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

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and gastroprotection with proton pump inhibitors: a focus on ketoprofen/omeprazole

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most commonly prescribed agents for rheumatic disorders such as osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Despite the known association between NSAID use and gastropathy, however, only around one-third of patients at risk of NSAID-induced gastrointestinal toxicity receive adequate gastroprotection, and as many as 44% of these patients are non-adherent. We review the co-prescription of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the prevention of NSAID-induced gastropathy, with a particular focus on the first fixed-dose NSAID/PPI formulation: ketoprofen/omeprazole modified-release capsules. The ketoprofen/omeprazole fixed-dose combination is available in doses of 100 mg/20 mg, 150 mg/20 mg or 200 mg/20 mg as a single capsule for once-daily administration. Ketoprofen monotherapy has been shown to be generally equivalent to other NSAIDs when used in the treatment of OA. In RA, ketoprofen has demonstrated equivalent efficacy to diclofenac, indometacin, piroxicam, aceclofenac, phenylbutazone, naproxen and flurbiprofen. Studies comparing ketoprofen with ibuprofen and sulindac in patients with RA have, in general, favoured ketoprofen. Studies in AS have generally reported similar efficacy between ketoprofen and phenylbutazone and pirprofen. Prophylaxis with omeprazole is effective for the prevention of gastroduodenal ulcers, maintenance of remission and alleviation of dyspeptic symptoms in NSAID recipients. Omeprazole is well tolerated, and adverse events are generally gastrointestinal in nature. The fixed-dose combination of ketoprofen and omeprazole has demonstrated bioequivalence to the respective monotherapies. The incidence of digestive symptoms and the need for dose reduction was reported to be lower with the combination than with its components. Ketoprofen/omeprazole modified-release capsules are the first fixed-dose NSAID/PPI formulation to be approved. This formulation ensures compliance with the gastroprotective prophylaxis, as whenever the NSAID is taken, the PPI is co-administered. Additionally, the once-daily formulation has the potential to improve adherence to anti-inflammatory therapy.

Proton pump inhibitors reduce the long-term risk of recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Between 3% and 40% of patients surviving an episode of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) experience a recurrence within 1 year. Aim To characterize further the recurrence rate of UGIB and to investigate the role of long-term acid suppressive therapy in its secondary prevention.

METHODS

Recurrent cases of UGIB were identified among patients registered in The Health Improvement Network in the UK. A nested case-control analysis provided relative risk (RR) estimates of factors associated with recurrence.

RESULTS

Of 1287 patients included, 67 (5.2%) were identified with a recurrent UGIB episode, corresponding to a recurrence rate of 17.5 per 1000 person-years during a mean follow-up of 3 years. The greatest risk of recurrence was in patients prescribed the oral anticoagulant warfarin (RR: 5.38; 95% confidence interval: 2.02-14.36). Use of a single proton pump inhibitor (PPIs) was associated with a reduced risk of recurrence (RR: 0.51; 95% confidence interval: 0.26-0.99), even in patients taking warfarin, while current use of H(2)-receptor antagonists was not. After the first episode of UGIB, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and aspirin was greatly reduced, preventing estimation of the risk associated with these drugs.

CONCLUSION

Long-term PPI therapy reduces the risk of UGIB recurrence.

Do proton-pump inhibitors confer additional gastrointestinal protection in patients given celecoxib?

OBJECTIVE

Celecoxib has a superior upper-gastrointestinal (GI) safety profile compared with nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NS-NSAIDs). It is unclear whether the utilization of a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) with celecoxib confers additional protection in elderly patients. We assessed the association between GI hospitalizations and use of celecoxib with a PPI versus celecoxib alone, and NS-NSAIDs with a PPI or NS-NSAIDs alone in elderly patients.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using the government of Quebec health services administrative databases. Elderly patients were included at their first dispensing date for celecoxib or an NS-NSAID between April 1999 and December 2002. Prescriptions were separated into 4 groups: celecoxib, celecoxib plus PPI, NS-NSAIDs, and NS-NSAIDs plus PPI. Cox regression models with time-dependent exposure were used to compare the hazard rates of GI hospitalization between the 4 groups adjusting for patient characteristics at baseline.

