Primary gastroduodenal prophylaxis with omeprazole for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users

The evidence base of the 10 most prescribed drugs in England, France, and the United States: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether there is evidence of efficacy of the most commonly used medications in their primary indications.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This scoping review was executed using the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases up to May 2023. The 10 most prescribed medications in England, France, and the United States were identified using country-specific public databases. Up to 3 common indications in primary care were defined for each medication, based on a survey of general practitioners. The outcomes were determined by the authors to be patient-important outcomes, with placebo as the comparator. Two investigators independently conducted searches, following a predefined algorithm, to identify randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of these medications for each indication. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBIS or ROB 2.0 tools.

RESULTS

We identified 21 drugs, covering 56 indications and 114 outcomes. Sixty-seven percent of the evaluated medications demonstrated efficacy for at least one outcome in at least one of the sought indications. Overall, evidence of efficacy was found for 48% of the indications. There was no study evaluating the efficacy of amoxicillin and salbutamol. For other drugs such as phloroglucinol or cholecalciferol, available studies suggested an absence of efficacy in the most common indications.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the lack of data regarding the level of evidence for the most prescribed medications. Limitations include the choice of outcomes, and the understanding that the absence of evidence is not synonymous with the absence of efficacy.

Recent progress in adverse events of carboxylic acid non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (CBA-NSAIDs) and their association with the metabolism: the consequences on mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress, and prevention with natural plant extracts

INTRODUCTION

Carboxylic acid non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (CBA-NSAIDs) are extensively used worldwide due to their antipyretic, analgesic, and anti-inflammatory effects. CBA-NSAIDs have reasonable margin of safety at therapeutic doses, and in the current climate, do not possess addiction potential like opioid drugs. Studies have revealed that various adverse events of CBA-NSAIDs are related mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress.

AREAS COVERED

This review article summarizes adverse events induced by CBA-NSAIDs, mechanisms of mitochondrial damage, oxidative stress, and metabolic interactions. Meanwhile, this review discusses the treatment and prevention of CBA-NSAIDs damage by natural plant extracts based on antioxidant effects.

EXPERT OPINION

CBA-NSAIDs can induce reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, mediate DNA, protein and lipid damage, lead to imbalance of cell antioxidant status, change of mitochondrial membrane potential, activate oxidative stress signal pathway, thus leading to oxidative stress and cell damage. Adverse events caused by CBA-NSAIDs often exhibit dose and time dependence. In order to avoid adverse events caused by CBA-NSAIDs, it is necessary to provide detailed patient consultation and eliminate influencing factors. Moreover, constructive research studies on the organ-specific toxicity and mechanism of natural plant extracts in preventing and treating metabolic abnormalities of CBA-NSAIDs, will provide important value for warning and guidance for use of CBA-NSAIDs.

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

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

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

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

Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common reason for hospital admission in older adult patients and carries a high morbidity and mortality if not properly managed. Risk factors include advanced age, Helicobacter pylori infection, medication use, smoking, and history of liver disease. Patients with known or suspected liver disease and suspected variceal bleeding should also receive antibiotics and somatostatin analogues. Risk stratification scores should be used to determine patients at highest risk for further decompensation. Upper endoscopy is both a diagnostic and therapeutic tool used in the management of upper GI bleeding. Endoscopy should be performed within 24 hours of presentation after appropriate resuscitation. Management of anticoagulation in upper GI bleeding largely depends on the indication for anticoagulation, the risk of continued bleeding with continuing the medication, and the risk of thrombosis with discontinuing the medication. A multidisciplinary approach to the decision of anticoagulation continuation is preferred when possible.

Comparison of the Endoscopic Picture in Case of Complications of the upper Gastrointestinal Tract Caused by the Use of Antithrombotic Agents and Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

Intaking antithrombotic funds (ATA) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is one of the most frequent causes of pathology in gastrointestinal (GI) tract.The purpose of the study: comparison of pathological changes of the mucous membrane in the upper GI tract, that occur against the background of ATA and NSAIDs admission.Material and methods. Endoscopic data of two groups of patients taking ATA and NSAIDS have been compared. The first group of 448 patients from the 10th Gastrointestinal Department in N.N. Burdenko Main Military Clinical Hospital was on record from 2013 to 2017. The patients had erosive ulcerous changes of gastrointestinal mucosa, occurred against the background of the ATA admission. The second group comprised 6431 patients with rheumatic diseases. They were hospitalized in the clinic of V.A. Nasonova Research Institute of Rheumatology in the period from 2007 to 2016 and took NSAIDs regularly.Results. Duodenal and gastric ulcer changes in gastric mucosa and duodenal ulcers were identified in 168 (37.5 %) patients taking ATA and in 1691 (26.3 %) patient treated with NSAIDS. Structure of pathology varied. So, against the background of ATA and NSAIDS admission, the number of acute gastric ulceration amounted to 6.5 % and 15.5 % (p < 0.001); acute ulcers duodenal was 2.9 % and 4.9 %; combined ulcerative lesions of gastric and duodenal was 2.9 % and 2.0 %; multiple erosions of gastroduodenal mucosa were 52.4 % and 15.7 % (p < 0.001); single erosion was 35. 1% and 61.6 %. The factor of ulcer history and age ≥ 65 years old increased significantly the risk of duodenal and gastric ulcer changes in patients taking ATA and NSAIDs: OR 5.182 (95% CI 2.701–9.942) and 3.24 (95% CI 2.19–5.34), 4.537 (95% CI 2.036–10.11) and 2.016 (95% CI 1.230–2.917) respectively. Intaking of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) reduced significantly the risk of complications for both ATA and NSAIDs: OR 0.329 (95% CI 0.199–0.546) and 0.317 (95% CI 0.210–0.428) respectively.Conclusion. The structure of pathology of mucous in the upper gastrointestinal tract that arose against the backdrop of ATA and NSAIDs admission is different. The first is characterized by a multiple erosion, while the second one has single acute distal gastric ulcers. The ulcerative history and advanced age of patients increase significantly the risk of complications concerning the gastroduodenal mucosa when using ATA and NSAIDs. PPI is the effective means of preventing this pathology.

