Doubt and certainty about nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the year 2000: a multidisciplinary expert statement

Role of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs as a Protective Factor in Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a major neurodegenerative disease, affecting more than two-third cases of dementia in the world. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used anti-inflammatory analgesic agents, representing 7.7% of worldwide prescriptions, of which 90% are in patients over 65 years old. Based on mixed findings by different randomized clinical trials (RCTs), a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to develop a better understanding of the protective role of NSAIDs in AD. Database search was Pubmed, WebScience, and Embase. RCTs investigating the effect of NSAIDs on AD or test scores assessing cognitive function in people without AD at baseline were included. Two indicators were the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) Score and Hazard Ratio. 09 studies were included in the present Meta-analysis. For the MMSE score difference, the pooled effect size was - 0.06 (-0.22, 0.10) which was not statistically significant (P value = 0.47). For the MMSE score, the pooled effect size was - 0.0036(-0.0320, 0.0248), which was also not statistically significant (P value = 0.87). For Hazard Ratio (HR), the pooled HR calculated using the random effect model was 1.20 (95% CI: 0.95, 1.51), which was not statistically significant (P value = 0.15). Present meta-analysis shows that NSAIDs, in general, are not effective in the treatment of AD. They also have no protective effect against the development of AD on their sustained use.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as a treatment for Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment effect

INTRODUCTION

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the cause of more than two-thirds of all dementia cases. Although there is no effective treatment against this disorder, its association with neuroinflammation suggests that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) might represent a potential therapeutic option.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs in the treatment of AD using a meta-analysis approach.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Web of Science, Science Direct, and the Cochrane Library were used to search all the randomized controlled trials that have evaluated the efficacy of NSAIDs as a treatment for AD (up to 1 October 2014). The overall effect of NSAIDs versus placebo was determined using a random effects model meta-analysis where we compared changes (i.e., mean differences pre- vs. post-treatment) between the two conditions in test scores indicative of cognition, disease severity, and related outcomes.

RESULTS

Seven studies were finally included in the meta-analysis. Diclofenac/misoprostol, nimesulide, naproxen, rofecoxib, ibuprofen, indomethacin, tarenflurbil, and celecoxib were the NSAIDs used in these reports. The results of the AD Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum-of-boxes (CDR-SOB), and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) showed no statistical or clinical significance of NSAIDs treatment compared with placebo, i.e., mean differences of -0.24 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -1.04 to 0.57; P = 0.52), -0.07 (95% CI -0.7 to 0.56; P = 0.82), and 0.35 (95% CI -0.34 to 1.04; P = 0.32), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Current preliminary evidence suggests no beneficial effect of NSAIDs on cognition or overall AD severity. Thus, although more research is needed in the field, the evidence available does not support the use of NSAIDs for AD treatment.

Preliminary trial of rebamipide for prevention of low-dose aspirin-induced gastric injury in healthy subjects: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study

Although low-dose aspirin is widely used, since it is a cheap and effective means of prevention of cardiovascular events, it can cause hemorrhagic gastrointestinal complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of rebamipide in preventing low-dose aspirin-induced gastric injury. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial was performed in twenty healthy volunteers. Aspirin 81 mg was administered with placebo or rebamipide 300 mg three times daily for 7 consecutive days. The rebamipide group exhibited significant prevention of erythema in the antrum compared with the placebo group (p = 0.0393, respectively). Results for the body and fornix did not differ significantly between the placebo and rebamipide groups. In conclusion, short-term administration of low-dose aspirin induced slight gastric mucosal injury in the antrum, but not in the body or fornix. Rebamipide may be useful for preventing low-dose aspirin-induced gastric mucosal injury, especially which confined to the antrum.

