Combination of a cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor and a proton-pump inhibitor for prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding in patients at very high risk: a double-blind, randomised trial

NSAID: Current limits to prescription

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly prescribed to alleviate pain and inflammation in conditions like arthritis, migraines, and post-operative recovery. Their mechanism involves inhibiting prostaglandins that contribute to inflammation. NSAIDs are categorized based on their structure, selectivity for COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes, and plasma half-life. They are effective in treating osteoarthritis, spondyloarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis but might carry an elevated risk of adverse events. Despite their effectiveness, NSAIDs have limitations and risks that warrant cautious consideration. Extensive research has investigated their side effects, and this review aims to examine the current limitations of oral NSAID therapy, including safety profiles, specific scenarios where their use may not be appropriate, and gaps in knowledge. By critically evaluating these aspects, healthcare practitioners can make informed decisions about prescribing NSAIDs, optimizing patient outcomes while minimizing potential risks. This narrative review summarizes existing knowledge and underscores the importance of risk-benefit assessments in NSAID prescribing. Ultimately, the goal is to enhance the rational use of NSAIDs, maximizing benefits while mitigating adverse effects.

Clinical and pharmacogenetic features of patients with upper gastrointestinal lesions at a multidisciplinary hospital: the role of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

OBJECTIVES

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most commonly prescribed medications, but their use can be associated with a number of adverse reactions, including upper gastrointestinal lesions. The aim of the study was to identify clinical and pharmacogenetic factors associated with upper gastrointestinal lesions, including those linked to NSAIDs, in patients at a multidisciplinary hospital.

METHODS

The study included 92 patients (mean age 59.4±16.5 years; 47 women), who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy during inpatient treatment. Patients' intake of NSAIDs and gastroprotectors during the year before hospitalization was considered. Demographic, clinical, laboratory data of patients were compared between groups, including genotyping for CYP2C9*2 rs179985, CYP2C9*3 rs1057910, CYP2C8*3 rs11572080, CYP2C8*3 rs10509681, PTGS-1 rs10306135, PTGS-1 rs12353214, and PTGS-2 rs20417 using real-time PCR.

RESULTS

In NSAIDs+ patients, PTGS1 rs10306135 AT+TT genotypes increased the chance of developing gastrointestinal complications by 5.4 times (95 % CI=1.30-22.27). In total sample, smoking (OR=3.12, 95 % CI=1.15-8.46), and alcohol intake (OR=4.09, 95 % CI=1.05-15.87) increased odds of gastrointestinal damage. In NSAIDs+ patients omeprazole, famotidine and both famotidine and omeprazole during the last year were as ineffective as not taking gastroprotectors; in total sample famotidine (OR=0.19, 95 % CI=0.04-0.93) and two gastroprotectors (OR=0.13, 95 % CI=0.02-0.75) reduced the chance of upper gastrointestinal lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacogenetic features of patients may significantly contribute to the development NSAIDs-induced upper gastrointestinal injuries.

Hyperuricemia and intravenous fat emulsion are risk factors for gout flares during active gastrointestinal bleeding: a case control study

OBJECTIVE

It is well-established that patients with a history of gout are more susceptible to experiencing gastrointestinal bleeding. Gout flare during active gastrointestinal bleeding poses a significant challenge due to the gastrointestinal side effects of anti-inflammatory therapy. This study sought to investigate the risk factors associated with gout flares during episodes of gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study involving 94 patients who experienced active gastrointestinal bleeding and had a history of gout. This study was conducted at Jinhua Municipal Central Hospital from January 2019 to October 2022. We collected and recorded demographic information and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Among the gout flare patients, hyperuricemia and intravenous fat emulsion therapy were more prevalent compared to those who remained stable (81.6% vs. 57.8% and 46.9% vs. 24.4%, p < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that both hyperuricemia (odds ratio 2.741, 95% CI 1.014-7.413, p = 0.047) and intravenous fat emulsion therapy (odds ratio 2.645, 95% CI 1.046-6.686, p = 0.040) were independent predictors of gout flares. Furthermore, gout attacks occurred sooner in patients receiving intravenous fat emulsion therapy compared to those not receiving it (median: 4 days (interquartile range: 2) vs. median: 5 days (interquartile range: 2.25), p = 0.049).

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed a high incidence of gout flares during episodes of active gastrointestinal bleeding, with patients undergoing intravenous fat emulsion therapy and those with hyperuricemia being at increased risk.

Mortality and risk factors associated with peptic ulcer bleeding among adult inpatients of Damascus Hospital, Syria: A cross-sectional study

Peptic ulcer bleeding is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, while monitoring mortality is extremely beneficial to public health, and the latest estimates date back to 2010 for the Syrian population. This study aims to estimate the in-hospital mortality rate and risk factors associated with peptic ulcer bleeding among adult inpatients at Damascus Hospital, Syria. A cross-sectional study with systematic random sampling. Sample size (n) was calculated using the proportional equation: [n = Z2P (1 - P)/d2], with the following hypothesis: Z = 1.96 for the 95% confidence level, P = .253 for mortality in patients hospitalized with complicated peptic ulcers, a margin of error (d) = 0.05, 290 charts were reviewed, and the Chi-square test (χ2 test) was used for categorical variables, and the t test for continuous data. We reported the odds ratio in addition to mean and standard deviation with a 95% confidence. A P value less than .05 was considered statistically significant. Data were analyzed using a statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS). The mortality rate was 3.4%, and the mean age was 61.76 ± 16.02 years. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and ischemic heart disease. The most commonly used medications were NSAIDs, aspirin, and clopidogrel. 74 patients (25.52%) were using aspirin with no documented indication P < .01, odds ratio = 6.541, 95% CI [2.612-11.844]. There were 162 (56%) Smokers. Six patients (2.1%) suffered from recurrent bleeding, and 13 (4.5%) needed surgery. Raising awareness about the risks of using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may reduce the occurrence of peptic ulcers and, as a result, peptic ulcer complications. Larger, nationwide studies are needed to estimate the real mortality rate in complicated peptic ulcer patients in Syria. There is a lack of some critical data in the patients' charts, which necessitates action to correct.

