Comparing rates of dyspepsia with Coxibs vs NSAID+PPI: a meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety of SKCPT in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, active-controlled phase III clinical trial

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent type of arthritis worldwide and a leading cause of years lost to pain and disability. Among the current pharmacological treatments for OA, symptomatic slow-acting drugs for OA (SYSADOA) induce pain relief and aim to improve joint function by relieving inflammation while causing fewer gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events than non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). SKCPT is a herbal SYSADOA formulated from Clematis mandshurica, Trichosanthes kirilowii, and Prunella vulgaris powdered extracts. This preparation has been shown to induce cartilage protection and anti-inflammatory effects in preclinical studies and inhibit glycosaminoglycan degradation and catabolic gene expression in human OA chondrocytes and cartilage.

AIM OF THE STUDY

We aimed to evaluate the non-inferiority of SKCPT to celecoxib and safety for treating knee OA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III clinical trial enrolled adults with primary knee OA who were randomized (1:1) to SKCPT 300 mg twice daily or celecoxib 200 mg once daily for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

In total, 278 patients were assigned to treatment (SKCPT, 136; celecoxib, 142) for approximately 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the mean change of Korean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (K-WOMAC) pain subscale scores from baseline to Day 84. The mean change (least squares [LS] mean ± standard error) from baseline to Day 84 was -23.74 ± 1.48 for SKCPT and -25.88 ± 1.44 for celecoxib. The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (LS mean) between groups was [-1.94, 6.20], confirming that the upper limit was less than the non-inferiority margin of 10. Additionally, there were no significant differences in the secondary endpoints (mean changes of K-WOMAC pain, physical, stiffness subscale, and total score, and the frequency and number of doses of rescue medications) between groups at all time points. Differences between groups in adverse events and adverse drug reactions were not significant, and no serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

SKCPT efficacy was non-inferior, and its safety profile was similar, to celecoxib. Building on previous results showing that SYSADOA reduce NSAID intake, the present results suggest that the SYSADOA SKCPT could effectively replace NSAIDs in knee OA treatment while avoiding long-term side effects.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the gastrointestinal tract

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used commonly but can cause foregut symptoms, peptic ulcer disease and small bowel enteropathy. Such iatrogenic injury can be complicated by gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation. Limiting NSAID use or co-administration with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce dyspepsia, peptic ulcer disease and rates of complications. Selective cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors are as effective as adding PPIs in preventing upper and lower gastrointestinal complications. COX-2 inhibitors are suggested in those with high cardiovascular risk and the addition of PPI in those with high risk of bleeding. Where required, COX-2 inhibitor monotherapy may be preferred in unexplained iron deficiency anaemia.

What is the selection process for osteoarthritis pharmacotherapy?

Osteoarthritis is the most prevalent joint condition that continues to increase with an ever-aging population and the rising tide of obesity. There are multiple recommendations/guidelines for the management of osteoarthritis. The basis of management should focus on self-management and education, lifestyle modifications, exercise and when appropriate, weight loss. Pharmacotherapy is targeted toward pain palliation with no agents available presently to target prevention and disease modification. The selection of pharmacotherapy should be tailored to the individual, taking into account of personal preferences and interactions with underlying co-morbidities. This editorial provides a guide to the selection process of presently available pharmacotherapy in osteoarthritis.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy in patients with hypertension, cardiovascular, renal or gastrointestinal comorbidities: joint APAGE/APLAR/APSDE/APSH/APSN/PoA recommendations

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most commonly prescribed medications, but they are associated with a number of serious adverse effects, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, kidney injury and GI complications.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a set of multidisciplinary recommendations for the safe prescription of NSAIDs.

METHODS

Randomised control trials and observational studies published before January 2018 were reviewed, with 329 papers included for the synthesis of evidence-based recommendations.

RESULTS

Whenever possible, a NSAID should be avoided in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, high risk of cardiovascular disease and severe chronic kidney disease (CKD). Before treatment with a NSAID is started, blood pressure should be measured, unrecognised CKD should be screened in high risk cases, and unexplained iron-deficiency anaemia should be investigated. For patients with high cardiovascular risk, and if NSAID treatment cannot be avoided, naproxen or celecoxib are preferred. For patients with a moderate risk of peptic ulcer disease, monotherapy with a non-selective NSAID plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), or a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor should be used; for those with a high risk of peptic ulcer disease, a selective COX-2 inhibitor plus PPI are needed. For patients with pre-existing hypertension receiving renin-angiotensin system blockers, empirical addition (or increase in the dose) of an antihypertensive agent of a different class should be considered. Blood pressure and renal function should be monitored in most cases.

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs are a valuable armamentarium in clinical medicine, but appropriate recognition of high-risk cases, selection of a specific agent, choice of ulcer prophylaxis and monitoring after therapy are necessary to minimise the risk of adverse events.