RESULTS

There were 1,161,508 prescriptions for celecoxib, 360,799 for celecoxib plus PPI, 715,176 for NS-NSAIDs, and 148,470 for NS-NSAIDs plus PPI. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs; 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs]) were 0.69 (0.52-0.93) for celecoxib plus PPI versus celecoxib, 0.98 (0.67-1.45) for NS-NSAIDs plus PPI versus celecoxib, and 2.18 (1.82-2.61) for NS-NSAIDs versus celecoxib. Subgroup analyses showed that use of a PPI with celecoxib may be beneficial in patients ages >/=75 years but was not better than celecoxib alone among those ages 66-74 years (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.63-1.52).

CONCLUSION

Addition of a PPI to celecoxib conferred extra protection for patients ages >/=75 years. PPI did not seem necessary with celecoxib for patients ages 66-74 years.

Omeprazole and misoprostol for preventing gastric mucosa effects caused by indomethacin and celecoxib in rats

PURPOSE: To evaluate and to compare macro and microscopically the intense injuries of the gastric mucosa of rats which were caused by NSAIDS celecoxib and indomethacin and the gastric cytoprotection with omeprazole and misoprostol. METHODS: The sample is formed by one hundred and fifty Wistar rats with average weight 200 g, distributed in four groups, such as: Group A, subdivided in groups A1 and A2 - pre-treatment with omeprazole (20 mg/rat) during seven days and on the 8th day - use of NSAIDS, concerning A1 (20 rats) were given celecoxib (1mg/rat) and A2 (20 rats) were given indomethacin. The Group B, subdivided in group B1 and B2 - pre-treatment with misoprostol (20mg/rat) during seven days and on the 8th day use of NSAIDS, concerning B1 (20 rats) were given celecoxib (1 mg/ rat) and B2 (20 rats) were given indomethacin (12.5 mg/rat). The Group C: were not given cytoprotection during seven days, from the 7th to the 8th day - fast of food and water ad libitum, on the 8th day of NSAIDS use, concerning C1 (20 rats) were given celecoxib, C2 (20 rats) were given indomethacin (12.5 mg/ rat), C3 (20 rats) were given celecoxib (200mg/rato), and Group D - control group, concerning 10 rats were observed during seven days ingesting food and water ad libitum. On the 9th day, the stomachs were taken out and were macro and microscopically evaluated for the identification of the gastric injuries. RESULTS: On the macroscopic studies, the groups A2, B2 and C2 presented a remarkable high number of injuries for cm² /animal, respectively 18.55 injuries for cm² /animal, 16.25 injuries for cm² /animal and 13.55 injuries for cm²/animal. On the microscopic studies, the percentage of the injured mucosa, presented expressive difference among the groups A1, B1, C1 when compared to the groups A2, B2, C2 (p<0.0001). The average of the length/injury and the average of the depth of the injuries did not present expressive statistics differences among the groups A2, B2 and C2. The average of the edema presented expressive statistics difference among the groups A2 and D; B2 and C2 and between C2 and D (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The indomethacin on the applied concentration causes a great number of macroscopic and microscopic injuries to gastric mucosa of rats when compared to celecoxib which does not cause lesions. Omeprazole and misoprostol on the applied concentrations do not present macroscopic and microscopic effectiveness on the gastric cytoprotection when applying indomethacin. Considering the microscopic analysis of the average of the edema, the group of animals, which was given misoprostol as cytoprotection, presented a lower average compared to the group which was given omeprazole.