Gastroduodenale Ulkuskrankheit und Helicobacter pylori

Risikofaktoren für eine gastrointestinale Ulkusblutung Die Helicobacter-pylori-Gastritis (H. pylori-Gastritis) und die Therapie mit nicht steroidalen Antirheumatika (NSAR) sind die wichtigsten Risikofaktoren für die Entstehung eines peptischen Ulkus (PUD) und einer Ulkusblutung. Eine Infektion mit H. pylori erhöht das Risiko einer Ulkusblutung bei Patienten mit PUD, die NSAR, Aspirin oder einen anderen Plättchen-Aggregationshemmer einnehmen. H. pylori-positive Patienten unter kombinierter Plättchen-Aggregationshemmung tragen das höchste Blutungsrisiko. Evidenzbasierte interdisziplinäre Behandlungsempfehlungen zur sicheren NSAR-Anwendung aus dem Jahr 2020 berücksichtigen sowohl das kardiovaskuläre als auch das gastrointestinale Risikoprofil der einzelnen Patienten. Für Patienten mit einem moderaten Risiko für die Entstehung eines PUD wird die Therapiekombination aus NSAR und Protonen-Pumpen-Inhibitoren (PPI) oder eine Monotherapie mit selektiven COX-2-Inhibitoren (COX-2: Cyclooxygenase-2) empfohlen. Patienten mit einem hohen Blutungsrisiko dagegen sollten eine Kombinationstherapie aus selektivem COX-2-Inhibitor und PPI erhalten. Bei Patienten mit einem hohen kardiovaskulären Risiko, bei denen auf eine NSAR-Therapie nicht verzichtet werden kann, werden Naproxen oder Celecoxib empfohlen.

Die Behandlung der gastrointestinalen Ulkusblutung Die Ulkusblutung geht mit einer erhöhten Letalität einher. Bei hämodynamisch stabilen Patienten mit Zeichen einer oberen gastrointestinalen Blutung und erhöhtem Sterberisiko (Glasgow-Blatchford Score ≥ 12) ist die Durchführung einer Ösophago-Gastro-Duodenoskopie (ÖGD) nach 6–24 Stunden ausreichend, eine Notfall-ÖGD (innerhalb der ersten 6 Stunden) verbessert vergleichsweise die 30-Tage-Letalität nicht. Nach erfolgreicher endoskopischer Hämostase reduziert eine zusätzliche prophylaktische angiografische Embolisation das Risiko einer erneuten Blutung nicht.

Die Helicobacter-pylori-Eradikation Eine erfolgreiche H. pylori-Eradikation reduziert das Risiko für die Entwicklung eines Magenkarzinoms bei Verwandten ersten Grades von Patienten mit Magenkarzinom um 73 %. Bei Patienten mit erfolgreicher endoskopischer Behandlung eines Magenfrühkarzinoms ist eine H. pylori-Testung mit anschließender Eradikation ebenfalls sinnvoll, da hierdurch die Rate an metachronen Magenkarzinomen halbiert werden konnte. Die Standard-Triple-Therapie zu der H. pylori-Eradikation zeigt aufgrund zunehmender Antibiotikaresistenzen, insbesondere gegen Makrolide, eine nachlassende Wirksamkeit. Dementsprechend wird die Bismut-haltige Quadrupel-Therapie als empirische Standard-Erstlinientherapie empfohlen.

A comprehensive update on the pharmacological management of heterotopic ossification following hip arthroplasty: a level I evidenced based expert opinion

INTRODUCTION

Heterotopic ossification (HO) of the hip joint may happen accompanying skeletal muscle trauma or surgical procedures. The pharmacological prophylaxis of heterotopic ossification (HO) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is debated.

AREAS COVERED

This expert opinion aims to systematically investigate the efficacy of current pharmacological options as prophylaxis for HO following THA.

EXPERT OPINION

The current evidence identified celecoxib, naproxen, and diclofenac as best option for the prevention of HO in patients who undergo primary THA. The most appropriate pharmacotherapy for the prevention of HO is still debated and should be customized according to patients' comorbidities and medical history. For patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, naproxen, or diclofenac should be considered along with proton pump inhibitors to prevent gastrointestinal complications. For patients with history of gastrointestinal disease, celecoxib can be recommended. These conclusions must be considered within the limitations of the present investigation. Between studies, heterogeneities in the administration protocols were evident. In some RCTs, the length of the follow-up was shorter than 12 months. The current clinical practice would benefit of high-quality recommendations and the development of the shared official guidelines.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on De-Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most commonly used medications in the world. Developed for the treatment and prevention of acid-mediated upper gastrointestinal conditions, these agents are being used increasingly for indications where their benefits are less certain. PPI overprescription imposes an economic cost and contributes to polypharmacy. In addition, PPI use has been increasingly linked to a number of adverse events (PPI-associated adverse events [PAAEs]). Therefore, de-prescribing of PPIs is an important strategy to lower pill burden while reducing real costs and theoretical risks. The purpose of this clinical update was to provide Best Practice Advice (BPA) statements about how to approach PPI de-prescribing in ambulatory patients.