Thailand Dyspepsia Guidelines: 2018

The management of dyspepsia in limited-resource areas has not been established. In 2017, key opinion leaders throughout Thailand gathered to review and evaluate the current clinical evidence regarding dyspepsia and to develop consensus statements, rationales, levels of evidence, and grades of recommendation for dyspepsia management in daily clinical practice based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. This guideline is mainly focused on the following 4 topics: (1) evaluation of patients with dyspepsia, (2) management, (3) special issues (overlapping gastroesophageal reflux disease/irritable bowel syndrome and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug/aspirin use), and (4) long-term follow-up and management to provide guidance for physicians in Thailand and other limited-resource areas managing such patients.

Pharmacological treatment of knee osteoarthritis: Special considerations of the new German guideline

The pharmacological treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a purely symptomatic therapy, which often ensures that the mobility of the patient is successfully retained. This article refers to the recommendations and opinions regarding the pharmacotherapy of knee OA contained in the new guideline of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), highlighting several important aspects and describing the considerations underlying the decision-making process. With this article it is hoped that therapeutic effectiveness can be realistically estimated, that any risks of medication errors and avoidable side effects can be reduced, and that further helpful measures can be taken into consideration.

Trends in celecoxib and etoricoxib prescribing following removal of prior authorization requirement in Spain

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Previous studies indicate that the implementation of a prior authorization requirement for coxibs was followed by a sharp decline in their use. There are no studies showing what happens if coxib prior authorization is removed. The objective of this study is to assess the trend in the use of coxibs marketed in Spain, following removal of their respective prior authorization requirements in November 2006 for celecoxib and February 2007 for etoricoxib.

METHODS

We calculated the monthly number of defined daily doses per thousand inhabitants per day (DDD/TID) of coxibs dispensed in a health area of Spain from mid-2005 to December 2007. Data were analysed both graphically and by means of a segmented regression model.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

At the start of the study period, use of coxibs showed no growth. At the date when prior authorization of celecoxib was removed (November 2006), however, DDD/TID of the coxib whose prior authorization had not been removed - namely etoricoxib - remained unchanged, whereas consumption of celecoxib increased significantly (by the end of the study period, celecoxib use displayed a relative increase of 615% in terms of the DDD/TID prescribed before the removal of its prior authorization requirement). Similarly, etoricoxib use remained unchanged until its prior authorization was removed (February 2007), from which time DDD/TID of etoricoxib also underwent a considerable increase (by the end of the study period, etoricoxib use displayed a relative increase of 793% in terms of the DDD/TID prescribed before the removal of its prior authorization). Segmented regression analysis showed a sharp, statistically significant rise and change in slope in both celecoxib and etoricoxib use immediately after removal of their respective prior authorizations.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Use of celecoxib and etoricoxib rose sharply after removal of their respective prior authorizations.

Intra-articular therapies for osteoarthritis

INTRODUCTION

Conventional medical therapies for osteoarthritis are mainly palliative in nature, aiming to control pain and symptoms. Traditional intra-articular therapies are not recommended in guidelines as first line therapy, but are potential alternatives, when conventional therapies have failed.

AREAS COVERED

Current and future intra-articular drug therapies for osteoarthritis are highlighted, including corticosteroids, hyaluronate, and more controversial treatments marketed commercially, namely platelet rich plasma and mesenchymal cell therapy. Intraarticular disease modifying osteoarthritis drugs are the future of osteoarthritis treatments, aiming at structural modification and altering the disease progression. Interleukin-1β inhibitor, bone morphogenic protein-7, fibroblast growth factor 18, bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist, human serum albumin, and gene therapy are discussed in this review. The evolution of drug development in osteoarthritis is limited by the ability to demonstrate effect. High quality trials are required to justify the use of existing intra-articular therapies and to advocate for newer, promising therapies.

EXPERT OPINION

Challenges in osteoarthritis therapy research are fundamentally related to the complexity of the pathological mechanisms of osteoarthritis. Novel drugs offer hope in a disease with limited medical therapy options. Whether these future intra-articular therapies will provide clinically meaningful benefits, remains unknown.

Multi-indication Pharmacotherapeutic Multicriteria Decision Analytic Model for the Comparative Formulary Inclusion of Proton Pump Inhibitors in Qatar

PURPOSE

The formulary inclusion of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in the government hospital health services in Qatar is not comparative or restricted. Requests to include a PPI in the formulary are typically accepted if evidence of efficacy and tolerability is presented. There are no literature reports of a PPI scoring model that is based on comparatively weighted multiple indications and no reports of PPI selection in Qatar or the Middle East. This study aims to compare first-line use of the PPIs that exist in Qatar. The economic effect of the study recommendations was also quantified.

METHODS

A comparative, evidence-based multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) model was constructed to follow the multiple indications and pharmacotherapeutic criteria of PPIs. Literature and an expert panel informed the selection criteria of PPIs. Input from the relevant local clinician population steered the relative weighting of selection criteria. Comparatively scored PPIs, exceeding a defined score threshold, were recommended for selection.