STW 5 is effective against nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs induced gastro-duodenal lesions in rats

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors are often used to prevent gastro-intestinal lesions induced by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. However, they are not always effective against both gastric and duodenal lesions and their use is not devoid of side effects.

AIM

To explore the mechanisms mediating the clinical efficacy of STW 5 in gastro-duodenal lesions induced by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), exemplified here by diclofenac, in a comparison to omeprazole.

METHODS

Gastro-duodenal lesions were induced in rats by oral administration of diclofenac (5 mg/kg) for 6 successive days. One group was given concurrently STW 5 (5 mL/kg) while another was given omeprazole (20 mg/kg). A day later, animals were sacrificed, stomach and duodenum excised and divided into 2 segments: One for histological examination and one for measuring inflammatory mediators (tumor necrosis factor α, interleukins-1β and 10), oxidative stress enzyme (heme oxygenase-1) and apoptosis regulator (B-cell lymphoma 2).

RESULTS

Diclofenac caused overt histological damage in both tissues, associated with parallel changes in all parameters measured. STW 5 and omeprazole effectively prevented these changes, but STW 5 superseded omeprazole in protecting against histological damage, particularly in the duodenum.

CONCLUSION

The findings support the therapeutic usefulness of STW 5 and its superiority over omeprazole as adjuvant therapy to NSAIDs to protect against their possible gastro-duodenal side effects.

International Consensus on Guiding Recommendations for Management of Patients with Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs Induced Gastropathy-ICON-G

Introduction

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), one of the most commonly used medications worldwide, are frequently associated with gastrointestinal adverse events. Primary care physicians often face the challenge of achieving adequate pain relief with NSAIDs, while keeping their adverse events to a minimum. This is especially true when long-term use of NSAIDs is required such as in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. To help primary care physicians deal with such challenges more effectively, a panel of expert gastroenterologists came together with the aim of developing practice recommendations.

Methods

A modified ‘Delphi’ process was used to reach consensus and develop practice recommendations. Twelve gastroenterologists from nine countries provided their expert inputs to formulate the recommendations. These recommendations were carefully developed taking into account existing literature, current practices, and expert opinion of the panelists.

Results

The expert panel developed a total of fifteen practice recommendations. Following are the key recommendations: NSAIDs should be prescribed only when necessary; before prescribing NSAIDs, associated modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors should be considered; H. pylori infection should be considered and treated before initiating NSAIDs; patients should be properly educated regarding NSAIDs use; patients who need to be on long-term NSAIDs should be prescribed a gastroprotective agent, preferably a proton pump inhibitor and these patients should be closely monitored for any untoward adverse events.

Conclusion/clinical significance

These practice recommendations will serve as an important tool for primary care physicians and will guide them in making appropriate therapeutic choices for their patients.

How to cite this article: Hunt R, Lazebnik LB, Marakhouski YC, Manuc M, Ramesh GN, Aye KS, Bordin DS, Bakulina NV, Iskakov BS, Khamraev AA, Stepanov YM, Ally R, Garg A. International Consensus on Guiding Recommendations for Management of Patients with Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Induced Gastropathy-ICON-G. Euroasian J Hepatogastroenterol, 2018;8(2):148-160.

Dyspepsia in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users and the effect of preventive measures

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate regular non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) users for dyspepsia, as well as to assess the effect of preventive measures, and the reasons for non-adherence to gastroprotective agents (GPA) from a real-world perspective.

METHODS

A prospective longitudinal study was conducted among outpatients with regular NSAID usage. The presence of dyspepsia was assessed by locally validated versions of the Leeds dyspepsia questionnaire (LDQ), GPA and the participants' adherence to the drugs were assessed at recruitment and 2 weeks later. GPA was defined as the use of antisecretory medications or cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.

RESULTS

Initially, 409 participants (mean age 52.3 ± 14.6 years, 60.6% females, 48.4% treated for musculoskeletal pain) were recruited. At recruitment, 50.9% of the participants had at least one upper gastrointestinal symptom. Complete data for follow-up analysis were collected from 158 participants who were naive NSAID users, had no prior gastrointestinal medication and who could be contacted. At 2-week follow-up there was no significant difference in the LDQ score change between NSAID users treated with GPA and those did not. However, there was a greater reduction in abdominal pain/discomfort (8.8% vs 5.0%, P < 0.001) and burping (8.8% vs 4.0%, P < 0.001) among participants using GPA compared with those who were not. Adherence to GPA was poor, with study participants citing the absence of gastrointestinal symptoms as their main reason for non-adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of GPA in patients on regular NSAIDs does not improve their overall dyspepsia, but it reduces abdominal pain and burping. Poor adherence to GPA may be a contributing factor.