METHODS

Our guiding principle was that, although PPIs are generally safe, patients should not use any medication when there is not a reasonable expectation of benefit based on scientific evidence or prior treatment response. Prescribers are responsible for determining whether PPI use is absolutely or conditionally indicated and, when uncertainty exists, to incorporate patient perspectives into PPI decision making. We collaboratively outlined a high-level "process map" of the conceptual approach to de-prescribing PPIs in a clinical setting. We identified the following 3 key domains that required BPA guidance: documentation of PPI indication; identifying suitable candidates for consideration of de-prescribing; and optimizing successful de-prescribing. Co-authors drafted 1 or more potential BPAs, supported by literature review, for each domain. All co-authors reviewed, edited, and selected or rejected draft BPAs for inclusion in the final list submitted to the American Gastroenterological Association Governing Board. Because this was not a systematic review, we did not carry out a formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: All patients taking a PPI should have a regular review of the ongoing indications for use and documentation of that indication. This review should be the responsibility of the patient's primary care provider. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: All patients without a definitive indication for chronic PPI should be considered for trial of de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Most patients with an indication for chronic PPI use who take twice-daily dosing should be considered for step down to once-daily PPI. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Patients with complicated gastroesophageal reflux disease, such as those with a history of severe erosive esophagitis, esophageal ulcer, or peptic stricture, should generally not be considered for PPI discontinuation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Patients with known Barrett's esophagus, eosinophilic esophagitis, or idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis should generally not be considered for a trial of de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: PPI users should be assessed for upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk using an evidence-based strategy before de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Patients at high risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding should not be considered for PPI de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Patients who discontinue long-term PPI therapy should be advised that they may develop transient upper gastrointestinal symptoms due to rebound acid hypersecretion. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: When de-prescribing PPIs, either dose tapering or abrupt discontinuation can be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: The decision to discontinue PPIs should be based solely on the lack of an indication for PPI use, and not because of concern for PAAEs. The presence of a PAAE or a history of a PAAE in a current PPI user is not an independent indication for PPI withdrawal. Similarly, the presence of underlying risk factors for the development of an adverse event associated with PPI use should also not be an independent indication for PPI withdrawal.

Fabrication and Evaluation of Celecoxib Oral Oleogel to Reduce the Inflammation of Ulcerative Colitis

Oleogel consists of hydrophobic solvent and an oleogelator. In this study, attempts were made to study the influence of Celecoxib solubility, concentration and dispersability on its release, absorption, and biological performance. Oleogels were prepared to study the formulation variables on its stability and release. Castor oil was selected as the oil and the oleogelator concentration was 4.5% w/w. F3 revealed the highest release and stability compared to other formulae. The percent permeated across the rat intestine showed a 7.5-fold increase over free Celecoxib, and its lifetime was found to be greater than 18 months. The efficacy of free Celecoxib and oleogel formulae to treat rats with ulcerative colitis was done via the induction of ulcerative colitis (UC) through administration of 5% dextran sodium sulphate (DSS). Celecoxib besides its formulae significantly reduced the release of Leucine rich 2 glycoprotein (LRG), Myeloperoxidase (MPO), Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), proinflammatory cytokine expression, High mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), Nuclear factor kappa B (NF-ΚB), Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3), Metalloproteinase-3 (MMP3), and miRNA31. Moreover, F3 significantly increased the colonic cAMP in DSS treated rats and reduced the intestinal inflammation beside healing of mucosa and restitution of the epithelium of the gastrointestinal tract.

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.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease 2020

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) revised the third edition of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease in 2020 and created an English version. The revised guidelines consist of nine items: epidemiology, hemorrhagic gastric and duodenal ulcers, Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy, non-eradication therapy, drug-induced ulcers, non-H. pylori, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ulcers, remnant gastric ulcers, surgical treatment, and conservative therapy for perforation and stenosis. Therapeutic algorithms for the treatment of peptic ulcers differ based on ulcer complications. In patients with NSAID-induced ulcers, NSAIDs are discontinued and anti-ulcer therapy is administered. If NSAIDs cannot be discontinued, the ulcer is treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Vonoprazan (VPZ) with antibiotics is recommended as the first-line treatment for H. pylori eradication, and PPIs or VPZ with antibiotics is recommended as a second-line therapy. Patients who do not use NSAIDs and are H. pylori negative are considered to have idiopathic peptic ulcers. Algorithms for the prevention of NSAID- and low-dose aspirin (LDA)-related ulcers are presented in this guideline. These algorithms differ based on the concomitant use of LDA or NSAIDs and ulcer history or hemorrhagic ulcer history. In patients with a history of ulcers receiving NSAID therapy, PPIs with or without celecoxib are recommended and the administration of VPZ is suggested for the prevention of ulcer recurrence. In patients with a history of ulcers receiving LDA therapy, PPIs or VPZ are recommended and the administration of a histamine 2-receptor antagonist is suggested for the prevention of ulcer recurrence.

Main prophylactic measures in bariatric endoscopy. Spanish Expert Recommendations Guideline

Bariatric endoscopy (BE) encompasses a number of techniques -some consolidated, some under development- aiming to contribute to the management of obese patients and their associated metabolic diseases as a complement to dietary and lifestyle changes. To date different intragastric balloon models, suture systems, aspiration methods, substance injections and both gastric and duodenal malabsorptive devices have been developed, as well as endoscopic procedures for the revision of bariatric surgery. Their ongoing evolution conditions a gradual increase in the quantity and quality of scientific evidence about their effectiveness and safety. Despite this, scientific evidence remains inadequate to establish strong grades of recommendation allowing a unified perspective on prophylaxis in BE. This dearth of data conditions leads, in daily practice, to frequently extrapolate the measures that are used in bariatric surgery (BS) and/or in general therapeutic endoscopy. In this respect, this special article is intended to reach a consensus on the most common prophylactic measures we should apply in BE. The methodological design of this document was developed while attempting to comply with the following 5 phases: Phase 1: delimitation and scope of objectives, according to the GRADE Clinical Guidelines. Phase 2: setup of the Clinical Guide-developing Group: national experts, members of the Grupo Español de Endoscopia Bariátrica (GETTEMO, SEED), SEPD, and SECO, selecting 2 authors for each section. Phase 3: clinical question form (PICO): patients, intervention, comparison, outcomes. Phase 4: literature assessment and synthesis. Search for evidence and elaboration of recommendations. Based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification, most evidence in this article will correspond to level 5 (expert opinions without explicit critical appraisal) and grade of recommendation C (favorable yet inconclusive recommendation) or D (inconclusive or inconsistent studies). Phase 5: External review by experts. We hope that these basic preventive measures will be of interest for daily practice, and may help prevent medical and/or legal conflicts for the benefit of patients, physicians, and BE in general.

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.