FINDINGS

Weighted model scores were successfully developed, with 95% CI and 5% margin of error. The model comprised 7 main criteria and 38 subcriteria. Main criteria are indication, dosage frequency, treatment duration, best published evidence, available formulations, drug interactions, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Most weight was achieved for the indications selection criteria. Esomeprazole and rabeprazole were suggested as formulary options, followed by lansoprazole for nonformulary use. The estimated effect of the study recommendations was up to a 15.3% reduction in the annual PPI expenditure. Robustness of study conclusions against variabilities in study inputs was confirmed via sensitivity analyses.

IMPLICATIONS

The implementation of a locally developed PPI-specific comparative MCDA scoring model, which is multiweighted indication and criteria based, into the Qatari formulary selection practices is a successful evidence-based cost-cutting exercise. Esomeprazole and rabeprazole should be the first-line choice from among the PPIs available at the Qatari government hospital health services.

Managing osteoarthritis

Management of osteoarthritis should be based on a combination of non-drug and drug treatments targeted towards prevention, modifying risk and disease progression. Obesity is the most important modifiable risk factor, so losing weight in addition to land- and water-based exercise and strength training is important. While paracetamol can be tried, guidelines recommend non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line treatment for osteoarthritis. If there are concerns about the adverse effects of oral treatment, particularly in older patients or those with comorbidities, topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be used. Glucosamine does not appear to be any better than placebo for pain. Its effect on the structural progression of disease when taken alone or in combination with chondroitin is uncertain. Fish oil has not been found to reduce the structural progression of knee arthritis. Surgical interventions should be avoided in the first instance, with arthroscopic procedures not showing benefit over sham procedures or optimised physical and medical therapy. Joint replacement surgery should be considered for severe osteoarthritis.

Emerging drugs for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevailing form of joint disease, with symptoms affecting 10 - 12% of the adult population with a projection of a 50% increase in prevalence in the next two decades. The disease characteristics are defined by articular cartilage damage, low-grade synovial inflammation and hypertrophic bone changes, leading to pain and functional deterioration. To date, available pain treatments are limited in their efficacy and have associated toxicities. No structural disease modification agents have been approved by regulatory agencies for this indication.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed drugs in Phase II - III for OA pain and joint structure modification. Different aspects of structure modification are divided into targets of inflammatory pathway, cartilage catabolism and anabolism, and subchondral bone remodeling.

EXPERT OPINION

Further insight into the pathophysiology of the disease will allow for development of novel target classes focusing on the link between symptomatology and structural changes. Given the complexity of OA, one single therapy is unlikely to be universally and uniformly effective. Promising therapies are under development, but there are obstacles in the translation of treatment from preclinical models and trial designs need to be cognizant of the complex reasons for previous trial failures.

Safe prescription recommendations for non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: consensus document ellaborated by nominated experts of three scientific associations (SER-SEC-AEG)

This article outlines key recommendations for the appropriate prescription of non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to patients with different musculoskeletal problems. These recommendations are based on current scientific evidence, and takes into consideration gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety issues. The recommendations have been agreed on by experts from three scientific societies (Spanish Society of Rheumatology [SER], Spanish Association of Gastroenterology [AEG] and Spanish Society of Cardiology [SEC]), following a two-round Delphi methodology. Areas that have been taken into account encompass: efficiency, cardiovascular risk, gastrointestinal risk, liver risk, renal risk, inflammatory bowel disease, anemia, post-operative pain, and prevention strategies. We propose a patient management algorithm that summarizes the main aspects of the recommendations.

Minimizing risks of NSAIDs: cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and renal

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective in treating inflammation, pain and fever, but their cardiovascular, renal and gastrointestinal toxicity can result in significant morbidity and mortality to patients. Techniques for minimizing the adverse risks of NSAIDs include avoiding use of NSAIDs where possible, particularly in high-risk patients; keeping NSAID dosages low; prescribing modified-release and enteric-coated NSAIDs; prescribing cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitors where appropriate; monitoring for early signs of side effects; prescribing treatments designed to minimize NSAID side effects; and developing new therapeutic strategies beyond the inhibition of cyclooxygenase. All of the above strategies can be useful in reducing the risk of NSAID complications. The optimal use and management of NSAIDs involves an individualized paradigm approach to establish efficacy with optimal tolerability given the patient risk factors for adverse events.