Lower urinary tract cancer

Lower urinary tract neoplasia is uncommon in dogs and cats, though transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) is the most common tumor of the lower urinary tract in both species. Clinical signs are not specific for neoplasia, but neoplasia should be considered in patients that are older, have specific risk factors, or have persistent, severe, or relapsing signs. Local disease is often the cause of death or euthanasia; local control is challenging owing to tumor size and location. Systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment. Prognosis is generally guarded, but therapy can result in improvement in clinical signs and quality of life.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gastroprotection, and benefit-risk

Background

Gastroprotective agents (GPA) substantially reduce morbidity and mortality with long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin.

Objective

To evaluate efficacy of NSAIDs, protection against NSAID-induced gastrointestinal harm, and balance of benefit and risk.

Methods

Free text searches of PubMed (December 2012) supplemented with “related citation” and “cited by” facilities on PubMed and Google Scholar for patient requirements, NSAID effectiveness, pain relief benefits, gastroprotective strategies, adherence to gastroprotection prescribing, and serious harm with NSAIDs and GPA.

Results

Patients want 50% reduction in pain intensity and improved fatigue, distress, and quality of life. Meta-analyses of NSAID trials in musculoskeletal conditions had bimodal responses with good pain relief or little. Number needed to treat (NNTs) for good pain relief were 3 to 9. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and high-dose histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H₂RA) provided similar gastroprotection, with no conclusive evidence of greater PPI efficacy compared with high-dose H₂RA. Prescriber adherence to guidance on use of GPA with NSAIDS was 49% in studies published since 2005; patient adherence was less than 100%. PPI use at higher doses over longer periods is associated with increased risk of serious adverse events, including fracture; no such evidence was found for H₂RA. Patients with chronic conditions are more willing to accept risk of harm for successful treatment than their physicians.

Conclusion

Guidance on NSAIDs use should ensure that patients have a good level of pain relief and that gastroprotection is guaranteed for the NSAID delivering good pain relief. Fixed-dose combinations of NSAID plus GPA offer one solution.

Intragastric acidity and omeprazole exposure during dosing with either PA32540 (enteric-coated aspirin 325 mg + immediate-release omeprazole 40 mg) or enteric-coated aspirin 325 mg + enteric-coated omeprazole 40 mg - a randomised, phase 1, crossover study

BACKGROUND

Aspirin therapy is associated with adverse upper gastrointestinal effects. PA32540 is a coordinated-delivery tablet containing enteric-coated aspirin (EC-ASA) 325 mg and immediate-release (IR) omeprazole 40 mg. Immediate-release omeprazole (located in outer layer of tablet) is available for instantaneous dissolution rapidly after ingestion, while dissolution of the EC-ASA core is delayed until pH >5.5.

AIM

To compare the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects of PA32540 (EC-ASA 325 mg + IR-omeprazole 40 mg) vs. enteric-coated (EC)-omeprazole 40 mg.

METHODS

This single-centre, open-label, randomised, two-way crossover study in healthy volunteers compared 7 days of once-daily dosing with PA32540 with 7 days of once-daily EC-ASA 325 mg + EC-omeprazole 40 mg dosed concomitantly. The primary endpoint was per cent time intragastric pH >4 over 24 h on Day 7. A key secondary endpoint was determination of the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole and salicylic acid.

RESULTS

Twenty-six subjects (mean age 29 years) were enrolled into the study. On Day 7, mean per cent time intragastric pH >4 was 50.6% for PA32540 and 57.6% for EC-omeprazole 40 mg (P = 0.004) and geometric least squares mean AUC0-24 for omeprazole was 1446 h*ng/mL for PA32540 and 2558 h*ng/mL for EC-omeprazole 40 mg. Day 7 median Tmax of omeprazole was 0.5 h for PA32540 and 1.25 h for EC-omeprazole 40 mg.

CONCLUSION

Total exposure to omeprazole from PA32540 was 57% of that from EC-omeprazole for the same dose amount (40 mg), while absolute difference in 24-h acid control was 7%. Omeprazole exposure and pH control with PA32540 appear similar to EC-omeprazole 20 mg.

Managing the adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Conventional medical treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis includes the use of NSAIDs (traditional and selective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase [COX]-2), because they provide unmistakable and significant health benefits in the treatment of pain and inflammation. However, they are associated with an increased risk of serious gastrointestinal (GI) and cardiovascular (CV) adverse events. Both beneficial and adverse effects are due to the same mechanism of action, which is inhibition of COX-dependent prostanoids. Since CV and GI risk are related to drug exposure, a reduction in the administered dose is recommended. However, this strategy will not eliminate the hazard owing to a possible contribution of individual genetic background. Further studies will be necessary to develop genetic and/or biochemical markers predictive of the CV and GI risk of NSAIDs.

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.

Reducing the risk of gastroduodenal ulcers with a fixed combination of esomeprazole and low-dose acetyl salicylic acid

Low-dose acetyl salicylic acid (ASA) for preventing cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events is now one of the most frequently prescribed medications in some Western countries. However, it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality as a consequence of the development of gastric and duodenal ulcers and their complications. Recent randomized controlled trials in patients who are at moderately increased risk of ulcers have shown that the proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole (the S-isomer of racemic omeprazole) reduces the gastroduodenal ulcer incidence by approximately 70-85% and the gastrointestinal bleeding risk by as much as 90%. Case-control studies also indicate that the risk of ulcer bleeding is less in low-dose ASA users who concomitantly take a proton pump inhibitor. This article reviews the pharmacology of the component agents and the evidence for efficacy of the combination of esomeprazole and low-dose ASA.

