Adherence to proton pump inhibitors or H2-receptor antagonists during the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Gut homeostasis, injury, and healing: New therapeutic targets

The integrity of the gastrointestinal mucosa plays a crucial role in gut homeostasis, which depends upon the balance between mucosal injury by destructive factors and healing via protective factors. The persistence of noxious agents such as acid, pepsin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or Helicobacter pylori breaks down the mucosal barrier and injury occurs. Depending upon the size and site of the wound, it is healed by complex and overlapping processes involving membrane resealing, cell spreading, purse-string contraction, restitution, differentiation, angiogenesis, and vasculogenesis, each modulated by extracellular regulators. Unfortunately, the gut does not always heal, leading to such pathology as peptic ulcers or inflammatory bowel disease. Currently available therapeutics such as proton pump inhibitors, histamine-2 receptor antagonists, sucralfate, 5-aminosalicylate, antibiotics, corticosteroids, and immunosuppressants all attempt to minimize or reduce injury to the gastrointestinal tract. More recent studies have focused on improving mucosal defense or directly promoting mucosal repair. Many investigations have sought to enhance mucosal defense by stimulating mucus secretion, mucosal blood flow, or tight junction function. Conversely, new attempts to directly promote mucosal repair target proteins that modulate cytoskeleton dynamics such as tubulin, talin, Ehm², filamin-a, gelsolin, and flightless I or that proteins regulate focal adhesions dynamics such as focal adhesion kinase. This article summarizes the pathobiology of gastrointestinal mucosal healing and reviews potential new therapeutic targets.

Efficacy of Teprenone for Prevention of NSAID-Induced Gastrointestinal Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of teprenone with control or other drugs for reducing the incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events in patients receiving long-term non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Methods: Databases of PubMed, Embase, BioMed Central, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were searched up to November 10th, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing teprenone with control or other drugs. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used for assessing the certainty of evidence. Results: Seven RCTs were included. Six compared teprenone with control and one with famotidine. Meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant reduced risk of GI ulcers in patients receiving teprenone as compared to control after 12 weeks/3months (RR 0.37 95% CI 0.17, 0.18 I ² = 0% p = 0.01). Pooled data of three open-label studies indicated statistically significant reduction of GI symptoms in patients on teprenone as compared to control at 6 months and 12 months, but not at 3 months. Comparing teprenone with control, our analysis indicated non-significant but a tendency of better reduction in Modified Lanza Score (MLS) with teprenone. The RCT comparing teprenone to famotidine demonstrated better reduction of MLS with famotidine. The certainty of evidence-based on GRADE was deemed to be low. Conclusion: Low-quality evidence indicates a beneficial role of teprenone in preventing GI injuries in patients receiving long-term NSAIDs. Further high-quality RCTs comparing teprenone with placebo as well as other gastroprotective drugs are needed to strengthen current evidence.

Teprenone improves gastric mucosal injury and dyspeptic symptoms in long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug users

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a major cause of gastric mucosal lesions. In China, teprenone is frequently prescribed as a mucoprotective agent, but the literature regarding their efficacy is limited. Our purpose was to address the effects of teprenone on long-term NSAID-associated gastric mucosal lesions.

METHODS

This study examined 369 patients taking NSAIDs for at least 12 weeks. Patients without gastroduodenal ulcer and without Helicobacter pylori infection on endoscopy at baseline were randomized to receive either NSAID plus teprenone (150 mg/day) or NSAID only for 12 weeks. Lanza scores were examined using endoscopy before and after treatment, and dyspeptic symptom scores are also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients were randomized to the teprenone group (n = 74) or the control group (n = 84) for 12 weeks. Seventy-one of patients in the teprenone group and 79 of patients in the control group were analyzed finally. After treatment, the Lanza scores and dyspeptic symptom scores decreased significantly in the teprenone group while increased in the control group (P < 0.05). The changes of Lanza scores and dyspeptic symptom scores were higher in the teprenone group than in the control group (P < 0.05). For subgroup analysis, the change in Lanza scores and dyspeptic symptom scores improved significantly in the teprenone group receiving long-term low-dose aspirin treatment, as well as in the teprenone group receiving other NSAIDs treatment (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Teprenone may be an effective treatment choice of gastric mucosal injuries and dyspepsia symptoms in patients who used NSAIDs chronically without H. pylori infection or history of gastroduodenal ulcer.