Management of NSAID-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: focus on proton pump inhibitors

The association between NSAIDs and the presence of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications is well established. Evidence that acid aggravates NSAID-induced injury provides a rationale for minimizing such damage by acid suppression. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) appear to be very effective in treating NSAID-related dyspepsia, and also in healing gastric and duodenal ulcers in patients continuing to receive the NSAID. An analysis of data from comparative studies of PPIs versus ranitidine, misoprostol and sucralfate shows a therapeutic advantage in favour of the PPI. Several studies now confirm the efficacy of co-therapy with PPIs in the short- and long-term prevention of NSAID-induced upper GI injury. PPIs are more effective than histamine H(2)-receptor antagonists at standard dosages in reducing the risk of gastric and duodenal ulcer, and are superior to misoprostol in preventing duodenal but not gastric lesions. However, when balancing effectiveness and tolerance, PPIs may be considered the treatment of choice in the short- and long-term prevention of NSAID-related mucosal lesions. To date, there are only a few published articles dealing with the role of PPIs in the prevention of upper GI complications. Recent epidemiological and interventional studies provide some evidence that PPIs are of benefit. However, more controlled studies using clinical outcomes are needed to establish the best management strategy (PPIs combined with traditional NSAIDs or with cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors) especially in patients with multiple risk factors, in patients using concomitant low-dose aspirin, corticosteroids or anticoagulants (high risk group), or in patients with a history of ulcer complications (very high risk group). Furthermore, it should be underlined that Helicobacter pylori infection positively interacts with the gastroprotective effect of PPIs; therefore, the true efficacy of these drugs in preventing NSAID-related ulcer complications should be reassessed without the confounding influence of this microorganism.

Comparison of the effects of diclofenac or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and diclofenac or other NSAIDs in combination with proton pump inhibitors (PPI) on hospitalisation due to peptic ulcer disease

PURPOSE

Up to 25% of patients taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) chronically experience gastrointestinal side effects. This report aims to determine the gastroprotective effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) in patients taking NSAIDs, especially diclofenac.

METHODS

From the claims database of a German sickness fund with 1.4 million beneficiaries, we used data from patients enrolled in the health plan continuously from 2000 until 2004 with an inpatient diagnosis of peptic ulcer disease in 2003 and 2004. For our nested case-control study, we matched these cases for calendar time with up to 10 controls per case. Our main outcome measure were the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for peptic ulcer disease associated with diclofenac and other NSAIDs.

RESULTS

In the study population of 752 613 beneficiaries, 979 cases and 10 319 controls were identified. A stratified analysis according to the prescription of diclofenac alone or in combination with PPI showed that diclofenac prescriptions increased the risk for hospitalisation due to peptic ulcer significantly (adjusted OR 2.4 [95%CI 1.94, 3.05]). If PPI were prescribed concomitantly with diclofenac, we observed a risk reduction (OR 1.3 [95%CI 0.7, 2.3]). The significance of the PPI effect was shown using an interaction term in a regression model without stratification, where a risk reduction of 60% (OR 0.4 [95%CI 0.2, 0.7], p < 0.05) was found.

CONCLUSIONS

The concomitant prescription of PPI and diclofenac decreases the hospitalisation risk due to peptic ulcer significantly. The results support the use of PPI as gastroprotective agents in patients who receive NSAIDs.

NSAID-associated adverse effects and acid control aids to prevent them: a review of current treatment options

NSAIDs are central to the clinical management of a wide range of conditions. However, NSAIDs in combination with gastric acid, which has been shown to play a central role in upper gastrointestinal (GI) events, can damage the gastroduodenal mucosa and result in dyspeptic symptoms and peptic lesions such as ulceration.NSAID-associated GI mucosal injury is an important clinical problem. Gastroduodenal ulcers or ulcer complications occur in up to 25% of patients receiving NSAIDs. However, these toxicities are often not preceded by indicative symptoms. Data obtained from the Arthritis, Rheumatism, and Aging Medical Information System have shown that 50-60% of NSAID-associated peptic ulcer cases can remain clinically silent and do not present until complications occur. Therefore, prophylactic treatment to prevent GI complications may be necessary in a substantial proportion of NSAID users, especially those in groups associated with a high risk of developing these complications. Use of cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 selective NSAIDs, also known as 'coxibs', substantially reduces the incidence of upper GI toxicities seen with non-selective NSAIDs. However, there are concerns regarding the cardiovascular safety of coxibs. For this reason, the US FDA recommends minimal use of coxibs and only when strictly necessary. Additionally, rofecoxib has been removed from the US market and sales of valdecoxib have been suspended. Furthermore, upper GI toxicities still occur in patients receiving coxibs. Therefore, cotherapies are required to prevent and/or heal upper GI effects associated with NSAID use. Effective prophylactic and treatment strategies include misoprostol, histamine H(2) receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The key role that gastric acid plays in upper GI adverse events among NSAID users suggests that it is important to choose the most effective agent for acid control to alleviate symptoms, heal mucosal erosions and improve the reduced quality of life in this patient population. PPIs provide effective acid suppression, which is essential to avoid GI mucosal injury, and they are, therefore, capable of dramatically decreasing the morbidity and mortality associated with this disorder. Since many serious GI complications are not heralded by any previous symptoms, physicians need to be aware of risk factor profiles that predispose patients to serious GI problems. Physicians also need to initiate the appropriate preventative acid suppressive therapy to minimise the burden of NSAID-associated GI adverse effects.