Drug-induced Injury of the Gastrointestinal Tract

The effects of drugs on the gastrointestinal tract are diverse and depend on numerous factors. Diagnosis is centered on histologic findings, with mostly nonspecific patterns of injury that must be interpreted in the correct clinical context. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs are a common cause of drug-induced gastrointestinal injury, with effects primarily in the gastric mucosa but also throughout the gastrointestinal tract. Another common class of drugs causing a variety of pathologic findings in the gut is chemotherapeutic agents. This article discusses the differential diagnosis of the various patterns of injury, including ischemic damage, and the histologic findings specific for certain drugs.

Adverse effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs, aspirin and coxibs) on upper gastrointestinal tract

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most widely prescribed medication in the world. Their main benefit derives from their anti-inflammatory and analgesic effect, but the use of these agents is not innocuous since they mainly increase the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) and cardiovascular complications compared with non-NSAID users. NSAIDs injures the upper and lower gut by depleting COX-1 derived prostaglandins and causing topical injury to the mucosa. The risk of upper GI complications varies, depending on the presence of one or more risk factors. Among them, the three main risk factors are prior history of peptic ulcer, the single most important risk factor, age, the most common, and concomitant aspirin use, due to their GI and cardiovascular implications. Those individuals at-risk should be considered for alternatives to NSAID therapy and modifications of risk factors. If NSAID therapy is required, patients at risk will need prevention strategies including co-therapy of NSAID with gastroprotectants (PPI or misoprostol) or the prescription of COX-2 selective inhibitors. The probable introduction of NO-NSAIDs in the market in the near future may open a new therapeutic option for patients with hypertension who need NSAIDs.

Omeprazole promotes gastric epithelial cell migration

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective at preventing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastric ulcers. They are also superior to histamine H2-receptor antagonists and misoprostol in treating NSAID-induced gastric ulcer healing. This study explored whether omeprazole, a PPI, can modulate ulcer healing through epithelial cell proliferation and/or cell migration using a rat normal gastric epithelial cell line (RGM-1). Flow cytometry was used to determine cell proliferation and an artificial wound model was used to measure cell migration. Western blot analysis was performed to evaluate the possible mechanisms of action. Omeprazole treatment (10−8, 10−6 and 10−4M) for 12 and 24 h did not promote cell proliferation. However, similar doses of the drug (10−6 and 10−4 M) incubated for 24–48 h significantly promoted the basal cell migration of gastric epithelial cells. Further, the higher concentration of omeprazole (10−4M) reversed the inhibitory action of indometacin (10−5M) on cell migration. Western blot results showed that omeprazole did not increase cyclooxygenase-2 expression and did not activate signal transduction pathways, including extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK1/ERK2), P38 mitogenic-activated protein kinase, and phosphatidyl inositol 3-kinase. The results suggest that omeprazole is beneficial in basal ulcer healing and it reversed the adverse action of indometacin on ulcer repair under acid-independent conditions. These actions are likely to be mediated through the promotion of gastric epithelial cell migration but not cell proliferation.

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

Background:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Proton pump inhibitors for gastroduodenal damage related to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin: twelve important questions for clinical practice

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin are among the most commonly used medications worldwide. Their use is associated with significant gastroduodenal adverse effects, including dyspepsia, bleeding, ulcer formation, and perforation. Given their long-term use by millions of patients, there is a substantial impact at the population level of these complications. In this evidence-based review, we have endeavored to answer 12 commonly encountered questions in clinical practice that deal with the following: extent of the problem of NSAID/aspirin-induced gastroduodenal damage and its impact on public health; role of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in the primary prevention, healing, and secondary prevention of NSAID/aspirin-induced gastroduodenal ulceration as assessed by using endoscopic end points; role of PPIs in the prevention of adverse clinical outcomes related to NSAID/aspirin use; whether PPIs are effective in NSAID-induced dyspepsia; comparison of PPI co-therapy with selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors for risk reduction of adverse clinical outcomes; role of PPIs in preventing rebleeding from aspirin +/- clopidogrel therapy in high-risk patients; identifying high-risk patients who can benefit from PPI co-therapy; the role of other gastroprotective agents for prevention of NSAID/aspirin-induced gastroduodenal damage; and the cost-effectiveness of and limitations to the use of PPIs for prevention of gastroduodenal damage related to the use of NSAIDs or aspirin. We then summarized our recommendations on the use of PPIs for the clinical management of patients using NSAIDs or aspirin.

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

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

Decreasing incidence of peptic ulcer complications after the introduction of the proton pump inhibitors, a study of the Swedish population from 1974-2002

Background

Despite a decreasing incidence of peptic ulcer disease, most previous studies report a stabile incidence of ulcer complications. We wanted to investigate the incidence of peptic ulcer complications in Sweden before and after the introduction of the proton pump inhibitors (PPI) in 1988 and compare these data to the sales of non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA).

Methods

All cases of gastric and duodenal ulcer complications diagnosed in Sweden from 1974 to 2002 were identified using the National hospital discharge register. Information on sales of ASA/NSAID was obtained from the National prescription survey.