Risk of Recurrent Peptic Ulcer Disease in Patients Receiving Cumulative Defined Daily Dose of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

The purpose of this population-based case-control study was to clarify the impact of cumulative dosage of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on recurrent peptic ulcers among chronic users after Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication. We analyzed data of 203,407 adult peptic ulcer disease (PUD) patients from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan entered between 1997 and 2013. After matching for age/gender frequencies and the length of follow-up time in a ratio of 1:1, the matched case-control groups comprised 1150 patients with recurrent PUD and 1150 patients without recurrent PUD within 3 years of follow-up. More recurrent PUDs occurred in NSAID users than in the control group (75.30% versus 69.74%; p = 0.0028). Independent risk factors for recurrent PUD included patients using NSAIDs (adjusted OR (aOR): 1.34, p = 0.0040), H. pylori eradication (aOR: 2.73; p < 0.0001), concomitant H2 receptor antagonist (aOR: 1.85; p < 0.0001) and anti-coagulant (aOR: 4.21; p = 0.0242) use. Importantly, in the initial subgroup analysis, the risk ratio of recurrent PUD did not increase in NSAID users after H. pylori eradication compared with that in non-users (p = 0.8490) but a higher risk for recurrent PUD with the increased doses of NSAIDs without H. pylori eradication therapy (aOR: 1.24, p = 0.0424; aOR: 1.47, p = 0.0074; and aOR: 1.64, p = 0.0152 in the groups of ≤28, 29-83, and ≥84 cumulative defined daily doses, respectively). The current study suggested that H. pylori eradication therapy could decrease the risk of recurrent PUD among patients with high cumulative doses of NSAIDs.

The Clinician's Guide to Proton-Pump Inhibitor Discontinuation

There is increasing concern among patients and health care providers about the associations between PPI use and a multitude of potential adverse outcomes. Therefore, clinicians need to have a rational approach both to identifying PPI users who may not have an ongoing indication for their use and on how to encourage discontinuation of unnecessary PPI use. In this paper, we will provide a detailed review of the specific indications where the benefits of ongoing PPI use is of questionable value and will review the evidence on how to maximize the likelihood of being able to successfully discontinue PPI use while minimizing symptom recurrence.

Celecoxib for the treatment of musculoskeletal arthritis

Introduction: The cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor celecoxib is an approved compound for rheumatoid (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA), combining both anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties with a good gastrointestinal tolerability. Areas covered: This article covers the pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy as well as the latest safety data available for celecoxib with emphasis on the treatment of RA and OA. It is based primarily on a current literature search on PubMed and Web of Science, but also on the professional rheumatological expertise of the authors. Expert opinion: Celecoxib has been shown to be superior to placebo and equivalent to traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs). Many studies have been published making celecoxib a good and safe treatment option in particular in moderate arthritis and patients without established cardiovascular (CV) disease. Moreover, older patients might gain significant benefits compared to tNSAIDs due to reduced gastrointestinal events even when having a history of ulcer bleedings. Nonetheless, there is still much to learn, especially regarding the prescription of celecoxib in patients with cardiovascular co-morbidities. While low doses seem to be safe according to present data, the knowledge on the more effective, higher doses >400 mg/day is still limited.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Peptic Ulcer Disease

Peptic ulcer disease continues to be a source of significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Approximately two-thirds of patients found to have peptic ulcer disease are asymptomatic. In symptomatic patients, the most common presenting symptom of peptic ulcer disease is epigastric pain, which may be associated with dyspepsia, bloating, abdominal fullness, nausea, or early satiety. Most cases of peptic ulcer disease are associated with Helicobacter pylori infection or the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or both. In this review, we discuss the role of proton pump inhibitors in the management of peptic ulcer disease, highlight the latest guidelines about the diagnosis and management of H. pylori, and discuss the latest evidence in the management of complications related to peptic ulcer disease, including endoscopic intervention for peptic ulcer-related bleeding. Timely diagnosis and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and its sequelae are crucial in order to minimize associated morbidity and mortality, as is prevention of peptic ulcer disease among patients at high risk, including those infected with H. pylori and users of NSAIDs.

Safety of celecoxib versus traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in older patients with arthritis

Background

A 2011 systematic review found an increased cardiovascular (CV) risk at both ≤200 mg/day and >200 mg/day doses of celecoxib. This study aimed to evaluate adverse drug events with celecoxib relative to traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in real-world practice settings, focusing on gastrointestinal (GI), CV, and renal toxicity, in older patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods

In this population-based retrospective cohort study using national health insurance claims data in Korea, patients aged 65 years and older with arthritis who were treated with celecoxib or traditional NSAIDs for ≥30 days in 2016, were included for study analyses. The primary outcome was hospital encounter for GI bleeding associated with celecoxib vs traditional NSAIDs use. The secondary outcomes included a composite of CV diseases, coronary revascularization, and incident renal events.

Results

After 1:1 propensity score matching, 73,748 patients in each cohort were identified for study entry. Celecoxib treatment which lasted for ≥120 days was associated with a lower risk of GI bleeding than traditional NSAIDs (OR=0.84, P=0.03). Such a relationship was not observed in shorter treatment strata and overall in all strata combined. When patients with gastroprotective prophylaxis were excluded from subgroup analysis, no evidence of improved GI tolerability was observed with celecoxib. CV and renal risks appeared higher with celecoxib than with traditional NSAIDs (OR=1.08, P<0.001 and OR=1.22, P<0.001, respectively). About 4.7 % of celecoxib users received a higher than maximum dose (400 mg/day); a dose-dependent increase in CV and renal risks was assessed with celecoxib.

Conclusion

Celecoxib was associated with decreased risk of GI bleeding compared with traditional NSAIDs when treatment lasted for ≥120 days, but such a relationship was not found among subgroup patients with no concomitant use of gastroprotective prophylaxis. Celecoxib users were more likely to experience CV and renal events than traditional NSAIDs users, and a dose-dependent risk relationship was observed with celecoxib.

Vonoprazan prevents ulcer recurrence during long-term NSAID therapy: randomised, lansoprazole-controlled non-inferiority and single-blind extension study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the non-inferiority of vonoprazan to lansoprazole for secondary prevention of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced peptic ulcer (PU) and the safety of vonoprazan during extended use.