Treatment costs to prevent or treat upper gastrointestinal adverse events associated with NSAIDs

The widespread use of nonselective NSAIDs and cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors has a substantial impact on healthcare budgets worldwide. The cost of their gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects is a major component of their direct cost and has received much attention in the literature. Published studies have often differed in their methodologies and results. It is important for decision makers to understand the reasons for these differences in order to make informed decisions. We conducted a literature review to summarise data that evaluate the direct costs of NSAID-related GI adverse effects worldwide. This resulted in 789 articles from which 29 studies met the inclusion criteria and were fully reviewed. Of these 29, the 9 studies that assessed the cost of COX-2 inhibitors were all based on decision economic models, compared with only 7 of the remaining 20 studies, which assessed the cost of nonselective NSAIDs. In most studies, the perspective was that of the healthcare payer and the costs assessed were reimbursement costs. Costs of GI events almost doubled between regular users and non-users of nonselective NSAIDs and were much higher in high-dose versus low-dose users. The ratio of the total cost of nonselective NSAIDs to their acquisition cost reported in all studies varied from 1.36 to 2.12. Both of these numbers were reported in one single study assessing several different NSAIDs in France. Thus, the GI adverse events attributable to nonselective NSAIDs are substantial, and their costs often exceed the cost of the nonselective NSAID itself.The acquisition cost of the COX-2 inhibitors was the main driver of their total cost. The GI adverse effects with the COX-2 inhibitors added 10-20% to their acquisition cost in North America, while this increase was about 50% in some European countries. Decision analysis models showed that the direct costs of COX-2 inhibitors were lower than those of nonselective NSAIDs in patients at risk of NSAID gastropathy but higher in patients at no to low risk of gastropathy. Thus, from an economic perspective, the healthcare system would benefit from treating patients at risk of NSAID gastropathy with COX-2 inhibitors, but not those at no to low risk.

NSAIDs: gastroprotection or selective COX-2 inhibitor?

Conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective adjuvant analgesics commonly encountered in palliative care. However, these drugs are associated with adverse effects that are primarily due to gastrointestinal toxicity, with resultant serious complications such as gastroduodenal perforations, ulcers and bleeds. This toxicity has been attributed to inhibition of cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1). Factors known to increase this risk of toxicity include age above 65 years, classification of NSAID in terms of COX-1/COX-2 selectivity, previous history of complications and coadministration of aspirin, anticoagulants and corticosteroids. Selective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) were developed in an attempt to reduce this association; trials to date confirm that these drugs do indeed have reduced incidence of gastroduodenal toxicity. Prior to the introduction of the COX-2 selective inhibitors, patients at high risk were often coprescribed a gastroprotective agent (such as misoprostol or a proton pump inhibitor) with a conventional NSAID. This review discusses the merits of both options and devises a treatment strategy for the safe and cost-effective use of these drugs in the palliative care population.

Assessment of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) damage in the human gastrointestinal tract

Aspirin is widely prescribed and confers considerable benefit to patients by reducing cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective analgesics, antipyretics and reduce the inflammatory component in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis. However, both agents are associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal symptoms and the potentially serious consequences of gastroduodenal ulceration, bleeding and perforation. The introduction of highly selective cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors or the coprescription gastroprotective agents with nonselective NSAIDs have offered strategies to reduce the incidence of such events. This review article analyzes the quantitative techniques that can be employed by clinical pharmacologists and the clinical studies performed to assess NSAID damage in the gastrointestinal tract.

Advances in cancer pain management

Although most patients with cancer pain can attain a favorable balance between analgesia and side effects with a conventional approach to opioid therapy, a substantial minority cannot. For these patients, an important subgroup of whom have neuropathic pain, alternative therapeutic strategies are needed. With a detailed assessment, clinicians should be able to choose among the large and diverse group of options available and implement an approach, or combination of approaches, that have a high probability of improving analgesic outcomes.