Evidence-based approach to dyspepsia: from Helicobacter pylori to functional disease

Patients with dyspepsia may present with associated complaints of abdominal pain, bloating, fullness, acid reflux, and epigastric tenderness on examination. The evaluation of patients with dyspepsia includes taking a comprehensive history and performing a physical examination. Although taking a patient history has its limitations in making an accurate diagnosis, it is useful in guiding the selection of subsequent diagnostic tests. Differential diagnoses of dyspepsia are best addressed using an anatomical approach. Patients with chronic dyspepsia lasting > 1 month should be evaluated for the presence of alarm features. Alarm features mandate an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy examination, as these may be suggestive of a malignancy. In patients without alarm features, a Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat strategy is cost-effective if the prevalence of H. pylori infection is high. Tests for H. pylori infection can be divided into non-invasive and minimally invasive tests. Many different antibiotic combination therapies (eg, triple therapy, quadruple therapy, levofloxacin-based therapy, sequential therapy, concomitant therapy, and probiotics with eradication therapy) are now available for the eradication of H. pylori infection. In patients who are symptomatic without an organic pathology, functional dyspepsia and other causes of abdominal pain need to be considered. Functional dyspepsia is best managed using a multifaceted approach by establishing a good physician-patient relationship, dietary and lifestyle interventions, medical therapy, psychotherapy, and the use of psychotropic medications. This review rationalizes the current-day recommendations for the evaluation and management of patients with dyspepsia in a clinical setting.

Gastroprotective strategies in chronic NSAID users: a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing single-tablet formulations with individual components

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of competing gastroprotective strategies, including single-tablet formulations, in the prevention of gastrointestinal (GI) complications in patients with chronic arthritis taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

METHODS

We performed a cost-utility analysis to compare eight gastroprotective strategies including NSAIDs, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists, misoprostol, and single-tablet formulations. We derived estimates for outcomes and costs from medical literature. The primary outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of GI complications, compliance rates, and drug costs.

RESULTS

For average-risk patients, NSAID + PPI cotherapy was most cost-effective. The NSAID/PPI single-tablet formulation became cost-effective only when its price decreased from €0.78 to €0.56 per tablet, or when PPI compliance fell below 51% in the NSAID + PPI strategy. All other strategies were more costly and less effective. The model was highly sensitive to the GI complication risk, costs of PPI and NSAID/PPI single-tablet formulation, and compliance to PPI. In patients with a threefold higher risk of GI complications, both NSAID + PPI cotherapy and single-tablet formulation were cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

NSAID + PPI cotherapy is the most cost-effective strategy in all patients with chronic arthritis irrespective of their risk for GI complications. For patients with increased GI risk, the NSAID/PPI single-tablet formulation is also cost-effective.

Dyspepsia: organic versus functional

Dyspepsia is the medical term for difficult digestion. It consists of various symptoms in the upper abdomen, such as fullness, discomfort, early satiation, bloating, heartburn, belching, nausea, vomiting, or pain. The prevalence of dyspepsia in the western world is approximately 20% to 25%. Dyspepsia can be divided into 2 main categories: "organic" and "functional dyspepsia" (FD). Organic causes of dyspepsia are peptic ulcer, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastric or esophageal cancer, pancreatic or biliary disorders, intolerance to food or drugs, and other infectious or systemic diseases. Pathophysiological mechanisms underlying FD are delayed gastric emptying, impaired gastric accommodation to a meal, hypersensitivity to gastric distension, altered duodenal sensitivity to lipids or acids, altered antroduodenojenunal motility and gastric electrical rhythm, unsuppressed postprandial phasic contractility in the proximal stomach, and autonomic nervous system-central nervous system dysregulation. Pathogenetic factors in FD are genetic predisposition, infection from Helicobacter pylori or other organisms, inflammation, and psychosocial factors. Diagnostic evaluation of dyspepsia includes upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, abdominal ultrasonography, gastric emptying testing (scintigraphy, breath test, ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging), and gastric accommodation evaluation (magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, single-photon emission computed tomography, and barostat). Antroduodenal manometry can be used for the assessment of the myoelectrical activity of the stomach, whereas sensory function can be evaluated with the barostat, tensostat, and satiety test. Management of FD includes general measures, acid-suppressive drugs, eradication of H. pylori, prokinetic agents, fundus-relaxing drugs, antidepressants, and psychological interventions. This review presents an update on the diagnosis of patients presenting with dyspepsia, with an emphasis on the pathophysiological and pathogenetic mechanisms of FD and the differential diagnosis with organic causes of dyspepsia. The management of uninvestigated and FD, as well as the established and new pharmaceutical agents, is also discussed.

HZT-501 (DUEXIS(®); ibuprofen 800 mg/famotidine 26.6 mg) gastrointestinal protection in the treatment of the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis

Arthritis affects nearly 50 million people in the USA and, with the aging of the population, the prevalence is expected to rise. While NSAIDs are very effective in relieving pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA), they are associated with side effects, including gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, which may manifest as dyspepsia, ulcers and/or bleeding. A number of approaches have been employed in an effort to either completely avoid or reduce the risk of GI toxicities associated with NSAID use. Two new products combining an NSAID with a gastroprotective agent have recently been approved and other agents are in the pipeline. Patient adherence to prescribed gastroprotective therapy is known to be poor, often resulting in an increased risk of GI events in patients taking NSAIDs. These newer combination products may fulfill an important need for many patients who need to receive NSAIDs for the pain of OA and RA, but who are also at risk of upper GI events. This article reviews preclinical and clinical results for a new fixed-dose combination of ibuprofen and famotidine, DUEXIS(®) (HZT-501), which has recently been approved in the USA for the relief of signs and symptoms of RA and OA and to decrease the risk of developing upper GI ulcers.