DESIGN

A phase 3, 24-week, multicenter, randomised, double-blind (DB), active-controlled study, followed by a phase 3, ≥28 week, multicenter, single-blind, parallel-group extension study (EXT) in outpatients (n=642) receiving long-term NSAID therapy who are at risk of PU recurrence. The patients received vonoprazan (10 mg or 20 mg) or lansoprazole 15 mg once daily. For DB, non-inferiority of the proportion of patients with recurrent PU within 24 weeks was analysed by Farrington and Manning test (significance level 2.5%, non-inferiority margin 8.3%; primary endpoint), recurrent PU within 12 weeks, bleeding and time-to-event of PU (secondary endpoint) and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). For EXT, TEAEs (primary endpoint), recurrent PU and safety (secondary) were assessed up to 104 weeks for patients in the extension study.

RESULTS

The non-inferiority of vonoprazan 10 mg and 20 mg to lansoprazole 15 mg was verified (percentage difference -2.2%,95% CI -6.2% to 1.8%, p<0.001; -2.1%,95% CI -6.1% to 2.0%, p<0.001, respectively). The proportion of patients with endoscopically confirmed recurrent PU within 24 weeks was 3.3%, 3.4% and 5.5%, for vonoprazan 10 mg, 20 mg and lansoprazole 15 mg, respectively. No significant safety concerns were identified.

CONCLUSION

The non-inferiority of vonoprazan (10 and 20 mg) was verified in patients receiving long-term NSAIDs in DB; it was effective and well tolerated in EXT for longer than 1 year, with a safety profile similar to lansoprazole (15 mg).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT01452750, NCT01456260; Results.

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is bleeding that develops in the oesophagus, stomach or proximal duodenum. Peptic ulcers, caused by Helicobacter pylori infection or use of NSAIDs and low-dose aspirin (LDA), are the most common cause. Although the incidence and mortality associated with NVUGIB have been decreasing owing to considerable advances in the prevention and management of NVUGIB over the past 20 years, it remains a common clinical problem with an annual incidence of ∼67 per 100,000 individuals in the United States in 2012. NVUGIB is a medical emergency, and mortality is in the range ∼1-5%. After resuscitation and initial assessment, early (within 24 hours) diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy together with intragastric pH control with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) form the basis of treatment. With a growing ageing population treated with antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant medications, the clinical management of NVUGIB is complex as the risk between gastrointestinal bleeding events and adverse cardiovascular events needs to be balanced. The best clinical approach includes identification of risk factors and prevention of bleeding; available strategies include continuous treatment with PPIs or H. pylori eradication in those at increased risk of developing NVUGIB. Treatment with PPIs and/or use of cyclooxygenase-2-selective NSAIDs should be implemented in those patients at risk of NVUGIB who need NSAIDs and/or LDA.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in chronic pain: implications of new data for clinical practice

COX2-selective and nonselective (ns) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used for chronic pain management. There are marked differences in the risk of adverse gastrointestinal (GI) and cardiovascular (CV) events among different NSAIDs. In 2017, publication of two randomized controlled trials and an individual patient-data meta-analysis provided robust data on the relative GI and CV tolerability profiles of currently available NSAIDs. The PRECISION study showed similar CV-event rates with celecoxib vs naproxen and ibuprofen, but GI tolerability was better for celecoxib. In the CONCERN study of high-GI-risk patients, celecoxib was associated with fewer adverse GI-tract events than naproxen. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between celecoxib and ns-NSAIDs in the rate of acute myocardial infarction, and celecoxib was the only COX2-selective NSAID with a lower risk of adverse CV and GI events vs ns-NSAIDs. These data add to the body of knowledge about the relative tolerability of different NSAIDs and were used to propose an updated treatment algorithm. The decision about whether to use an NSAID and which one should be based on a patient's risk of developing adverse GI and CV events. Lower- and upper-GI-tract events need to be considered. Celecoxib has a better lower-GI-tract tolerability profile than ns-NSAIDs plus a proton-pump inhibitor. In addition, the latest data suggest that long-term use of celecoxib 200 mg/day may be appropriate for patients at increased CV risk.

Screening Tool for Older Persons' Appropriate Prescriptions for Japanese: Report of the Japan Geriatrics Society Working Group on "Guidelines for medical treatment and its safety in the elderly"

AIM

In 2005, the Japan Geriatrics Society published a list of potentially inappropriate medication that was an extract from the "Guidelines for medical treatment and its safety in the elderly 2005." The 2005 guidelines are due for a revision, and a new comprehensive list of potentially inappropriate medications is required.

METHODS

A total of 15 diseases, conditions and special areas related to their clinical care were selected. We originated clinical questions and keywords for these 15 areas, carried out a systematic review using these search criteria, and formulated guidelines applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system advocated by Minds2014. If we did not find good evidence despite the drug being clinically important, we looked for evidence of efficacy and for disease-specific guidelines, and incorporated them into our guidelines.

RESULTS

We selected 2098 articles (140 articles per area), and extracted another 186 articles through a manual search. We further added guidelines based on disease entity and made two lists, one of "drugs to be prescribed with special caution" and the other of "drugs to consider starting," primarily considering individuals aged 75 years or older or those who are frail or in need of special care.

CONCLUSIONS

New lists of potentially inappropriate medications and potential prescribing omissions called "Screening Tool for Older Person's Appropriate Prescriptions for Japanese" were constructed. We anticipate that future studies will highlight more evidence regarding the safety of high-quality drugs, further improving the provision of appropriate medical care for the elderly. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2016: 16: 983-1001.

Gastrointestinal safety of celecoxib versus naproxen in patients with cardiothrombotic diseases and arthritis after upper gastrointestinal bleeding (CONCERN): an industry-independent, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Present guidelines are conflicting for patients at high risk of both cardiovascular and gastrointestinal events who continue to require non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We hypothesised that a cyclooxygenase-2-selective NSAID plus proton-pump inhibitor is superior to a non-selective NSAID plus proton-pump inhibitor for prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding in concomitant users of aspirin with previous ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

For this industry-independent, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial done in one academic hospital in Hong Kong, we screened patients with arthritis and cardiothrombotic diseases who were presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, were on NSAIDs, and require concomitant aspirin. After ulcer healing, an independent staff member randomly assigned (1:1) patients who were negative for Helicobacter pylori with a computer-generated list of random numbers to receive oral administrations of either celecoxib 100 mg twice per day plus esomeprazole 20 mg once per day or naproxen 500 mg twice per day plus esomeprazole 20 mg once per day for 18 months. All patients resumed aspirin 80 mg once per day. Both patients and investigators were masked to their treatments. The primary endpoint was recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding within 18 months. The primary endpoint and secondary safety endpoints were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153660.