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.

Construction, internal validation and implementation in a mobile application of a scoring system to predict nonadherence to proton pump inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Other studies have assessed nonadherence to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), but none has developed a screening test for its detection.

OBJECTIVES

To construct and internally validate a predictive model for nonadherence to PPIs.

METHODS

This prospective observational study with a one-month follow-up was carried out in 2013 in Spain, and included 302 patients with a prescription for PPIs. The primary variable was nonadherence to PPIs (pill count). Secondary variables were gender, age, antidepressants, type of PPI, non-guideline-recommended prescription (NGRP) of PPIs, and total number of drugs. With the secondary variables, a binary logistic regression model to predict nonadherence was constructed and adapted to a points system. The ROC curve, with its area (AUC), was calculated and the optimal cut-off point was established. The points system was internally validated through 1,000 bootstrap samples and implemented in a mobile application (Android).

RESULTS

The points system had three prognostic variables: total number of drugs, NGRP of PPIs, and antidepressants. The AUC was 0.87 (95% CI [0.83-0.91], p < 0.001). The test yielded a sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI [0.70-0.87]) and a specificity of 0.82 (95% CI [0.76-0.87]). The three parameters were very similar in the bootstrap validation.

CONCLUSIONS

A points system to predict nonadherence to PPIs has been constructed, internally validated and implemented in a mobile application. Provided similar results are obtained in external validation studies, we will have a screening tool to detect nonadherence to PPIs.

Long-Term Safety of a Coordinated Delivery Tablet of Enteric-Coated Aspirin 325 mg and Immediate-Release Omeprazole 40 mg for Secondary Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Patients at GI Risk

Introduction

In two, 6‐month, randomized, double‐blind Phase 3 trials, PA32540 (enteric‐coated aspirin 325 mg and immediate‐release omeprazole 40 mg) compared to aspirin alone was associated with fewer endoscopic gastric and duodenal ulcers in patients requiring aspirin therapy for secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention who were at risk for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) events.

Aims

In this 12‐month, open‐label, multicenter Phase 3 study, we evaluated the long‐term cardiovascular and gastrointestinal safety of PA32540 in subjects who were taking aspirin 325 mg daily for ≥3 months for secondary CVD prevention and were at risk for aspirin‐associated UGI events. Enrolled subjects received PA32540 once daily for up to 12 months and were assessed at baseline, month 1, month 6, and month 12.

Results

The overall safety population consisted of 379 subjects, and 290 subjects (76%) were on PA32540 for ≥348 days (12‐month completers). Adverse events (AEs) caused study withdrawal in 13.5% of subjects, most commonly gastroesophageal reflux disease (1.1%). Treatment‐emergent AEs occurred in 76% of the safety population (11% treatment‐related) and 73% of 12‐month completers (8% treatment‐related). The most common treatment‐related AE was dyspepsia (2%). One subject had a gastric ulcer observed on for‐cause endoscopy. There were five cases of adjudicated nonfatal myocardial infarction, one nonfatal stroke, and one cardiovascular death, but none considered treatment‐related.

Conclusions

Long‐term treatment with PA32540 once daily for up to 12 months in subjects at risk for aspirin‐associated UGI events is not associated with any new or unexpected safety events.

Utilization of gastroprotective strategies for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal events in a major teaching hospital

Background and purpose

Clinical guidelines recommend the prescribing of gastroprotective strategies in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) users with risk factors for gastrointestinal (GI) ulcer or ulcer complications. However, these guidelines are not often translated into clinical practice. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the utilization of gastroprotective strategies for NSAID-induced upper GI events in at-risk users in a major teaching hospital.

Patients and methods

A cross-sectional, observational, pharmacy-based study was conducted in a major Asian institution with both primary and secondary health care services. This study involved the screening of prescriptions for regular NSAIDs, and patients who met the inclusion criteria were recruited and interviewed using a questionnaire.