Supportive therapy of elderly cancer patients

Elderly cancer patients often require supportive care due to the physiologic decline of organs and apparatus linked with the aging process per se, and for the effects of tumor or of anticancer treatments. Pain and nutritional deficits are some clinical aspects requiring supportive care. Lack of studies on these latter topics does not allow an in depth analysis of the problem. The present review deals with literature concerning pain and nutritional problems in the general cancer population with emphasis on aspects typical for elderly cancer subjects. Physiologic and cancer-related changes in body composition, physical function and cognitive capacity of the elderly are presented and, when appropriate, linked with pathogenetic factors of pain and malnutrition, as well as their treatment. Pain demographic data, pain intensity evaluation and currently available techniques to provide pain relief such as etiologic treatment, analgesic pharmacotherapy and invasive analgesic procedures, are extensively discussed. Causes and assessment of malnutrition as well as available nutritional approaches such as oral, enteral and parenteral nutrition are also debated.

Effects of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor and non-selective NSAIDs on Helicobacter pylori-induced gastritis in Mongolian gerbils

BACKGROUND

It is still a point of controversy whether Helicobacter pylori-infected patients are more likely to develop mucosal damage while taking NSAIDs. Selective cyclooxygenase (COX-2) inhibitors may be associated with less severe gastric mucosal damage than conventional NSAIDs, but this association is undefined in H. pylori-induced gastritis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of selective COX-2 and nonselective NSAIDs on H. pylori-induced gastritis.

METHODS

After intragastric administration of indomethacin, NS-398 or vehicle alone, once daily for 5 days in H. pylori-infected and uninfected Mongolian gerbils, we evaluated gastric mucosal damage, inflammatory cell infiltration and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) concentration. We investigated whether H. pylori infection induced the COX-2 expression.

RESULTS

In H. pylori-uninfected groups, the indomethacin-treated group showed the highest mucosal damage score and the lowest PGE2 concentration. There was no difference in mucosal damage scores and PGE2 concentration between NS-398 and vehicle-alone treated group. In H. pylori-infected groups, there was no difference in mucosal damage scores, irrespective of the type of drugs administered. The indomethacin-treated group showed the lowest PGE2 concentration, similar to that of the NS-398 and vehicle-alone treated groups, both without H. pylori infection. Gastric neutrophil and monocyte infiltration scores were higher in H. pylori-infected groups than in uninfected groups. However, there was no difference in these scores according to the type of drugs administered, within H. pylori-infected or uninfected groups. COX-2 protein expression was observed in H. pylori-infected Mongolian gerbils but not in uninfected ones.

CONCLUSIONS

Our animal study showed that H. pylori infection induced COX-2 expression and increased prostaglandin concentration. Administration of NSAIDs decreased the prostaglandin concentration, but did not increase mucosal damage in H. pylori-induced gastritis. Selective COX-2 inhibitors, instead of conventional NSAIDs, had no beneficial effect on preventing mucosal damage in H. pylori-induced gastritis.

Cox-2 inhibitors and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of pain in the elderly

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most commonly prescribed therapies for acute and chronic pain in the elderly. NSAIDs are effective in treating many disorders, but their use often is limited by toxicities, especially gastrointestinal and renal toxicity. COX-2 inhibitors are a major therapeutic advance, providing the analgesic and anti-inflammatory activity of NSAIDs, with a significant improvement in gastrointestinal safety. These new agents may be ideal therapies for older patients at risk for NSAID-related gastrointestinal toxicity.