A turbulent decade for NSAIDs: update on current concepts of classification, epidemiology, comparative efficacy, and toxicity

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) represent a diverse class of drugs and are among the most commonly used analgesics for arthritic pain worldwide, though long-term use is associated with a spectrum of adverse effects. The introduction of cyclooxygenase-2-selective NSAIDs early in the last decade offered an alternative to traditional NSAIDs with similar efficacy and improved gastrointestinal tolerability; however, emerging concerns about cardiovascular safety resulted in the withdrawal of two agents (rofecoxib and valdecoxib) in the mid-2000s and, subsequently, in an overall reduction in NSAID use. It is now understood that all NSAIDs are associated with some varying degree of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risk. Guidelines still recommend their use, but little is known of how patients use these agents. While strategies and guidelines aimed at reducing NSAID-associated complications exist, there is a need for evidence-based algorithms combining cardiovascular and gastrointestinal factors that can be used to aid treatment decisions at an individual patient level.

Cost-effectiveness analysis: cardiovascular benefits of proton pump inhibitor co-therapy in patients using aspirin for secondary prevention

BACKGROUND

Many patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease will stop aspirin (ASA) because of ASA-related dyspepsia. Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) co-therapy may reduce ASA-related dyspepsia, enhancing ASA adherence and improving CV outcomes.

AIM

To explore the impact of PPI co-therapy on CV outcomes in long-term, low-dose ASA users.

METHODS

We modified a previously published Markov model to assess the long-term impact of PPI co-therapy on CV and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) outcomes among patients using ASA for secondary CV prevention. UGIB events, recurrent myocardial infarctions (MIs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured. The perspective taken was that of a long-term payer.

RESULTS

Compared with ASA alone, ASA plus PPI resulted in fewer lifetime UGIB events (3.4% vs. 7.2%) and increased ASA adherence (74% vs. 71%). Increased ASA adherence resulted in fewer recurrent MIs (26 fewer events per 10000 patients). On average, the ASA plus PPI strategy resulted in 38 additional days of life per patient, with the majority of this benefit (61%) because of a reduction in CV mortality (rather than UGIB-related mortality). ASA plus PPI was also more costly than ASA alone, with an ICER of $19000 per life-year saved. Results were sensitive to cost of PPI and impact of PPI on ASA adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitor co-therapy has the potential to impact not only GI, but also CV outcomes in patients with CV disease using ASA and such co-therapy is likely to be cost-effective. Future studies should better quantify the CV benefits of PPI co-therapy.

Underutilization of gastroprotective drugs in patients receiving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

AIM

To assess the prevalence of gastroprotective agent prescription in patients treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in France and to analyze the determinants of this prescription.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was performed in 2576 patients treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs recruited prospectively in the French primary care system.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine percent of the patients (n=1002) received gastroprotective agents, mostly proton pump inhibitors (99.5%). In patients with a single risk factor, the gastroprotection rates were: 50% for age>65, 67% for concurrent use of corticosteroids or antithrombotics, and 87% and 100% for history of uncomplicated and complicated gastroduodenal ulcers. In patients without risk factors, gastroprotective agents were prescribed in 31.8%. Among them, two thirds had symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux or history of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug intolerance or dyspepsia. Conversely, 40% (n=256) of at-risk non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users did not receive gastroprotective agents. Gastroprotection was significantly associated with history of gastroduodenal ulcer (OR: 8.2; 95%CI: 4.3-15.6) or history of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug intolerance (OR: 6; 95%CI: 4.5-8.1), gastro-oesophageal reflux (OR: 6; 95%CI: 4.4-8.2), dyspepsia (OR: 5.2; 95%CI: 3.7-7.5), concurrent gastrotoxic treatment (OR: 3.3; 95%CI: 1.9-5.6) and age>65 (OR: 3; 95%CI: 2.3-4.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite widespread recommendations, gastroprotection is still largely underprescribed in patients at risk of gastrointestinal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug complications in France. Only half of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users above 65 years are prescribed gastroprotective agents.

Topical diclofenac epolamine patch 1.3% for treatment of acute pain caused by soft tissue injury

Acute pain caused by musculoskeletal disorders is very common and has a significant negative impact on quality-of-life and societal costs. Many types of acute pain have been managed with traditional oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (coxibs). Data from prospective, randomised controlled clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance indicate that use of oral traditional NSAIDs and coxibs is associated with an elevated risk of developing gastrointestinal, renovascular and/or cardiovascular adverse events (AEs). Increasing awareness of the AEs associated with NSAID therapy, including coxibs, has led many physicians and patients to reconsider use of these drugs and look for alternative treatment options. Treatment with NSAIDs via the topical route of administration has been shown to provide clinically effective analgesia at the site of application while minimising systemic absorption. The anti-inflammatory and analgesic potency of the traditional oral NSAID diclofenac, along with its physicochemical properties, makes it well suited for topical delivery. Several topical formulations of diclofenac have been developed. A topical patch containing diclofenac epolamine 1.3% (DETP, FLECTOR(®) Patch), approved for use in Europe in 1993, has recently been approved for use in the United States and is indicated for the treatment of acute pain caused by minor strains, sprains and contusions. In this article, we review the available clinical trial data for this product in the treatment of pain caused by soft tissue injury.