Results

Of the 409 participants recruited, 83.1% had at least one GI risk factor, of whom 70.3% did not receive appropriate gastroprotection. The most common GI risk factor was the use of high-dose NSAIDs (69.2%), followed by participants aged 65 years and older (22%) and concomitant use of low-dose aspirin (11.7%). Appropriate gastroprotective strategies utilized consisted of the use of a cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor alone or a nonselective NSAID plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in the moderate-risk group and a COX-2 inhibitor plus a PPI in the high-risk group. Gastroprotective strategies were underutilized in 67.1% of at-risk participants and overutilized in 59.4% of those without risk factors. Co-prescription of a histamine-2 receptor antagonist at lower-than-recommended doses constituted 59% of the inappropriate gastroprotective agents used. Logistic regression analysis revealed patients aged 65 years and older (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% CI =1.15–3.09) as a predictor for the prescribing of gastroprotection by the clinicians.

Conclusion

Approximately 70% of at-risk NSAID users, mainly on high-dose NSAIDs, were not prescribed appropriate gastroprotective strategies. Further measures are warranted to improve the safe prescribing of regular NSAIDs.

Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) Use in Primary Health Care Centers in A'Seeb, Muscat: A Clinical Audit

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the trend of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use in primary health care institutions located in A'Seeb, a province in the capital city of Oman, Muscat. Additionally, we evaluated the relationship between a physician's years of experience and the number of prescription issued, as well as the presence of risk factors and side effects in the patients who received these prescriptions.

METHOD

A clinical audit was conducted in four primary health care centers in the Muscat region over a one-week period in April 2014. The target population included patients aged 18 years or over who attended one of the four health centers and were prescribed NSAIDs. Overall, 272 patients were recruited by systematic random sampling. The data were collected by two methods: direct face-to-face interviews and evaluations of the patient's electronic medical file. The prescribing doctors were blind to the audit. The collected information included patients demographics, past and current medical history of related comorbidities, NSAID type, dose, duration and indications for use, concomitant warfarin or/and aspirin prescriptions, and co-prescription of gastroprotective agents.

RESULTS

In total, 15% of patients received an NSAID prescription: females were issued more prescriptions than males. The percentage of patients who received an NSAID prescription across the health centers ranged from 9% to 24%. The main reason for prescribing NSAIDs was musculoskeletal problems. The most frequently prescribed NSAID was ibuprofen. Sixteen percent of patients who received an NSAID prescription had a risk factor related to its use. The mean and median duration of the NSAID prescriptions of all types were 5.6 and 5.0 days, respectively. Physicians with a greater number of years experience prescribed more NSAIDs.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that the number of prescriptions of NSAIDs among various institutes varied, which could reflect the level of awareness concerning NSAID risks among the prescribing doctors. NSAIDs were prescribed for patients with comorbidities and patients with previously documented side effects without considering protective agents. Therefore, we suggest that the use of these medications is controlled, especially in high-risk populations.

Safe prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with osteoarthritis--an expert consensus addressing benefits as well as gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks

BACKGROUND

There are several guidelines addressing the issues around the use of NSAIDs. However, none has specifically addressed the upper versus lower gastrointestinal (GI) risk of COX-2 selective and non-selective compounds nor the interaction at both the GI and cardiovascular (CV) level of either class of drugs with low-dose aspirin. This Consensus paper aims to develop statements and guidance devoted to these specific issues through a review of current evidence by a multidisciplinary group of experts.

METHODS

A modified Delphi consensus process was adopted to determine the level of agreement with each statement and to determine the level of agreement with the strength of evidence to be assigned to the statement.

RESULTS

For patients with both low GI and CV risks, any non-selective NSAID (ns-NSAID) alone may be acceptable. For those with low GI and high CV risk, naproxen may be preferred because of its potential lower CV risk compared with other ns-NSAIDs or COX-2 selective inhibitors, but celecoxib at the lowest approved dose (200 mg once daily) may be acceptable. In patients with high GI risk, if CV risk is low, a COX-2 selective inhibitor alone or ns-NSAID with a proton pump inhibitor appears to offer similar protection from upper GI events. However, only celecoxib will reduce mucosal harm throughout the entire GI tract. When both GI and CV risks are high, the optimal strategy is to avoid NSAID therapy, if at all possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Time is now ripe for offering patients with osteoarthritis the safest and most cost-effective therapeutic option, thus preventing serious adverse events which could have important quality of life and resource use implications. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0291-x.