Old and new drugs used in rheumatoid arthritis: a historical perspective. Part 1: the older drugs

Rheumatoid arthritis is the paradigmatic immune-mediated inflammatory arthropathy and may be of comparatively recent, New World origin. Apart from the symptom-relieving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, whose natural congeners have been in use since antiquity for musculoskeletal pain and inflammation, only a dozen drugs or drug classes--the disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs--are currently in common use in rheumatoid arthritis. Development of these drugs has been a notable achievement of the 20th century. Some were developed serendipitously (glucocorticoids, antimalarials), some were the product of faulty reasoning (gold, D-penicillamine), and others were applied for plausible reasons but whose mechanism remains unproven (sulfasalazine, methotrexate, minocycline). A minority were originally applied on the basis of actions that remain germane to the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis as currently understood (azathioprine, cyclosporine, leflunomide, infliximab, etanercept). Among the latter are the more recently introduced and effective agents. The practical use of these drugs is determined by efficacy-toxicity considerations, which have also driven the recent development of the cyclooxygenase-2-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

[Digestive complications of aspirin]

INTRODUCTION

This review focuses on aspirin-related gastrointestinal side-effects and the mechanism by which aspirin causes gastrointestinal damage.

CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND KEY POINTS

Aspirin causes direct gastric damage by topical irritant effects and indirect damage via systemic inhibition of cyclooxygenase synthesis and microcirculation injury. The question of a possible synergistic relation between the presence of Helicobacter pylori infection and aspirin use on gastric damage is not resolved. The pathogenesis of small intestinal and colonic damage is less well understood; an increase in intestinal permeability and free radical synthesis are suggested. Gastric damage predominates. Gastroduodenal lesions from aspirin have been documented in endoscopy studies. The lesions occur rapidly, even for low-dose aspirin. The association of aspirin consumption with upper gastrointestinal bleeding has been well established. The main risk factors are advanced age, concomitant use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and history of ulcer. Low-dose aspirin are associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding and this risk is dose-dependant. Chronic aspirin consumption can cause iron deficiency anaemia. Uncomplicated gastric ulcer (but not uncomplicated duodenal ulcer) is associated with aspirin use, with relative risk 3. Other upper gastrointestinal complications have been reported: stenosis and perforation. Aspirin can also damage other areas of the gastrointestinal tract. Oesophageal injuries (oesophagitis and stricture) have been reported. Aspirin is associated with variceal bleeding episodes in patients with cirrhosis. The adverse effects of aspirin on the small bowel are perforation, bleeding, increasing permeability. The adverse effects of aspirin on the large intestine are perforation, bleeding, collagenous colitis and anorectal stenosis with suppositories containing aspirin. Direct clinical data regarding prophylaxis with co-administration of a protective drug are not yet available for aspirin.

FUTURE PROSPECTS AND PROJECTS

Patients should be made aware of adverse gastrointestinal effects due to aspirin. Further studies regarding prophylactic therapy of low-dose aspirin induced gastroduodenal lesions, which identify a subset of patients who may be at higher risk than the low-dose aspirin population as a whole, are warranted.

Prophylaxis and treatment of NSAID-induced gastroduodenal disorders

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

Does Helicobacter pylori status affect nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated gastroduodenal pathology?

There are two lines of thought regarding the interrelationship between the damaging effects of Helicobacter pylori and those of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the gastroduodenal mucosa. First, both pathogenic factors exert a damaging effect on the mucosa, and therefore an additive, or even synergistic, effect occurs, leading to aggravation of mucosal damage. Second, mutual antagonism exists, leading to one of the pathogenic factors actually deriving some protection from the damaging potential of the other. Microscopically, H. pylori- and NSAID-associated gastritis are recognized as two separate entities. Furthermore, pathologically, the mechanisms of mucosal damage of the two factors have important differences; for example, H. pylori increases the synthesis of prostaglandins, whereas NSAIDs inhibit prostaglandin synthesis. The role of H. pylori infection in patients with NSAID-associated peptic ulcers has been addressed recently in two large, randomized, multicenter trials. From these studies, it appears that antisecretory drugs are more effective in H. pylori-positive peptic ulcer patients taking NSAIDs than in H. pylori-negative patients taking these drugs. The studies, however, do not provide any evidence that H. pylori infection reduces the pathogenic effects of NSAIDs. Other studies, however, have shown protection against NSAID-associated gastroduodenal damage in H. pylori-negative patients. Thus, there are no firm conclusions on the role of H. pylori infection in patients with NSAID-associated peptic ulcers. Based on the available data, however, practical considerations and guidelines are listed.