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug-related injury to the gastrointestinal tract: clinical picture, pathogenesis, and prevention

Increasing life expectancy in developed countries has led to a growing prevalence of arthritic disorders, which has been accompanied by increasing prescriptions for nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These are the most widely used agents for musculoskeletal and arthritic conditions. Although NSAIDs are effective, their use is associated with a broad spectrum of adverse reactions in the liver, kidney, cardiovascular system, skin, and gut. Gastrointestinal (GI) side effects are the most common. The dilemma for the physician prescribing NSAIDs is, therefore, to maintain the antiinflammatory and analgesic benefits, while reducing or preventing GI side effects. The challenge is to develop safer NSAIDs by shifting from a focus on GI toxicity to the increasingly more appreciated cardiovascular toxicity.

Clinical trial: the incidence of NSAID-associated endoscopic gastric ulcers in patients treated with PN 400 (naproxen plus esomeprazole magnesium) vs. enteric-coated naproxen alone

BACKGROUND

Gastroprotective co-therapy may reduce the risk of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-associated gastric ulcers, but adherence is suboptimal.

AIM

To compare the incidence of gastric ulcers with PN 400 [enteric-coated (EC) naproxen 500 mg and immediate-release esomeprazole 20 mg], or EC naproxen.

METHODS

Two randomized, double-blind, multicentre studies (PN400-301, PN400-302). Patients [stratified by low-dose aspirin (< or =325 mg) use] aged > or =50 years or 18-49 years with a history of ulcer, received PN 400 BID (301, n = 218; 302, n = 210) or EC naproxen 500 mg BID (301, n = 216; 302, n = 210) for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of endoscopic gastric ulcers.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of gastric ulcers was significantly lower with PN 400 vs. EC naproxen (301: 4.1% vs. 23.1%, P < 0.001; 302: 7.1% vs. 24.3%, P < 0.001). PN 400 was associated with a lower combined incidence of gastric ulcers vs. EC naproxen in low-dose aspirin users (n = 201) (3.0% vs. 28.4%, P < 0.001) and non-users (n = 653) (6.4% vs. 22.2%, P < 0.001). The incidence of, and discontinuations due to, upper gastrointestinal (UGI) AEs was significantly lower with PN 400 relative to EC naproxen (P < 0.01, both studies).

CONCLUSIONS

PN 400 significantly reduces the incidence of gastric ulcers, regardless of low-dose aspirin use, in at-risk patients, and is associated with improved UGI tolerability relative to EC naproxen (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00527782).

Celecoxib versus omeprazole and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis (CONDOR): a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and non-selective NSAIDs plus a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) have similar upper gastrointestinal outcomes, but risk of clinical outcomes across the entire gastrointestinal tract might be lower with selective drugs than with non-selective drugs. We aimed to compare risk of gastrointestinal events associated with celecoxib versus diclofenac slow release plus omeprazole.

METHODS

We undertook a 6-month, double-blind, randomised trial in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis at increased gastrointestinal risk at 196 centres in 32 countries or territories. Patients tested negative for Helicobacter pylori and were aged 60 years and older or 18 years and older with previous gastroduodenal ulceration. We used a computer-generated randomisation schedule to assign patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive celecoxib 200 mg twice a day or diclofenac slow release 75 mg twice a day plus omeprazole 20 mg once a day. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was a composite of clinically significant upper or lower gastrointestinal events adjudicated by an independent committee. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00141102.

FINDINGS

4484 patients were randomly allocated to treatment (2238 celecoxib; 2246 diclofenac plus omeprazole) and were included in intention-to-treat analyses. 20 (0.9%) patients receiving celecoxib and 81 (3.8%) receiving diclofenac plus omeprazole met criteria for the primary endpoint (hazard ratio 4.3, 95% CI 2.6-7.0; p<0.0001). 114 (6%) patients taking celecoxib versus 167 (8%) taking diclofenac plus omeprazole withdrew early because of gastrointestinal adverse events (p=0.0006).

INTERPRETATION

Risk of clinical outcomes throughout the gastrointestinal tract was lower in patients treated with a COX-2-selective NSAID than in those receiving a non-selective NSAID plus a PPI. These findings should encourage review of approaches to reduce risk of NSAID treatment.

FUNDING

Pfizer Inc.

Cost-utility analysis of proton pump inhibitors and other gastro-protective agents for prevention of gastrointestinal complications in elderly patients taking nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents

BACKGROUND

The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) among elderly patients using nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) has increased; the price of PPIs is higher than that of majority of alternative treatment strategies.