FINDINGS

Between May 24, 2005, and Nov 28, 2012, we enrolled 514 patients, assigning 257 patients to each study group, all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat population. Recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 14 patients in the celecoxib group (nine gastric ulcers and five duodenal ulcers) and 31 patients in the naproxen group (25 gastric ulcers, three duodenal ulcers, one gastric ulcer and duodenal ulcer, and two bleeding erosions). The cumulative incidence of recurrent bleeding in 18 months was 5·6% (95% CI 3·3-9·2) in the celecoxib group and 12·3% (8·8-17·1) in the naproxen group (p=0·008; crude hazard ratio 0·44, 95% CI 0·23-0·82; p=0·010). Excluding patients who reached study endpoints, 21 (8%) patients in the celecoxib group and 17 (7%) patients in the naproxen group had adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment. No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study.

INTERPRETATION

In patients at high risk of both cardiovascular and gastrointestinal events who require concomitant aspirin and NSAID, celecoxib plus proton-pump inhibitor is the preferred treatment to reduce the risk of recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Naproxen should be avoided despite its perceived cardiovascular safety.

FUNDING

The Research Grant Council of Hong Kong.

Celecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.

Consensus on the clinical management, screening-to-treat, and surveillance of Helicobacter pylori infection to improve gastric cancer control on a nationwide scale

BACKGROUND

Previous international consensus statements provided general policies for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. However, there are geographic differences in the prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of H. pylori, and in the availability of medications and endoscopy. Thus, nationwide or regional consensus statements are needed to improve control of H. pylori infection and gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This consensus statement for management of H. pylori in Taiwan has three major sections: (1) optimal diagnosis and indications; (2) current treatment strategies; and (3) screening-to-treat and surveillance for control of gastric cancer. The literature review emphasized recent data for development of draft statements and determination of levels of evidence. Twenty-five Taiwan experts conducted a consensus conference, by a modified Delphi process, to modify the draft statements. Consensus, defined as an agreement of least 80% of the experts, and recommendation grade were determined by anonymous voting.

RESULTS

There were 24 consensus statements. Section 1 has seven statements on recommendations for the diagnosis and indications for treatment of H. pylori infection. Section 2 has 10 statements that provide an updated treatment algorithm for first-line, second-line, and third-line regimens. Section 3 has seven statements regarding H. pylori eradication for reducing the risk of gastric cancer, with a cost-benefit analysis. After H. pylori eradication, the consensus highlights the use of endoscopic surveillance and/or chemoprevention to further reduce the burden of gastric cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus statement has updated recommendations for improving the clinical management of H. pylori infection in areas such as Taiwan, which have high prevalence of H. pylori infection and gastric cancer.

Proton pump inhibitors for preventing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug induced gastrointestinal toxicity: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are recommended for preventing gastrointestinal lesions induced by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We performed this study: (1) to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PPIs, (2) to explore the association between effectiveness and potential influential factors, and (3) to investigate the comparative effect of different PPIs.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing different classes of PPIs, or comparing PPIs with placebo, H₂ receptor antagonists or misoprostol in NSAIDs users. Both pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Analyses were based on 12,532 participants from 31 trials. PPIs were significantly more effective than placebo in reducing ulcer complications (relative risk [RR] = 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.42) and endoscopic peptic ulcers (RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.33), with no subgroup differences according to class of NSAIDs, ulcer risk, history of previous ulcer disease, Helicobacter pylori infection, or age. To prevent one ulcer complication, 10 high risk patients and 268 moderate risk patients need PPI therapy. Network meta-analysis indicated that the effectiveness of different PPIs in reducing ulcer complications and endoscopic peptic ulcers is generally similar. PPIs significantly reduced gastrointestinal adverse events and the related withdrawals compared to placebo; there is no difference in safety between different PPIs.

CONCLUSIONS

PPIs are effective and safe in preventing peptic ulcers and complications in a wide spectrum of patients requiring NSAID therapy. There is no major difference in the comparative effectiveness and safety between different PPIs.

Effect of a Proton Pump Inhibitor on Tumor Bleeding Prevention in Unresectable Gastric Cancer Patients: a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Purpose

Tumor bleeding is a major complication in inoperable gastric cancer. The study aim was to investigate the effects of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for the prevention of gastric tumor bleeding.

Materials and Methods

This study was a prospective double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Patients with inoperable gastric cancer were randomly assigned to receive oral lansoprazole (30 mg) or placebo daily. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of tumor bleeding, and the secondary endpoints were transfusion requirement and overall survival (OS).

Results

This study initially planned to enroll 394 patients, but prematurely ended due to low recruitment rate. Overall, 127 patients were included in the analyses: 64 in the lansoprazole group and 63 in the placebo group. During the median follow-up of 6.4 months, tumor bleeding rates were 7.8% and 9.5%, in the lansoprazole and placebo groups, respectively, with the cumulative bleeding incidence not statistically different between the groups (P=0.515, Gray's test). However, during the initial 4 months, 4 placebo-treated patients developed tumor bleeding, whereas there were no bleeding events in the lansoprazole-treated patients (P=0.041, Gray's test). There was no difference in the proportion of patients who required transfusion between the groups. The OS between the lansoprazole (11.7 months) and the placebo (11.0 months) groups was not statistically different (P=0.610). Study drug-related serious adverse event or bleeding-related death did not occur.

Conclusions

Treating patients with inoperable gastric cancer with lansoprazole did not significantly reduce the incidence of tumor bleeding. However, further studies are needed to evaluate whether lansoprazole can prevent tumor bleeding during earlier phases of chemotherapy (ClinicalTrial.gov, identifier No. NCT02150447).