New data on healing of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated ulcers and erosions. Omeprazole NSAID Steering Committee

A total of 1,456 patients were available for the All Patients Treated analysis of two large, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, controlled studies (Acid Suppression Trial: Ranitidine versus Omeprazole for NSAID-Associated Ulcer Treatment [ASTRONAUT] and Omeprazole versus Misoprostol for NSAID-Induced Ulcer Management [OMNIUM]). These studies examined the efficacies of omeprazole, 20 and 40 mg once daily (both studies), ranitidine, 150 mg twice daily (ASTRONAUT), and misoprostol, 200 microg four times daily (OMNIUM), for the healing of gastric ulcer, duodenal ulcer, or erosions, and the relief of dyspeptic symptoms. At entry, patients were receiving, and continued to receive, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and had a gastric or duodenal ulcer, and/or >10 erosions in the stomach or duodenum at initial endoscopy. Patients were randomized to blinded treatment for 4/8 weeks until treatment success, which was defined as the healing of ulcer(s), <5 erosions at any site, and not more than mild dyspeptic symptoms. The proportions of patients reaching treatment success by 8 weeks were 77% with both doses of omeprazole, 63% with ranitidine, and 71% with misoprostol. In patients who initially had a gastric ulcer, more ulcers were healed at 8 weeks with omeprazole, 20 (83%) and 40 mg once daily (82%), than with ranitidine (64%) or misoprostol (74%). In patients who initially had a duodenal ulcer, 93% were healed at 8 weeks with omeprazole, 20 mg once daily, compared with 88% for omeprazole, 40 mg once daily, 79% for ranitidine, and 79% for misoprostol. Erosions healed slightly faster at 4 weeks with misoprostol, compared with the other regimens, but by 8 weeks most patients had <5 erosions per gastroduodenal region in each treatment group. Diarrhea and abdominal pain were more common in patients taking misoprostol, as were adverse events leading to withdrawal. Patients with duodenal ulcer or erosions at entry and the presence of Helicobacter pylori were good prognostic factors for overall treatment success. Using a model that included only patients with ulcers, those with smaller ulcers also had a higher likelihood of achieving treatment success. Against the background of these new data, omeprazole is the treatment of choice for healing NSAID-associated ulcers, on the basis of its efficacy and tolerability, and the optimal dose appears to be 20 mg once daily.

Management of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated lesions: a cost-effectiveness perspective

Results are presented from a cost-effectiveness analysis of the acute healing phases of two new clinical studies. Acute treatment with omeprazole, 20 mg once daily, is compared with misoprostol, 200 microg four times daily, or ranitidine, 150 mg twice daily, in patients with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-associated gastroduodenal lesions (gastric ulcer, duodenal ulcer, and/or >10 erosions in either the stomach or duodenum). The cost-effectiveness comparisons indicate that omeprazole is cost-effective when compared with ranitidine in the treatment of gastric ulcers, duodenal ulcers, and erosions only, and that omeprazole is cost-effective when compared with misoprostol in the treatment of gastric ulcers and duodenal ulcers. In patients with erosions only, misoprostol is cost-effective when compared with omeprazole. When assessing the uncertainty of these estimates, a definite conclusion can be made in only two comparisons: omeprazole is cost-effective when compared with ranitidine in the treatment of gastric ulcers, and misoprostol is cost-effective when compared with omeprazole in the treatment of erosions only. However, the clinical studies were not powered for assessing the cost-effectiveness of the treatment alternatives, which impedes the uncertainty assessment. The determinants of the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic strategies are also discussed, as well as the need for further studies that include relevant outcome measures and a design that reflects actual clinical practice.