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nsNSAIDS + PPIs relative to alternative gastroprotective regimens in the prevention of GI complications among elderly patients (aged > or = 65 years).

METHODS

An incremental cost-utility analysis, comparing PPIs with alternative gastroprotective regimens was conducted using a decision analytical model. Clinical outcomes, costs and utilities were derived from recently published studies. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results to variation in model inputs and assumptions.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of PPIs, relative to nsNSAID alone, was $206,315 per QALY gained or were more costly and less effective. Other co-prescribed treatment options had higher costs per QALY gained. In patients with a history of a complicated or uncomplicated ulcer, PPIs had ICURs of $24,277 and $40,876, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of PPIs in all elderly patients taking nsNSAIDs is unlikely to represent an efficient use of finite healthcare resources. Co-prescribing PPIs, however, to elderly patients taking nsNSAIDs who have a history of complicated or uncomplicated ulcers appears to be economically attractive.

Dyspepsia as an adverse effect of drugs

Drugs are frequently implicated as a possible cause in new onset dyspeptic symptoms and few drugs are free of this suspicion. Nausea, anorexia, abdominal pain and dyspepsia make up between one-tenth and one-third of reported adverse reactions but they are all so common, both in the background population and among patients, that they are frequently attributed to an illness rather than to medications. No symptom or clinical sign is pathognomonic for adverse drug effects, maybe with the exception of vomiting. Dyspepsia is a common reporting in placebo-arms of treatment trials. Owing to the high background incidence of dyspepsia, it is difficult to discern between spontaneous and true drug-related dyspepsia. The mechanisms by which a drug causes dyspepsia are often unknown even though some drugs are known to cause direct mucosal injury. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antibiotics are common causes of drug-related dyspepsia.

Upper gastrointestinal symptoms in patients treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: prevalence and impact--the COMPLAINS study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the prevalence and type of upper gastrointestinal symptoms during nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy, the impact of these symptoms on daily life and adherence to treatment and the concordance between physicians' and patients' assessments.

METHODS

A sample of 1000 French rheumatologists was invited to participate in the study, of which 630 accepted. Participating physicians enrolled all patients above 18 years of age seen during a 1-week period who had been receiving daily NSAID treatment for at least 3 days (n = 8269). Data on gastrointestinal symptoms were collected using a standardized questionnaire. In the first two symptomatic patients seen by each physician, patient and physician questionnaires were used to investigate concordance between symptom evaluations.

RESULTS

Two thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine patients (33.8%) reported upper gastrointestinal symptoms; of these, 1056 (12.8% of the total population) had acid reflux symptoms (heartburn and/or acid regurgitation). The most common symptoms were epigastric burning (17.3%) and epigastric discomfort or pain (14.4%). Symptoms were less common with coxibs than with nonselective NSAIDs (26.4 vs. 35.4%, P<10). There was moderate or good agreement between physicians' and patients' symptom assessments. Upper gastrointestinal symptoms resulted in NSAID dose reduction in 5.8% of patients, temporary withdrawal of treatment in 17.2% and permanent withdrawal in 10.8%. Half of the patients reported at least moderate impairment of daily activities because of their symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Approximately, one-third of NSAID-treated patients complained of upper gastrointestinal symptoms, with coxibs being better tolerated than nonselective NSAIDs. These symptoms have a marked impact on the quality of life and adherence to therapy.

Adherence to best practice guidelines in dyspepsia: a survey comparing dyspepsia experts, community gastroenterologists and primary-care providers

BACKGROUND

Although 'best practice' guidelines for dyspepsia management have been disseminated, it remains unclear whether providers adhere to these guidelines.

AIM

To compare adherence to 'best practice' guidelines among dyspepsia experts, community gastroenterologists and primary-care providers (PCPs).

METHODS

We administered a vignette survey to elicit knowledge and beliefs about dyspepsia including a set of 16 best practices, to three groups: (i) dyspepsia experts; (ii) community gastroenterologists and (iii) PCPs.

RESULTS

The expert, community gastroenterologist and PCP groups endorsed 75%, 73% and 57% of best practices respectively. Gastroenterologists were more likely to adhere with guidelines than PCPs (P < 0.0001). PCPs were more likely to define dyspepsia incorrectly, overuse radiographic testing, delay endoscopy, treat empirically for Helciobacter pylori without confirmatory testing and avoid first-line proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). PCPs had more concerns about adverse events with PPIs [e.g. osteoporosis (P = 0.04), community-acquired pneumonia (P = 0.01)] and higher level of concern predicted lower guideline adherence (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroenterologists are more likely than PCPs to comply with best practices in dyspepsia, although compliance remains incomplete in both groups. PCPs harbour more concerns regarding long-term PPI use and these concerns may affect therapeutic decision making. This suggests that best practices have not been uniformly adopted and persistent guideline-practice disconnects should be addressed.