Results

When comparing the time-periods before and after 1988 we found a significantly lower incidence of peptic ulcer complications during the later period for both sexes (p < 0.001). Incidence rates varied from 1.5 to 7.8/100000 inhabitants/year regarding perforated peptic ulcers and from 5.2 to 40.2 regarding peptic ulcer bleeding. The number of sold daily dosages of prescribed NSAID/ASA tripled from 1975 to 2002. The number of prescribed sales to women was higher than to males. Sales of low-dose ASA also increased. The total volume of NSAID and ASA, i.e. over the counter sale and sold on prescription, increased by 28% during the same period.

Conclusion

When comparing the periods before and after the introduction of the proton pump inhibitors we found a significant decrease in the incidence of peptic ulcer complications in the Swedish population after 1988 when PPI were introduced on the market. The cause of this decrease is most likely multifactorial, including smoking habits, NSAID consumption, prevalence of Helicobacter pylori and the introduction of PPI. Sales of prescribed NSAID/ASA increased, especially in middle-aged and elderly women. This fact seems to have had little effect on the incidence of peptic ulcer complications.

Increase in vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women using omeprazole

Proton pump inhibitors are taken by millions of patients for prevention and treatment of gastroesophageal diseases. Case-control studies have suggested that use of omeprazole is associated with an increased risk of hip fractures. The aim of this prospective study was to assess the risk of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women using omeprazole. We studied 1,211 postmenopausal women enrolled in the Osteoporosis and Ultrasound Study from the general population. Information on omeprazole and other risk factors for fractures including prevalent fractures and bone mineral density was obtained at baseline. Vertebral fractures were assessed on X-rays obtained at baseline and at the end of the 6-year follow-up and analyzed centrally. At baseline, 5% of this population was using omeprazole. Age-adjusted rates for vertebral fractures were 1.89 and 0.60 for 100 person-years for omeprazole users and nonusers, respectively (P = 0.009). In the multivariate analysis, omeprazole use was a significant and independent predictor of vertebral fractures (RR = 3.50, 95% CI 1.14-8.44). The other predictors were age higher than 65 years (RR = 2.34, 95% CI 1.02-5.34), prevalent vertebral fractures (RR = 3.62, 95% CI 1.63-8.08), and lumbar spine T score </= -2.5 (RR = 2.38, 95% CI 1.03-5.49). Omeprazole use is associated with an increased risk of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women. Further studies are required to determine the mechanism of the association between the underlying gastric disease, omeprazole use, and risk of osteoporotic fractures.

Efficacy of esomeprazole (20 mg once daily) for reducing the risk of gastroduodenal ulcers associated with continuous use of low-dose aspirin

OBJECTIVES

Low-dose aspirin is standard treatment for prevention of cardiovascular events in at-risk patients. However, long-term administration of low-dose aspirin is associated with a greater risk of adverse events, including gastroduodenal ulcers. This study determined the efficacy of esomeprazole for reducing the risk of gastric and/or duodenal ulcers and dyspeptic symptoms in patients receiving continuous, low-dose aspirin therapy.

METHODS

Patients aged > or =60 yr, without baseline gastroduodenal ulcer at endoscopy, who were receiving aspirin 75-325 mg once daily, were randomized to esomeprazole 20 mg once daily or placebo for 26 wk. The presence of endoscopic gastric and/or duodenal ulcers and esophageal lesions was assessed at weeks 8 and 26. Upper gastrointestinal symptoms were assessed at weeks 8, 16, and 26.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat population comprised 991 patients (esomeprazole, N = 493; placebo, N = 498). Twenty-seven patients (5.4%) in the placebo group developed a gastric or duodenal ulcer during 26 weeks' treatment compared with eight patients (1.6%) in the esomeprazole group (life-table estimates: 6.2%vs 1.8%; P= 0.0007). At 26 wk, the cumulative proportion of patients with erosive esophagitis was significantly lower for esomeprazole versus placebo (4.4% and 18.3%, respectively; P < 0.0001). At 26 wk, esomeprazole-treated patients were more likely to experience resolution of heartburn, acid regurgitation, and epigastric pain (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Esomeprazole 20 mg once daily reduces the risk of developing gastric and/or duodenal ulcers and symptoms associated with the continuous use of low-dose aspirin in patients aged > or =60 yr without preexisting gastroduodenal ulcers.

Primary prevention of adverse gastroduodenal effects from short-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs by omeprazole 20 mg in healthy subjects: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

The effectiveness of low-dose omeprazole as primary prevention of gastrointestinal adverse events due to episodic use of non-selective NSAIDs was evaluated. Healthy adults aged 50-75 who did not take chronic NSAIDs were randomized to a 6.5-day treatment of naproxen 500 mg twice daily plus omeprazole 20 mg daily or naproxen 500 mg twice daily plus placebo. Seventy subjects were enrolled (mean age 58.6 years, proportion >60 = 41.4%). Subjects receiving naproxen plus omeprazole developed fewer gastroduodenal ulcers compared to subjects receiving naproxen plus placebo (11.8% vs. 46.9%, P = 0.002). Likewise, naproxen plus omeprazole was associated with a decreased risk of ulceration and/or >5 erosions (38.2% vs. 81.3%, P < or = 0.001), and a smaller change in dyspepsia score. Considering their relatively low cost, ready availability, and favorable safety profile, low-dose PPI co-prescription in healthy adults requiring short-term therapy with non-selective NSAIDs may be reasonable.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Systematic review: ulcer definition in NSAID ulcer prevention trials