Impact of concomitant low-dose aspirin on the safety and tolerability of naproxen and esomeprazole magnesium delayed-release tablets in patients requiring chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy: an analysis from 5 Phase III studies

Patients receiving chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and concomitant low-dose aspirin (LDA) are at increased risk of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. A fixed-dose combination of enteric-coated (EC) naproxen and immediate-release esomeprazole magnesium (NAP/ESO) has been designed to deliver a proton-pump inhibitor followed by an NSAID in a single tablet. To examine safety data from 5 Phase III studies of NAP/ESO in LDA users (≤ 325 mg daily, administered at any time during the study), and LDA non-users, data were analyzed from 6-month studies assessing NAP/ESO versus EC naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 2), 3-month studies assessing NAP/ESO vs celecoxib or placebo in patients with knee osteoarthritis (n = 2), and a 12-month, open-label, safety study of NAP/ESO (n = 1). In an analysis of two studies, incidences of endoscopically confirmed gastric ulcers (GUs) and duodenal ulcers (DUs) were summarized by LDA subgroups. In the pooled analysis from all five studies, incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) (including prespecified NSAID-associated upper GI AEs and cardiovascular AEs), serious AEs, and AE-related discontinuations were stratified by LDA subgroups. Overall, 2,317 patients received treatment; 1,157 patients received NAP/ESO and, of these, 298 received LDA. The cumulative incidence of GUs and DUs in the two studies with 6-month follow-up was lower for NAP/ESO vs EC naproxen in both LDA subgroups [GUs: 3.0 vs 27.9%, respectively, for LDA users, 6.4 vs 22.4%, respectively, for LDA non-users (both P < 0.001); DUs: 1.0 vs 5.8% for LDA users, 0.6 vs 5.3% for LDA non-users]. The incidence of erosive gastritis was lower in NAP/ESO- vs EC naproxen-treated patients for both LDA users [18.2 vs 36.5%, respectively (P = 0.004)] and LDA non-users [19.8 vs 38.5%, respectively (P < 0.001)]. Among LDA users, incidences of NSAID-associated upper GI AEs were: NAP/ESO, 16.1%; EC naproxen, 31.7%; celecoxib, 22.1%; placebo, 23.2%. Among LDA non-users, incidences of NSAID-associated upper GI AEs were: NAP/ESO, 20. %; EC naproxen, 36.6%; celecoxib, 18.5%; placebo, 18.9%. For LDA users, incidences of cardiovascular AEs were: NAP/ESO, 3.0%; EC naproxen, 1.0%; celecoxib, 0%; placebo, 0%. For LDA non-users, incidences of cardiovascular AEs were: NAP/ESO, 1.0%; EC naproxen, 0.6%; celecoxib, 0.3%; placebo, 0%. NAP/ESO appears to be well-tolerated in patients receiving concomitant LDA. For LDA users, AE incidence was less than that observed for EC naproxen. For most AE categories, incidences were similar among NAP/ESO, celecoxib and placebo groups. The safety of NAP/ESO appeared similar regardless of LDA use.

Gastrointestinal injury associated with NSAID use: a case study and review of risk factors and preventative strategies

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective anti-inflammatory and analgesic agents and are among the most commonly used classes of medications worldwide. However, their use has been associated with potentially serious dose-dependent gastrointestinal (GI) complications such as upper GI bleeding. GI complications resulting from NSAID use are among the most common drug side effects in the United States, due to the widespread use of NSAIDs. The risk of upper GI complications can occur even with short-term NSAID use, and the rate of events is linear over time with continued use. Although gastroprotective therapies are available, they are underused, and patient and physician awareness and recognition of some of the factors influencing the development of NSAID-related upper GI complications are limited. Herein, we present a case report of a patient experiencing a gastric ulcer following NSAID use and examine some of the risk factors and potential strategies for prevention of upper GI mucosal injuries and associated bleeding following NSAID use. These risk factors include advanced age, previous history of GI injury, and concurrent use of medications such as anticoagulants, aspirin, corticosteroids, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Strategies for prevention of GI injuries include anti-secretory agents, gastroprotective agents, alternative NSAID formulations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Greater awareness of the risk factors and potential therapies for GI complications resulting from NSAID use could help improve outcomes for patients requiring NSAID treatment.