Proton pump inhibitors: an update of their clinical use and pharmacokinetics

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) represent drugs of first choice for treating peptic ulcer, Helicobacter pylori infection, gastrooesophageal reflux disease, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastrointestinal lesions (complications), and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome.

RESULTS

The available agents (omeprazole/esomeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole) differ somewhat in their pharmacokinetic properties (e.g., time-/dose-dependent bioavailability, metabolic pattern, interaction potential, genetic variability). For all PPIs, there is a clear relationship between drug exposure (area under the plasma concentration/time curve) and the pharmacodynamic response (inhibition of acid secretion). Furthermore, clinical outcome (e.g., healing and eradication rates) depends on maintaining intragastric pH values above certain threshold levels. Thus, any changes in drug disposition will subsequently be translated directly into clinical efficiency so that extensive metabolizers of CYP2C19 will demonstrate a higher rate of therapeutic nonresponse.

CONCLUSIONS

This update of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and clinical data will provide the necessary guide by which to select between the various PPIs that differ-based on pharmacodynamic assessments-in their relative potencies (e.g., higher doses are needed for pantoprazole and lansoprazole compared with rabeprazole). Despite their well-documented clinical efficacy and safety, there is still a certain number of patients who are refractory to treatment with PPIs (nonresponder), which will leave sufficient space for future drug development and clinical research.

EULAR evidence-based recommendations on the management of systemic glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatic diseases

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based recommendations for the management of systemic glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in rheumatic diseases.

METHODS

The multidisciplinary guideline development group from 11 European countries, Canada and the USA consisted of 15 rheumatologists, 1 internist, 1 rheumatologist-epidemiologist, 1 health professional, 1 patient and 1 research fellow. The Delphi method was used to agree on 10 key propositions related to the safe use of GCs. A systematic literature search of PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library was then used to identify the best available research evidence to support each of the 10 propositions. The strength of recommendation was given according to research evidence, clinical expertise and perceived patient preference.

RESULTS

The 10 propositions were generated through three Delphi rounds and included patient education, risk factors, adverse effects, concomitant therapy (ie, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gastroprotection and cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors, calcium and vitamin D, bisphosphonates) and special safety advice (ie, adrenal insufficiency, pregnancy, growth impairment).

CONCLUSION

Ten key recommendations for the management of systemic GC-therapy were formulated using a combination of systematically retrieved research evidence and expert consensus. There are areas of importance that have little evidence (ie, dosing and tapering strategies, timing, risk factors and monitoring for adverse effects, perioperative GC-replacement) and need further research; therefore also a research agenda was composed.

Clinical use and pharmacological properties of selective COX-2 inhibitors

Selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) are approved for the relief of acute pain and symptoms of chronic inflammatory conditions such as osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They have similar pharmacological properties but a slightly improved gastrointestinal (GI) safety profile if compared to traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs). However, long-term use of coxibs can be associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) adverse events (AEs). For this reason, two coxibs were withdrawn from the market. Currently celecoxib, etoricoxib, and lumiracoxib are used. These three coxibs differ in their chemical structure and selectivity for COX-2, which might explain some of their pharmacological features. Following oral administration, the less lipophilic celecoxib has a lower bioavailability (20-40%) than the other two coxibs (74-100%). All are eliminated by hepatic metabolism involving mainly CYP2C9 (celecoxib, lumiracoxib) and CYP3A4 (etoricoxib). Elimination half-life varies from 5 to 8 h (lumiracoxib), 11 to 16 h (celecoxib) and 19 to 32 h (etoricoxib). In patients with liver disease, plasma levels of celecoxib and etoricoxib are increased about two-fold. Clinical efficacies of the coxibs are comparable to tNSAIDs. There is an ongoing discussion about whether the slightly better GI tolerability (which is lost if acetylsalicylic acid is coadministered) of the coxibs is offset by their elevated risks for CV AEs (also seen with tNSAIDs other than naproxen), which apparently increase with dose and duration of exposure. In addition, the higher costs for coxibs (if compared to tNSAIDs, even when a "gastroprotective" proton pump inhibitor is coadministered) should be taken into consideration, if a coxib will be selected for certain patients with a high risk for GI complications. For such treatment, the lowest effective dose should be used for a limited time. Monitoring of kidney function and blood pressure appears advisable. It is hoped that further controlled studies can better define the therapeutic place of the coxibs.

Esomeprazole: prevention and treatment of NSAID-induced symptoms and ulcers

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) represent one of the most widely used drug classes. However, many patients complain of dyspeptic symptoms impairing their quality of life: ~ 20% of patients taking NSAIDs show endoscopic ulcers with or without symptoms, and up to 2% of chronic NSAID users will develop serious complications each year, such as bleeding or perforation, which are the cause of death in many patients. Coprescription of a proton pump inhibitor is one established option for the healing and prevention of NSAID-associated lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract in patients at risk. Recent studies evaluated the clinical efficacy of esomeprazole in the management of gastrointestinal problems associated with the intake of selective and non-selective NSAIDs and aspirin.