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Economic evaluation of etoricoxib versus non-selective NSAIDs in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in the UK

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of etoricoxib, a cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitor, versus non-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of etoricoxib versus nsNSAIDs was evaluated from the UK National Health Service (NHS) and society perspective with a decision-analytic model. Patients stayed on initial therapy throughout 52 weeks unless they experienced an adverse event (AE) or lacked efficacy, in which case they switched to another nsNSAID or a tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonist. Efficacy data were obtained from a 1-year etoricoxib clinical trial in AS. Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) data were translated into Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) weights using a published data on the relation between BASFI and Short-form (SF) 36 Quality of life scores, as well as the relation between SF-36 and utility. Safety data were based on meta-analyses of etoricoxib trials. Information on treatment pathways, resource consumption, and absenteeism from work was obtained from literature and experts. Model outcomes included QALYs, perforations, ulcers, or bleeds, cardiovascular events, and costs.

RESULTS

Etoricoxib was cost-effective compared to nsNSAIDs in terms of cost per QALY saved ( pound5611). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found a 77% probability of the incremental cost per QALY saved being within a threshold for cost-effectiveness of pound20 000. The expected direct costs over the 52-week period were pound1.23 (95% uncertainty distribution pound1.10; pound1.39) and pound1.13 per day ( pound0.78; pound1.55) for patients starting with etoricoxib and nsNSAIDs, respectively. When costs related to absenteeism were taken into account, the cost per QALY saved was pound281.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the underlying assumptions and data used, this economic evaluation demonstrated that, compared to nsNSAIDs, etoricoxib is a cost-effective therapy for AS patients in the UK.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Celecoxib plus aspirin versus naproxen and lansoprazole plus aspirin: a randomized, double-blind, endoscopic trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients requiring low-dose aspirin along with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are at increased risk for gastrointestinal injury. This study compared the incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers in patients treated with low-dose aspirin and a cyclooxygenase-2 selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or a nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug plus the proton pump inhibitor lansoprazole.

METHODS

Subjects 18 years or older with osteoarthritis, without gastroduodenal ulcer or erosive esophagitis at baseline endoscopy, and a cardiovascular indication for prophylaxis low-dose (81 or 325 mg) aspirin were prescribed open-label aspirin and blindly randomized to celecoxib 200 mg/day or naproxen 500 mg twice daily plus lansoprazole 30 mg once daily. Endoscopy was performed at 12 weeks or early termination.

RESULTS

One thousand forty-five subjects were randomized and received at least 1 dose of study medication, and 854 (n = 426 celecoxib, n = 428 naproxen plus lansoprazole) subjects with both baseline and final visit endoscopies were evaluable for the primary efficacy analysis. Among these subjects, the rate of endoscopically confirmed gastroduodenal ulcers was not different in the celecoxib (9.9%) and naproxen plus lansoprazole (8.9%; treatment difference [95% confidence interval], 1.0% [-2.9% to 4.9%]) groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with osteoarthritis taking low-dose aspirin, the use of celecoxib or naproxen plus lansoprazole resulted in similar rates of gastroduodenal ulceration.

COXIBs and non-selective NSAIDs in the gastroenterological setting: what should patients and physicians do?

Although adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs occur in only a small proportion of users, the widespread use of these drugs has resulted in a substantial overall number of affected persons who experience serious gastrointestinal complications. Dyspeptic symptoms are estimated to occur in 10-60% of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug users and lead to discontinuation of treatment in 5-15% of rheumatoid arthritis patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. It is now well established that the point prevalence of peptic ulcer disease in patients receiving conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy ranges between 10 and 30%, representing a 10- to 30-fold increase over that found in the general population. One out of 175 users of conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the USA will be hospitalized each year for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal damage. The mortality of hospitalized patients remains about 5-10%, with an expected annual death rate of 0.08%. The selective COX-2 inhibitors consistently show comparable efficacy to that of conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis, but have a reduced propensity to cause gastrointestinal toxicity. In many cases, the gastric effects of therapeutically active doses of COX-2 inhibitors are indistinguishable from placebo. The safety benefits of COX-2 inhibitors given alone appear similar to those of combined therapy with conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and gastroprotective agents. These findings warrant the consideration of COX-2 inhibitors as first-line therapy in patients requiring long-term pain control.

Is ranitidine therapy sufficient for healing peptic ulcers associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use?

Long-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increases the risk of serious gastroduodenal events. To minimise these risks, patients often require concomitant acid-suppressive therapy. We conducted a literature review of clinical trials examining use of ranitidine 150 mg twice daily to heal gastroduodenal ulcers (GU) in NSAID recipients. Seven studies were identified. After 8 weeks' treatment with ranitidine, GU healing rates ranged from 50% to 74% and rates of duodenal ulcer (DU) healing ranged from 81% to 84%. Ranitidine was more effective when NSAIDs were discontinued (healing rates reaching 95% and 100%, respectively). The ulcer healing rate with sucralfate was similar to that of ranitidine. However, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy was associated with significantly greater rates of both GU and DU healing than ranitidine; 8-week GU rates were 92% and 88% with esomeprazole 40 mg and 20 mg, respectively (vs. 74% with ranitidine, p < 0.01). For omeprazole, 8-week healing rates were 87% with omeprazole 40 mg and 84% with omeprazole 20 mg (vs. 64% for ranitidine, p < 0.001), and for lansoprazole the corresponding values were 73-74% and 66-69% for the 30 mg and 15 mg doses, respectively (vs. 50-53% for ranitidine, p < 0.05). In the PPI study reporting DU healing the values were 92% for omeprazole 20 mg (vs. 81% for ranitidine, p < 0.05) and 88% for omeprazole 40 mg (p = 0.17 vs. ranitidine). NSAID-associated GU are more likely to heal when patients receive concomitant treatment with a PPI rather than ranitidine.