Cyclooxygenase-1 and -2: molecular targets for cervical neoplasia

Cyclooxygenase (COX) is a key enzyme responsible for inflammation, converting arachidonic acid to prostaglandin and thromboxane. COX has at least two isoforms, COX-1 and COX-2. While COX-1 is constitutively expressed in most tissues for maintaining physiologic homeostasis, COX-2 is induced by inflammatory stimuli including cytokines and growth factors. Many studies have shown that COX-2 contributes to cancer development and progression in various types of malignancy including cervical cancer. Human papillomavirus, a necessary cause of cervical cancer, induces COX-2 expression via E5, E6 and E7 oncoproteins, which leads to prostaglandin E2 increase and the loss of E-cadherin, promotes cell proliferation and production of vascular endothelial growth factor. It is strongly suggested that COX-2 is associated with cancer development and progression such as lymph node metastasis. Many studies have suggested that non-selective COX-2 inhibitors such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and selective COX-2 inhibitors might show anti-cancer activity in COX-2 -dependent and -independent manners. Two phase II trials for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer showed that celecoxib increased toxicities associated with radiotherapy. Contrary to these discouraging results, two phase II clinical trials, using rofecoxib and celecoxib, demonstrated the promising chemopreventive effect for patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or 3. However, these agents cause a rare, but serious, cardiovascular complication in spite of gastrointestinal protection in comparison with NSAIDs. Recent pharmacogenomic studies have showed that the new strategy for overcoming the limitation in clinical application of COX-2 inhibitors shed light on the use of them as a chemopreventive method.

Gastroprotection in low-dose aspirin users for primary and secondary prevention of ACS: results of a cost-effectiveness analysis including compliance

PURPOSE

Low-dose aspirin (ASA) increases the risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce these upper GI side effects, yet patient compliance to PPIs is low. We determined the cost-effectiveness of gastroprotective strategies in low-dose ASA users considering ASA and PPI compliance.

METHODS

Using a Markov model we compared four strategies: no medication, ASA monotherapy, ASA+PPI co-therapy and a fixed combination of ASA and PPI for primary and secondary prevention of ACS. The risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), upper GI bleeding and dyspepsia was modeled as a function of compliance and the relative risk of developing these events while using medication. Costs, quality adjusted life years and number of ACS events were evaluated, applying a variable risk of upper GI bleeding. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

For our base case patients using ASA for primary prevention of ACS no medication was superior to ASA monotherapy. PPI co-therapy was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] €10,314) compared to no medication. In secondary prevention, PPI co-therapy was cost-effective (ICER €563) while the fixed combination yielded an ICER < €20,000 only in a population with elevated risk for upper GI bleeding or moderate PPI compliance. PPI co-therapy had the highest probability to be cost-effective in all scenarios. PPI use lowered the overall number of ACS.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering compliance, PPI co-therapy is likely to be cost-effective in patients taking low dose ASA for primary and secondary prevention of ACS, given low PPI prices. In secondary prevention, a fixed combination seems cost-effective in patients with elevated risk for upper GI bleeding or in those with moderate PPI compliance. Both strategies reduced the number of ACS compared to ASA monotherapy.

Patient-reported adherence to coprescribed proton pump inhibitor gastroprotection in osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis patients using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

BACKGROUND

Patients with osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are commonly treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), sometimes with a concomitant gastroprotective proton pump inhibitor (PPI). The present study examines real-life patient adherence to PPIs when coprescribed with NSAIDs.

METHODS

This retrospective medical record survey identified patients diagnosed with OA, RA, or AS who had PPIs coprescribed with NSAIDs for prevention of NSAID-associated gastrointestinal ulcers. Actual NSAID and PPI intake was retrospectively recorded using a self-reported questionnaire. Adherence to PPI treatment was assessed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

In total, 96 patients (69% female, mean age 67 years, 72% OA, 16% RA, 12% AS) were included. The mean patient-reported adherence to coprescribed PPIs was 73%-81%. The percentage of patients with a self-reported adherence of ≤80% was 26%. No predictive factors for low adherence could be identified.