[Analysis of cost-minimization treatment with paracetamol or COX-2 inhibitors (rofecoxib) for pain from arthrosis of the knee or hip]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficiency of paracetamol, indicated in first instance for light-to-moderate pain from hip and knee arthrosis, against rofecoxib, the COX-2 inhibitor most commonly used in Spain.

DESIGN

Pharmaco-economic model: cost-minimisation analysis based on the information provided by a systematic review of the literature.

SETTING

Spain: statewide.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with a diagnosis of knee or hip arthrosis, who demand health-care for light-to-moderate pain in the primary care services and present no counter-indication to the treatments under evaluation.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Given the supposition of the equivalent efficacy of paracetamol and rofecoxib, the cost-minimisation model focused on the cost arising from the adverse side effects caused by the 2 drugs. A correction factor allowed for the number of subjects in the studies reviewed and the number of adverse side effects found.

RESULTS

Paracetamol was cheaper than rofecoxib at both 3 months and 1 year. The average cost of paracetamol per year was 307.95 Euros (301.57-315.12) versus 574.59 Euros (566.74-580.40) for rofecoxib treatment. The main cause of costs after the sensitivity analysis was the cost of acquiring the drugs, rather than the rate of incidence of adverse side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of economic analysis based on cost minimisation, paracetamol was the first-preference treatment over rofecoxib for light-to-moderate arthrosis pain. This confirmed the recommendations which, under efficacy and safety criteria, are indicated in various clinical practice guidelines in force.

Meta-analysis: Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer

AIM

To perform a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer.

METHODS

A search was made of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and several congresses for controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of H. pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy for the prevention of peptic ulcer re-bleeding. Studies with all patients taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were excluded. Extraction and quality assessment of the studies were performed by two reviewers.

RESULTS

In the first meta-analysis, the mean percentage of re-bleeding in the H. pylori eradication therapy group was 4.5%, compared with 23.7% in the non-eradication therapy group without long-term antisecretory therapy [odds ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.09-0.37; 'number needed to treat' (NNT), 5; 95% CI, 4-8]. In the second meta-analysis, the re-bleeding rate in the H. pylori eradication therapy group was 1.6%, compared with 5.6% in the non-eradication therapy group with maintenance antisecretory therapy (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08-0.76; NNT, 20; 95% CI, 12-100). When only patients with successful H. pylori eradication were included, the re-bleeding rate was 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of H. pylori infection is more effective than antisecretory non-eradication therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory treatment) in the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer. Consequently, all patients with peptic ulcer bleeding should be tested for H. pylori, and eradication therapy should be prescribed to infected patients.

H. pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer is the main cause for upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and Helicobacter pylori infection is the main etiologic factor for peptic ulcer disease. Maintenance antisecretory therapy has been the standard long-term treatment for patients with bleeding ulcers to prevent recurrent bleeding. On the other hand, the precise efficacy of H. pylori eradication for the prevention of rebleeding from peptic ulcer is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of H. pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (the Cochrane Library issue 4, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (January 1988 to January 2004), CINAHL (January 1982 to January 2004), and reference lists of articles. We also conducted a manual search from several congresses.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of H. pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Extraction and quality assessment of studies were done by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies with a total of 578 patients were included in the first meta-analysis: mean percentage of rebleeding in H. pylori eradication therapy group was 2.9%, and in the non-eradication therapy group without subsequent long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy it was 20% (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.32; there was no statistical evidence of heterogeneity; NNT was 7, 95% CI 5 to 11). Three studies with a total of 470 patients were included in the second meta-analysis: mean percentage of rebleeding in H. pylori eradication therapy group was 1.6%, and in non-eradication therapy group with long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy it was 5.6% (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76; heterogeneity was not demonstrated; NNT was 20, 95% CI 12 to 100). SUBANALYSIS: Excluding patients taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) at the time of recurrent bleeding resulted in a rebleeding rate of 2.7% (first meta-analysis) or 0.78% (second meta-analysis) in the group receiving H. pylori eradication therapy. When only patients with H. pylori eradication success were included, rebleeding rate was 1.1% in H. pylori eradication therapy group, and NNT decreased from 7 to 6. In some cases, recurrence of H. pylori infection seemed to be responsible for recurrence of bleeding.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of H. pylori infection is more effective than antisecretory non-eradicating therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) in preventing recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer. Consequently, all patients with peptic ulcer bleeding should be tested for H. pylori infection, and eradication therapy should be prescribed to H. pylori-positive patients.