[Upper gastrointestinal events associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs usage. An unsolved problem]

Before nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are indicated, risk factors such as age, the use of other drugs potentially harmful to the gastrointestinal tract, smoking, and concomitant use of aspirin should be evaluated, to select the most appropriate option for each patient and determine the need for gastroprotective therapy. Because of the possibility of cardiovascular risk posed by COX-2 selective NSAIDs, cardiovascular risk factors should also be analyzed in each patient before starting treatment of this type, mainly bearing in mind that the protective effect of COX-2 selective NSAIDs is substantially reduced in patients taking aspirin.

Prevention of NSAID-associated gastrointestinal lesions: a comparison study pantoprazole versus omeprazole

AIM

To investigate tolerability and efficacy of pantoprazole 20 mg, once daily (o.d.), pantoprazole 40 mg o.d., and omeprazole 20 mg o.d., in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug(s) (NSAIDs).

METHODS

Included in this randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group study were rheumatic patients (>55 yr) on continual NSAIDs and with at least one more recognized risk factor that contributes to the development of gastrointestinal (GI) injury. Study duration was 6 months, and the treatment consisted of pantoprazole 20 mg o.d. (N = 196), pantoprazole 40 mg o.d. (N = 199), or omeprazole 20 mg o.d. (N = 200). Patients took NSAID(s) (except COX-2 inhibitors), had no more than five erosions/petechiae in the upper GI tract, no current peptic ulcers or reflux esophagitis, and had at most moderate intensity GI symptoms. Endoscopy was performed at baseline, 3, and 6 months. The primary end points were lack of "therapeutic failure" and lack of "endoscopic failure" at 6 months.

RESULTS

After 6 months, the probabilities to remain in remission were 90% pantoprazole 20 mg o.d., 93% pantoprazole 40 mg o.d., and 89% omeprazole 20 mg o.d. for lack of "therapeutic failure;" 91% pantoprazole 20 mg o.d., 95% pantoprazole 40 mg o.d., and 93% omeprazole 20 mg o.d. for lack of "endoscopic failure."

CONCLUSIONS

For patients taking NSAIDs continually, pantoprazole 20 mg o.d., pantoprazole 40 mg o.d., or omeprazole 20 mg o.d. provide equivalent, effective, and well-tolerated prophylaxis against GI lesions, including peptic ulcers.

Gastrointestinal Considerations in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease Using Nonopioid Analgesics for Mild-to-Moderate Pain or Cardioprotection

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most widely used classes of medications worldwide, available both through prescription and over the counter (OTC). Although these drugs are highly effective for pain, gastrointestinal (GI) complications may occur. Risk factors for GI complications from NSAIDs have been well studied, and the highest risk exists among the elderly and patients with a history of GI bleeding or complications. The increasingly widespread use of aspirin for both primary and secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis has also drawn attention to the potential increase in GI complications. Several strategies may minimize NSAID-mediated GI complications, including the use of drugs that do not injure the gut, such as acetaminophen or a low-dose opiate. The cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, which cause approximately 50% fewer GI complications than traditional NSAIDs, may also be used, although their cardiovascular safety has recently come into question. Antacid therapy with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may also be used to reduce NSAID-related dyspepsia and upper GI complications. Misoprostol is also effective in preventing NSAID-related complications, but is not as well tolerated. In any patient, the risk-benefit ratio must be assessed to determine the appropriate therapies to minimize GI complications resulting from daily aspirin therapy.

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

PURPOSE

Because dyspeptic symptoms are far more prevalent than ulcer complications in users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), economic models indicate that dyspepsia rates (not ulcer complications) are the major determinant of cost-effectiveness in treating arthritis. We performed a meta-analysis to compare rates of dyspepsia for two common therapies in high-risk patients with arthritis: cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor (Coxib) alone and combination therapy with a nonselective NSAID and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (NSAID+PPI).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review to identify trials comparing either a Coxib versus NSAID or NSAID+PPI versus NSAID in chronic arthritis. We selected studies that report incident dyspepsia, defined a priori as "epigastric pain," "dyspepsia," and "nausea." We then performed meta-analysis to compare the relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction of dyspepsia for Coxib versus NSAID and NSAID+PPI versus NSAID.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of 26 studies comparing dyspepsia between Coxibs and NSAIDs revealed a 12% relative risk reduction for Coxibs with an absolute risk reduction of 3.7%. Meta-analysis of four studies comparing dyspepsia between the NSAID+PPI combination and NSAIDs alone revealed a 66% relative risk reduction for NSAID+PPI with an absolute risk reduction of 9%. Compared with the NSAID strategy, the number needed to treat to prevent dyspepsia was 27 for Coxibs and 11 for NSAID+PPI.

CONCLUSION

NSAID+PPI affords greater risk reduction for dyspepsia than Coxibs when compared with the common baseline of NSAIDs. Because there are limited head-to-head data comparing Coxibs versus NSAID+PPI, these data provide the best indirect evidence that NSAID+PPI may be superior to Coxibs in minimizing incident dyspepsia.

