare gastrointestinal (GI) healthcare resource use (HCRU) and associated costs in patients taking a fixed combination of diclofenac and misoprostol versus other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

METHODS

We analysed a sample (49,033 patients) of the Government of Quebec Health Insurance Agency database. Patients were included in the study if they did not have GI events during the year preceding the date of their first NSAID prescription dispensing (the index date). Patients were followed up for 2 years. A 3-stage model was used to determine the factors that influenced the direct medical costs of GI HCRU: (i) a logistic regression model (model 1) to estimate the risk of GI HCRU; (ii) a linear regression model (model 2) to estimate the direct costs of GI HCRU for those who had such events; (iii) multiplying the estimated risks from model 1 by the estimated costs from model 2 gave the estimated direct costs of GI HCRU for all patients.

STUDY PERSPECTIVE

Provincial government of Quebec, Canada.

RESULTS

1,533 patients were prescribed diclofenac/misoprostol at the index date and 10,540 another NSAID. Comorbidity markers were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Of the diclofenac/misoprostol patients, 23 (1.5%) were hospitalised for GI problems compared with 194 (1.8%) of the NSAID group; 403 (26.3%) of diclofenac/misoprostol patients used gastroprotective agents compared with 2,849 (27.0%) of the NSAID patients; 118 (7.7%) of diclofenac/misoprostol patients had GI diagnostic tests compared with 682 (6.5%) of the NSAID patients. The average direct medical cost of GI HCRU was 310.52 Canadian dollars ($Can)/patient (1997 values) in the diclofenac/misoprostol group compared with $Can231.19/patient (1997 values) in the NSAID group. When adjusted for baseline factors, the ratio of the total direct medical cost of GI HCRU in the diclofenac/misoprostol group to that of the NSAID group was 1.15 (95% confidence interval: 0.89, 1.48).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data showed no significant differences in GI HCRU among patients taking diclofenac/misoprostol compared with those taking NSAIDs.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug toxicity in the upper gastrointestinal tract

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) toxicity in the upper gastrointestinal tract is the most common serious drug-induced toxicity reported to drug regulatory authorities. In the last two decades, the rediscovery of H. pylori, development of potent ulcer-healing drugs and specific Cox-II inhibitors have opened new horizons in the management of NSAID toxicity. A Working Party composed of gastroenterologists and rheumatologists in the Asia-Pacific region met in Cairns, Australia, in 1999 to review the literature and develop appropriate guidelines. Recommendations were made based on the latest existing evidence. The importance of clinical events as study endpoints was emphasized. While differences exist between NSAIDs and aspirin, most studies have shown that advanced age, history of peptic ulcer disease, serious concomitant illnesses and coprescription of NSAID/aspirin with anticoagulants and steroids are high risk factors. These patients should be considered for prophylactic anti-ulcer therapy. Helicobacter pylori infection may aggravate the toxicity of NSAIDs and, in selected cases, should be treated before NSAID/aspirin is prescribed. Proton pump inhibitors and misoprostol are the most promising agents in preventing gastric and duodenal ulcers. When NSAID/aspirin needs to be continued in patients who develop an NSAID-related ulcer, proton pump inhibitors offer the best healing effect. With the discovery of cyclo-oxygenase isoforms (Cox-I and Cox-II), preferential and specific Cox-II inhibitors have been developed. While early clinical data have suggested promising antiinflammatory effects and improved safety profile in the gastrointestinal tract, several key issues on long-term safety remain unresolved. The use of potent anti-ulcer therapy, treatment of H. pylori infection and the development of Cox-II inhibitor will change the scenario of NSAID/aspirin-related gastrointestinal toxicity in the next millennium.

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.

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.

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.

Celecoxib versus diclofenac in long-term management of rheumatoid arthritis: randomised double-blind comparison

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) inhibit cyclo-oxygenase (COX), which leads to suppression of COX-1-mediated production of gastrointestinal-protective prostaglandins. Gastrointestinal injury is a common outcome. We compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of long-term therapy with celecoxib, a COX-1 sparing inhibitor of COX-2, with diclofenac, a non-specific COX inhibitor.

METHODS

655 patients with adult-onset rheumatoid arthritis of at least 6 months' duration were randomly assigned oral celecoxib 200 mg twice daily or diclofenac SR 75 mg twice daily for 24 weeks. Anti-inflammatory and analgesic activity and tolerability were assessed at baseline, every 4 weeks, and at week 24. We assessed gastrointestinal safety by upper-gastrointestinal endoscopy within 7 days of the last treatment dose at centres where the procedure was available. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.

FINDINGS

430 patients underwent endoscopy (celecoxib n=212, diclofenac n=218). The two drugs were similar in management of rheumatoid arthritis pain and inflammation. Gastroduodenal ulcers were detected endoscopically in 33 (15%) patients treated with diclofenac and in eight (4%) in the celecoxib group (p<0.001). The rate of withdrawal for any gastrointestinal-related adverse event, most commonly abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and dyspepsia, was nearly three times higher in the diclofenac-treated group than in the celecoxib group (16 vs 6%; p<0.001).