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

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

H. pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer is the main cause for upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and Helicobacter pylori infection is the main etiologic factor for peptic ulcer disease. Maintenance antisecretory therapy has been the standard long-term treatment for patients with bleeding ulcers to prevent recurrent bleeding. On the other hand, the precise efficacy of H. pylori eradication for the prevention of rebleeding from peptic ulcer is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of H. pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (the Cochrane Library issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2003), EMBASE (January 1988 to March 2003), CINAHL (January 1982 to March 2003), and reference lists of articles. We also conducted a manual search from several congresses.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of H. pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Extraction and quality assessment of studies were done by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies with a total of 355 patients were included in the first meta-analysis: mean percentage of rebleeding in H. pylori eradication therapy group was 4.5%, and in the non-eradication therapy group without subsequent long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy it was 23.7% (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.37; there was no statistical evidence of heterogeneity; NNT was 5, 95% CI 4 to 8). Three studies with a total of 470 patients were included in the second meta-analysis: mean percentage of rebleeding in H. pylori eradication therapy group was 1.6%, and in non-eradication therapy group with long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy it was 5.6% (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76; heterogeneity was not demonstrated; NNT was 20, 95% CI 12 to 100). Subanalysis. Excluding patients taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) at the time of recurrent bleeding resulted in a rebleeding rate of 4% (first meta-analysis) or 0.78% (second meta-analysis) in the group receiving H. pylori eradication therapy. When only patients with H. pylori eradication success were included, rebleeding rate was 1% in H. pylori eradication therapy group, and NNT decreased from 5 to 4. In some cases, recurrence of H. pylori infection seemed to be responsible for recurrence of bleeding.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of H. pylori infection is more effective than antisecretory non-eradicating therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) in preventing recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer. Consequently, all patients with peptic ulcer bleeding should be tested for H. pylori infection, and eradication therapy should be prescribed to H. pylori-positive patients.

Cyclo-oxygenase-1/cyclo-oxygenase-2 non selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: epidemiology of gastrointestinal events

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use is associated with gastrointestinal side-effects including complications such as bleeding and perforation, which occur in 1-2% of patients after 6-12 months of therapy. A high level of non-prescription non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use is observed among those presenting complications. More common side-effects are symptomatic gastro-duodenal ulcers (annual incidence of 4-8%) and dyspepsia (25-50%). Low-dose aspirin use is also associated with an increased risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, but the increase is about 3 times lower than that found with common non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Recent studies suggest that the risk of bleeding in patients taking preferential cyclooxygenase-II inhibitors (e.g. nimesulide) is similar to that in patients taking non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Epidemiological studies have also shown that nitric oxide donors and antisecretory drugs reduce the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding both in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and low-dose aspirin users.

[Should coronary patients chronically taking a low-dose of aspirin receive gastroprotective agents?]

The use of low-dose aspirin (75-300 mg/day) is associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, which is lower than that observed with common NSAIDs. Risk factors for the development of GI bleeding in patients taking low-dose aspirin are not well defined, although patients with a previous history of peptic ulcer, concomitant NSAID use and serious diseases should receive gastroprotection. Among the available drugs, proton pump inhibitors associated, when present, to Helicobacter pylori erradication, have shown the highest efficacy. The best cost-effectiveness treatment is still undefined.