Gastrointestinal toxicity among patients taking selective COX-2 inhibitors or conventional NSAIDs, alone or combined with proton pump inhibitors: a case-control study

PURPOSE

To assess the risk of gastrointestinal perforation, ulcers, or bleeding (PUB) associated with the use of conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and selective COX-2 inhibitors, with or without PPIs compared with conventional NSAIDs.

METHODS

A case-control study was performed within conventional NSAIDs and/or selective COX-2 inhibitors users identified from the Dutch PHARMO Record Linkage System in the period 1998-2012. Cases were patients aged ≥18 years with a first hospital admission for PUB. For each case, up to four controls were matched for age and sex at the date a case was hospitalized (index date). Logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

At the index date, 2634 cases and 5074 controls were current users of conventional NSAIDs or selective COX-2 inhibitors. Compared with conventional NSAIDs, selective COX-2 inhibitors with PPIs had the lowest risk of PUB (adjusted OR 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35-0.73) followed by selective COX-2 inhibitors (adjusted OR 0.66, 95%CI: 0.48-0.89) and conventional NSAIDs with PPIs (adjusted OR 0.79, 95%CI: 0.68-0.92). Compared with conventional NSAIDs, the risk of PUB was lower for those aged ≥75 years taking conventional NSAIDs with PPIs compared with younger patients (adjusted interaction OR 0.79, 95%CI: 0.64-0.99). However, those aged ≥75 years taking selective COX-2 inhibitors, the risk was higher compared with younger patients (adjusted interaction OR 1.22, 95%CI: 1.01-1.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Selective COX-2 inhibitors with PPIs, selective COX-2 inhibitors, and conventional NSAIDs with PPIs were associated with lower risks of PUB compared with conventional NSAIDs. These effects were modified by age. © 2017 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The Risks and Benefits of Long-term Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors: Expert Review and Best Practice Advice From the American Gastroenterological Association

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The purpose of this review is to evaluate the risks associated with long-term use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), focusing on long-term use of PPIs for three common indications: gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Barrett's esophagus (BE), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) bleeding prophylaxis.

METHODS

The recommendations outlined in this review are based on expert opinion and on relevant publications from PubMed, EMbase, and the Cochrane library (through July 2016). To identify relevant ongoing trials, we queried clinicaltrials.gov. To assess the quality of evidence, we used a modified approach based on the GRADE Working Group. The Clinical Practice Updates Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association has reviewed these recommendations. Best Practice Advice 1: Patients with GERD and acid-related complications (ie, erosive esophagitis or peptic stricture) should take a PPI for short-term healing, maintenance of healing, and long-term symptom control. Best Practice Advice 2: Patients with uncomplicated GERD who respond to short-term PPIs should subsequently attempt to stop or reduce them. Patients who cannot reduce PPIs should consider ambulatory esophageal pH/impedance monitoring before committing to lifelong PPIs to help distinguish GERD from a functional syndrome. The best candidates for this strategy may be patients with predominantly atypical symptoms or those who lack an obvious predisposition to GERD (eg, central obesity, large hiatal hernia). Best Practice Advice 3: Patients with Barrett's esophagus and symptomatic GERD should take a long-term PPI. Best Practice Advice 4: Asymptomatic patients with Barrett's esophagus should consider a long-term PPI. Best Practice Advice 5: Patients at high risk for ulcer-related bleeding from NSAIDs should take a PPI if they continue to take NSAIDs. Best Practice Advice 6: The dose of long-term PPIs should be periodically reevaluated so that the lowest effective PPI dose can be prescribed to manage the condition. Best Practice Advice 7: Long-term PPI users should not routinely use probiotics to prevent infection. Best Practice Advice 8: Long-term PPI users should not routinely raise their intake of calcium, vitamin B12, or magnesium beyond the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA). Best Practice Advice 9: Long-term PPI users should not routinely screen or monitor bone mineral density, serum creatinine, magnesium, or vitamin B12. Best Practice Advice 10: Specific PPI formulations should not be selected based on potential risks.

Management of non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: position statement of the Catalan Society of Gastroenterology

In recent years there have been advances in the management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding that have helped reduce rebleeding and mortality. This document positioning of the Catalan Society of Digestologia is an update of evidence-based recommendations on management of gastrointestinal bleeding peptic ulcer.

Management of Helicobacter pylori infection-the Maastricht V/Florence Consensus Report

Important progress has been made in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection and in this fifth edition of the Maastricht Consensus Report, key aspects related to the clinical role of H. pylori were re-evaluated in 2015. In the Maastricht V/Florence Consensus Conference, 43 experts from 24 countries examined new data related to H. pylori in five subdivided workshops: (1) Indications/Associations, (2) Diagnosis, (3) Treatment, (4) Prevention/Public Health, (5) H. pylori and the Gastric Microbiota. The results of the individual workshops were presented to a final consensus voting that included all participants. Recommendations are provided on the basis of the best available evidence and relevance to the management of H. pylori infection in the various clinical scenarios.

[DGRh recommendations for the implementation of current security aspects in the NSAID treatment of musculoskeletal pain]

NSAIDs exert their anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects by inhibition of COX‑2, a key enzyme for proinflammatory prostanoid synthesis. Therapy with NSAIDs is limited by their typical gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and renal side effects, which are caused by inhibition of COX‑1 (gastrointestinal toxicity), COX‑2 (cardiovascular side effects) or both COX-isoenzymes (renal side effects). Appropriate prevention strategies should be employed in patients at risk. If gastrointestinal risk factors are present, co-administration of a proton pump inhibitor or misoprostol is recommended; in patients with cardiovascular risk, coxibs, diclofenac and high-dose ibuprofen should be avoided. Furthermore, drug interactions and contraindications should be considered. In patients with renal impairment (GFR < 30 ml/min) all NSAIDs must be avoided. Ulcer anamnesis is a contraindication for traditional NSAIDs. Preexisting cardio- or cerebrovascular diseases are contraindications for coxibs. Treatment decisions should be individually based with a continuous monitoring of the risk - benefit ratio and exploitation of non-pharmacological treatment options.