INTERPRETATION

Celecoxib showed sustained anti-inflammatory and analgesic activity similar to diclofenac, with a lower frequency of upper gastrointestinal ulceration or gastrointestinal adverse events, and tolerability was better.

Cost effectiveness of replacing diclofenac with a fixed combination of misoprostol and diclofenac in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the costs and health consequences of replacing treatment with diclofenac 50 mg with a fixed combination of diclofenac 50 mg and misoprostol 0.2 mg 3 times a day in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A decision tree was developed to simulate 6 months of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) treatment for RA. The probabilities of the clinical outcomes were based on a literature review. A survey of Norwegian rheumatologists was undertaken to explore their clinical management of dyspepsia in RA patients taking NSAIDs. Valuation of health states was based on results of the Short Form 36 health survey.

RESULTS

In female RA patients without any risk factors associated with serious gastrointestinal (GI) complications, the incremental cost of replacing diclofenac with the fixed misoprostol/diclofenac combination therapy was $72,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. For patients with 1 risk factor, the cost was less than $16,000. With 2 or 3 risk factors, the use of misoprostol was cost saving. The cost-effectiveness ratios in males were approximately 20% higher than in females.

CONCLUSION

Replacing diclofenac with a fixed diclofenac/misoprostol combination is cost effective when restricted to RA patients at increased risk of serious GI events.

A randomized trial comparing the effect of rofecoxib, a cyclooxygenase 2-specific inhibitor, with that of ibuprofen on the gastroduodenal mucosa of patients with osteoarthritis. Rofecoxib Osteoarthritis Endoscopy Study Group

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Prostaglandin production in the normal gastrointestinal tract, believed to be critical for mucosal integrity, is mediated by cyclooxygenase (COX)-1, whereas prostaglandin production at inflammatory sites seems to occur via induction of COX-2. We hypothesized that COX-2-specific inhibition with rofecoxib (25 mg once daily) in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis would cause fewer gastroduodenal ulcers than an equally effective dose of ibuprofen (800 mg 3 times a day), a nonspecific COX inhibitor.

METHODS

A total of 742 osteoarthritis patients without ulcers on baseline endoscopy were randomly assigned to receive rofecoxib (25 or 50 mg once daily), ibuprofen (800 mg 3 times daily), or placebo. Endoscopy was repeated at 6, 12, and 24 weeks. At 16 weeks, by study design, 95% of the placebo group and 5% of the other groups were discontinued.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers >/=3 mm with rofecoxib (25 or 50 mg once daily) was significantly (P < 0.001) lower than with ibuprofen and was statistically equivalent to placebo at week 12 (placebo, 9.9%; 25 mg rofecoxib, 4.1%; 50 mg rofecoxib, 7.3%; and ibuprofen, 27.7%). At 24 weeks, ulcer rates were 25 mg rofecoxib, 9. 6%; 50 mg rofecoxib, 14.7%; and ibuprofen, 45.8% (P < 0.001, ibuprofen vs. 25 and 50 mg rofecoxib).

CONCLUSIONS

Rofecoxib, at doses 2-4 times the dose demonstrated to relieve symptoms of osteoarthritis, caused significantly less gastroduodenal ulceration than ibuprofen, with ulcer rates comparable to placebo.

Evaluation of Novel New NSAIDs: A Review of COX-2 Inhibitors, with an Emphasis on Gastrointestinal Toxicity

Identification of two isoforms of cyclooxygenase, COX-1 and COX-2, has initiated a revolution in the approach to pharmacologie pain management. It has been further determined that inhibition of COX-2 reduces inflammation, and inhibition of COX-1 compromises gastrointestinal mucosal integrity. As traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2, gastrointestinal ulceration can develop in association with the use of these agents to control pain and inflammation. An ideal NSAID would, therefore, inhibit COX-2 to provide anti-inflammatory effects while leaving COX-1, and, therefore, gastrointestinal mucosa, unaffected.

Two selective COX-2 inhibitors have recently been approved in the United States. Celecoxib (Celebrex, G.D. Searle & Co.) and rofecoxib (Vioxxj, Merck & Co., Inc.) are indicated for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Also, celecoxib is approved for rheumatoid arthritis. Rofecoxib is also approved for the treatment of acute pain and dysmenorrhea. Both agents have displayed similar efficacy to traditional NSAIDs. In addition, endoscopically detected gastrointestinal ulceration is reduced versus older NSAIDs. Further evaluation of selective COX-2 inhibitors will elucidate long-term efficacy, safety, and potential reduction of health care dollars spent on hospitalization and treatment for NSAID-induced gastrointestinal toxicity.