Prevention and treatment of NSAID-induced gastroduodenal injury

NSAIDs increase the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) complications. Those at risk should be considered for alternatives to NSAID therapy, modifications of risk factors, and prevention strategies with co-therapy with gastroprotective agents (proton-pump inhibitors or misoprostol) or COX-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs). Since coxibs, and probably other nonselective NSAIDs, may increase the risk of cardiovascular events, prevention strategies must take into account both GI and cardiovascular risk factors. All NSAIDs and coxibs should be prescribed at the lowest possible dose and for the shortest period of time. In patients with GI risk factors but no cardiovascular risk, coxibs or NSAIDs plus PPI or misoprostol are valid options. Patients with a history of ulcer bleeding should receive coxib plus PPI therapy and should be tested and treated for Helicobacter pylori infection. Most patients with increased cardiovascular risk will be treated with antiplatelet agents. It is not known whether co-therapy with low-dose aspirin will reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events, but it will further increase GI risk. It is currently unclear whether the risk of developing upper GI events with coxib plus aspirin is lower than it is with NSAIDs plus aspirin. However, all these patients should benefit from PPI co-therapy. Helicobacter pylori eradication should be considered as an additional therapeutic option when we want to further reduce the GI risk in specific patients. When the lower GI tract is of concern, coxib rather than NSAID therapy should be considered as the first option. Coxib therapy has better GI tolerance than NSAIDs, but patients with peptic ulcers or dyspepsia during NSAID/coxib treatment need PPI co-therapy.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Dose-effect comparisons of the CINOD AZD3582 and naproxen on upper gastrointestinal tract mucosal injury in healthy subjects

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this endoscopic study was to compare the effects on the gastroduodenal mucosa of healthy volunteers of different doses and dosing regimens of AZD3582, a cyclooxygenase-inhibiting nitric oxide donator (CINOD), with equimolar doses of naproxen.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Healthy volunteers were enrolled in a single-centre, randomized, double-blind, crossover trial consisting of two 12-day treatment periods and employing six sequences. The groups were: AZD3582 750 mg daily versus 375 mg twice daily (n=25), AZD3582 375 mg twice daily versus 750 mg twice daily (n=25) and naproxen 250 mg twice daily versus 500 mg twice daily (n=25).

RESULTS

Gastroduodenal tract damage was similar with AZD3582 375 mg twice daily and 750 mg twice daily (mean number of erosions and ulcers+/-SD: 2.88+/-3.95 versus 3.08+/-2.80, respectively; p=0.824; 1 ulcer counted as 10 erosions). There was an indication of decreased gastroduodenal toxicity with AZD3582 750 mg daily compared with 375 mg twice daily (0.92+/-2.08 versus 2.71+/-4.75, respectively; p=0.068). Gastroduodenal toxicity was significantly lower with AZD3582 375 mg twice daily than with naproxen 250 mg twice daily (2.88+/-3.95 versus 6.16+/-9.36; p<0.05), and with AZD3582 750 mg twice daily versus naproxen 500 mg twice daily (3.08+/-2.80 versus 6.68+/-6.97; p<0.05). Equimolar twice-daily doses of AZD3582 and naproxen resulted in similar naproxen plasma levels and serum thromboxane B(2) inhibition.

CONCLUSIONS

AZD3582 has an improved gastroduodenal safety profile compared with equimolar doses of naproxen. The gastroduodenal effects of AZD3582 375 mg and AZD3582 750 mg twice daily are similar. A once-daily regimen of AZD3582 might be less gastrotoxic than a twice-daily regimen.

Gastro-intestinal problems and concomitant medication in NSAID users: additional findings from a questionnaire-based survey in Italy

BACKGROUND

In a previous questionnaire-based survey, we found extensive use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in subjects with risk factors for serious gastrointestinal complications.

AIM

This study focused on the use of NSAIDs in subjects who reported either (a) pre-existing disorders which would have required caution in using NSAIDs (e.g. dyspepsia/heartburn or peptic ulcer) or (b) co-medication with drugs having a high risk of interacting with NSAIDs.

METHODS

Between March and September 2002, 65 general practitioners (GPs) submitted a validated self-administered questionnaire on health status and drug use to 3,250 subjects (age >or=18 years, stratified by sex and age). The questionnaire was divided into three parts: (1) sociodemographic information, (2) symptoms/illnesses (in the previous 6 months) and (3) drugs taken during the previous week.

RESULTS

Of the 2,738 subjects who filled in the questionnaire (84% of responders), 633 (23%) used NSAIDs and, among them, 114 (18%) were chronic users. Among the subjects reporting dyspepsia/heartburn or ulcer (n=909 of 2,738), 24% were occasional NSAID users and 6% chronic users. Of the chronic NSAID users reporting gastrointestinal symptoms, 35% also used a drug for acid-related disorders, but only 14% used daily a proton pump inhibitor (PPI). One hundred six subjects used concomitantly more than one NSAID. Eighteen percent of the subjects using corticosteroids also reported NSAID use; similar proportions were seen in subjects using selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants or calcium channel blockers, whereas 6% of the subjects with oral anticoagulants used NSAIDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that NSAIDs are frequently used in patients with upper gastrointestinal complaints or in combination with potentially interacting medications. Adverse effects and untoward drug interactions should be monitored in patients treated with NSAIDs in order to minimise their occurrence.