The Indications, Applications, and Risks of Proton Pump Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are the most effective drugs for inhibiting gastric acid secretion. They have been in clinical use for more than 25 years, In 2014, 3.475 billion daily defined doses (DDD) of PPI were prescribed in Germany. This high number alone calls for a critical analysis of the spectrum of indications for PPI and their potential adverse effects.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases, with particular emphasis on randomized, prospective multicenter trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and meta-analyses.

RESULTS

The inhibition of gastric acid secretion with PPI is successfully used for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease and of gastric and duodenal ulcers, for the secondary prevention of gastroduodenal lesions that have arisen under treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetylsalicylic acid, and for the prevention of recurrent hemorrhage from ulcers after successful endoscopic hemostasis. PPI are given along with practically all antibiotic regimens for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection. The number of prescriptions for PPI has risen linearly over the past 25 years. As there has been no broadening of indications, one may well ask whether the current, extensive use of PPI is justified. There is evidence that patients taking PPI are at greater risk for fractures. Moreover, the vitamin B12 level should be checked occasionally in all patients taking PPI.

CONCLUSION

PPI are among the more effective drugs for the treatment of diseases associated with gastric acid. In view of their cost and potential adverse effects, they should only be prescribed for scientifically validated indications.

Management of NSAID-associated peptic ulcer disease

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use increases the risk of gastrointestinal complications such as ulcers or bleeding. The presence of factors like advanced age, history of peptic ulcer, Helicobacter pylori infection and the use of anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents increase this risk further. COX-2 inhibitors and antisecretory drugs, particularly proton pump inhibitors, help to minimize the risk of gastrointestinal complications in high-risk patients. This review presents a practical approach to the prevention and treatment of NSAID-associated peptic ulcer disease and examines the new advances in the rational use of NSAIDs.

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: comparative effectiveness and safety of strategies for preventing NSAID-associated gastrointestinal toxicity

BACKGROUND

Many strategies are used to prevent nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-associated gastrointestinal toxicity, but the comparative effectiveness remains unclear.

AIM

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of clinical strategies for preventing gastrointestinal toxicity induced by NSAIDs.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library (from their inception to May 2015) were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events in patients taking nonselective NSAIDs, selective cyclooxygenase(COX)-2 inhibitors or nonselective NSAIDs/COX-2 inhibitors plus gastroprotective agents [proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists, misoprostol]. Both pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Analyses were based on 82 trials including 125 053 participants. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that selective COX-2 inhibitors + PPIs [Risk ratio (RR), 95% Credible Interval (CrI): ulcer complications 0.07, 0.02-0.18], selective COX-2 inhibitors (RR, 95% CrI: ulcer complications 0.25, 0.15- 0.38; symptomatic ulcer 0.12, 0.04-0.30), nonselective NSAIDs + PPIs (RR, 95% CrI: ulcer complications 0.28, 0.18-0.41; symptomatic ulcer 0.11, 0.04-0.23), nonselective NSAIDs + misoprostol (RR, 95% CrI: ulcer complications 0.47, 0.24-0.81; symptomatic ulcer 0.41, 0.13-1.00) were associated with significantly lower risk of clinical gastrointestinal events compared with nonselective NSAIDs. For all effectiveness endpoints, selective COX-2 inhibitors + PPIs was associated with the lowest absolute event probability and the highest rank, followed by selective COX-2 inhibitors and thirdly by nonselective NSAIDs + PPIs.

CONCLUSION

The combination of selective COX-2 inhibitors plus PPIs provides the best gastrointestinal protection, followed by selective COX-2 inhibitors, and thirdly by nonselective NSAIDs plus PPIs.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease 2015

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease in 2014 and has created an English version. The revised guidelines consist of seven items: bleeding gastric and duodenal ulcers, Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy, non-eradication therapy, drug-induced ulcer, non-H. pylori, non-nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ulcer, surgical treatment, and conservative therapy for perforation and stenosis. Ninety clinical questions (CQs) were developed, and a literature search was performed for the CQs using the Medline, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases between 1983 and June 2012. The guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Therapy is initially provided for ulcer complications. Perforation or stenosis is treated with surgery or conservatively. Ulcer bleeding is first treated by endoscopic hemostasis. If it fails, surgery or interventional radiology is chosen. Second, medical therapy is provided. In cases of NSAID-related ulcers, use of NSAIDs is stopped, and anti-ulcer therapy is provided. If NSAID use must continue, the ulcer is treated with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or prostaglandin analog. In cases with no NSAID use, H. pylori-positive patients receive eradication and anti-ulcer therapy. If first-line eradication therapy fails, second-line therapy is given. In cases of non-H. pylori, non-NSAID ulcers or H. pylori-positive patients with no indication for eradication therapy, non-eradication therapy is provided. The first choice is PPI therapy, and the second choice is histamine 2-receptor antagonist therapy. After initial therapy, maintenance therapy is provided to prevent ulcer relapse.

A randomised, double-blinded study comparing giving etoricoxib vs. placebo to female patients with fibromyalgia

OBJECTIVES

Current therapeutic approaches to fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) do not provide satisfactory pain control to a high percentage of patients. This unmet need constantly fuels the pursuit for new modalities for pain relief. This randomised, double-blind, controlled study assessed the efficacy and safety of adding etoricoxib vs. placebo to the current therapeutic regimen of female patients with FMS.

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, female patients were randomised to receive either 90 mg etoricoxib once daily or placebo for 6 weeks. Several physical and mental parameters were assessed throughout the study. The primary end-point was the response to treatment, defined as ≥ 30% reduction in the average Brief Pain Inventory score. Secondary outcomes were changes in the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, SF-36 Quality of Life assessment questionnaire and Hamilton rating scales for anxiety and depression.

RESULTS

Overall, 73 patients were recruited. Although many outcome measures improved throughout the study, no difference was recorded between the etoricoxib- and placebo-treated groups. The Brief Pain Inventory, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, The Hamilton Anxiety and Depression scores did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first randomised, double-blind study assessing the effect of adding etoricoxib to pre-existing medications for female patients with FMS. Although being mildly underpowered this study clearly has shown that etoricoxib did not improve pain scores and did not lead to any beneficial mental or physical effects.