An endoscopic study of gastroduodenal lesions induced by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) are frequently treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Although NSAIDs are an effective therapy for the pain and inflammation of arthritis, they are associated with serious side effects, particularly ulceration, bleeding, and perforation of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. In this study, 1826 OA or RA patients who either had been taking NSAIDS for > or =6 months or had been unable to tolerate continuous NSAID use because of adverse GI symptoms or suspected NSAID-related gastroduodenal lesions were examined endoscopically for gastroduodenal lesions and ulcers. At the same time, the patients were asked to rate the severity of any GI symptoms they had been experiencing. Of the total number of patients studied, 817 (44.7%) were OA patients with a mean (+/- SD) age of 55.8+/-12.9 years, and 1009 (55.3%) were RA patients with a mean age of 53.1+/-13.1 years. Clinically significant gastroduodenal lesions were found in 37.1% of patients (n = 678); of these, 24.0% (n = 439) had ulcers. Gastric ulcers were more frequent than duodenal ulcers (14.8% vs 10.2% of patients; P < 0.05), and most gastric ulcers (72.0%) were found in the antrum of the stomach. The prevalence of gastroduodenal ulcers increased with age (P < 0.001), duration of OA (P < 0.001), and duration of current NSAID use (P = 0.019). The prevalence of gastroduodenal ulcers in patients taking NSAIDs for <1 year was 13.8%, compared with a nearly twofold higher prevalence (25.9%) in patients taking NSAIDs for periods of > or =1 year and up to 15 years. The prevalence of gastric ulcers was 32.6% in patients with a history of gastric ulcer but only 13.5% in patients with no GI history (previous gastric ulcer, duodenal ulcer, or upper GI hemorrhage). No relationship was found between the prevalence of gastroduodenal ulcers and sex (men, 22.4%; women, 24.9%) or prevalence of gastroduodenal ulcers and type of arthritic disease (RA, 23.6%; OA, 24.5%). The prevalence of gastroduodenal ulcers increased with the severity of GI symptoms (P = 0.007). These results provide further endoscopic confirmation of the association between NSAID use and gastroduodenal lesions and ulcers and support the contention that safer treatment alternatives to conventional NSAIDs are required.

Comparison of the upper gastrointestinal safety of Arthrotec 75 and nabumetone in osteoarthritis patients at high risk for developing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal ulcers

A 6-week, multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study compared the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) safety of Arthrotec 75 (diclofenac sodium 75 mg-misoprostol 200 microg; G.D. Searle & Co., Skokie, Illinois) administered twice daily with that of nabumetone 1500 mg administered once daily in 1203 patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee. All patients had a documented clinical history of endoscopically confirmed gastric, pyloric-channel, or duodenal ulcer or > or = 10 erosions in the stomach or duodenum. UGI endoscopy was performed at baseline and again at week 6 or early withdrawal. Treatment with Arthrotec 75 resulted in a significantly lower combined incidence of endoscopically confirmed gastric and duodenal ulcers compared with nabumetone (4% vs 11%), and its rate of endoscopically confirmed ulceration was equivalent to that of placebo. The incidence of gastric ulcers alone was also significantly lower with Arthrotec 75 than with nabumetone (1% vs 9%). The incidence of duodenal ulcer with Arthrotec 75 was not significantly different from that with nabumetone (4% vs 3%). Types of adverse events were similar for all treatment groups, with GI adverse events predominating. Arthrotec 75 was well tolerated by the majority of patients. The results of this study demonstrate that Arthrotec 75 has a superior UGI safety profile, causing significantly fewer UGI ulcers, in comparison with nabumetone in patients with symptomatic OA and a documented history of ulcers or > or = 10 erosions.

Management of NSAID-induced gastropathy: an economic decision analysis

The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is associated with a 2% to 4% annual incidence of serious gastrointestinal complications. These adverse clinical outcomes, and the strategies used to prevent their occurrence, translate into a significant economic burden. A decision-analysis model was constructed to contrast the 6-month costs associated with various approaches to preventing and managing NSAID-induced gastropathy and to evaluate the economic impact of two treatment regimens using fixed-dose formulations of diclofenac/misoprostol. After incorporating expected medical out-comes and predicted practice patterns, 6-month per-patient costs were derived from the model for each of five treatment regimens: (1) NSAID alone; (2) NSAID with a histamine2-receptor antagonist; (3) NSAID with coprescribed misoprostol; (4) diclofenac/misoprostol 50 mg/200 micrograms TID/BID; and (5) diclofenac/misoprostol 75 mg/200 micrograms BID. The combined diclofenac/misoprostol regimens demonstrated an 18.6% per-patient cost advantage compared with the combined NSAID regimens. Based on a 6-month period, this cost savings translated into a $214.00 per-patient overall cost savings ($1153.00 per patient for NSAID regimens versus $939.00 for diclofenac/misoprostol regimens). The magnitude of this difference was verified by Monte Carlo simulation. Despite the considerable cost difference, sensitivity analyses revealed that our model was robust and that no single variation substantially influenced the results. Given the lack of long-term prospective, comparative clinical-outcomes studies in this area, this decision analysis provides guidance to clinicians in developing a rational and cost-effective approach to the treatment of patients requiring chronic NSAID therapy.