CONCLUSION

Despite doctors' instructions to use PPIs concomitantly with NSAIDs, the mean patient-reported adherence to coprescribed PPIs in this population indicates a risk of a "gastroprotective treatment gap". The patients' adherence to gastroprotective PPIs for the prevention of NSAID-associated upper gastrointestinal ulcers can be improved.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Failure to renew prescriptions for gastroprotective agents to patients on continuous nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increases rate of upper gastrointestinal injury

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with risk factors for gastrointestinal (GI) disorders who continuously use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) also should take gastroprotective agents (GPAs), such as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). However, it is not clear how many physicians continue to prescribe GPAs to these patients, and whether stopping the GPA prescription increases GI complications.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, observational, longitudinal study using a validated electronic database of representative general practitioners in France. We analyzed data for 1856 patients at risk for GI events (>65 y, past history of GI ulcer, or receiving antiplatelet agents) who received prescriptions for an NSAID and PPI from 2007 to 2009. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to determine the probability of still being prescribed a GPA at 12 and 24 months after the first prescription. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with nonpersistence. GI complication rates were compared using the Student t test.

RESULTS

The probability of still being prescribed a PPI along with an NSAID 1 year after the study began was 77.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.6%-79.4%) and 68.3% after 2 years (95% CI, 66.1%-70.4%). Risk factors for no longer receiving a prescription for a PPI included switching to a cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitor (hazard ratio [HR], 2.50; 95% CI, 1.91-3.28; P < .001) or to a nonselective NSAID (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.33-1.99; P < .001), and female sex (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.45; P < .05). In 50% of these cases, the PPI was reintroduced within 6 months, without a specific reason in 70% of the cases. The risk for upper GI injury was higher among patients with discontinued prescriptions for PPIs (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.06-2.09; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Within 2 years after prescribing a PPI, physicians do not renew this prescription for approximately 33% of patients receiving continuous NSAIDs. This increases the risk for GI adverse events among these patients.

Association between adherence to concomitant proton pump inhibitor therapy in current NSAID users and upper gastrointestinal complications

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) play a well-documented role as a gastroprotective agent among NSAID users at an increased risk of peptic ulcer and bleeding. Observational studies have, however, suggested that the clinical efficacy of PPI therapy may be reduced because of poor adherence.

AIM

To study the association between adherence to concomitant PPI in current NSAID users and the risk of peptic ulcer and bleeding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Case-control study linking nationwide data from the Swedish Patient Registry with the Swedish Drug Prescription Database. The study population included patients admitted for a first-time peptic ulcer or bleeding and who were incident users of NSAID. Each case was matched on age, sex, NSAID duration, and calendar month with five controls. PPI adherence was calculated as the proportion of NSAID days being covered by PPI therapy. Matched and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using conditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 3649 cases were identified. Patients with poor adherence (<20% PPI coverage) had a significantly increased risk of upper gastrointestinal complications (OR=1.88, 95% CI 1.22-2.88) compared with fully adherent patients (≥80% PPI coverage). As a continuous variable, the risk of an event increased with 6% points for every 10% decrease in PPI adherence (OR=1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.10).

CONCLUSION

The gastroprotective effect of PPI in NSAID users is highly dependent on adherence, with about twice the risk in patients with poor adherence. Efforts to increase adherence should be an integrated part of clinical practice.

DUEXIS(®) (ibuprofen 800 mg, famotidine 26.6 mg): a new approach to gastroprotection for patients with chronic pain and inflammation who require treatment with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug

Chronic pain conditions affect at least 116 million US adults and more than one-third of adults worldwide. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used extensively for the treatment of chronic pain due to their efficacy as anti-inflammatory and analgesic agents. Gastrointestinal toxicity is the most well known adverse effect of NSAID therapy and it may manifest as dyspepsia, ulcers, or bleeding. Current guidelines for the management of patients who require NSAIDs for chronic pain and inflammation recognize the potential toxicity associated with these drugs and the need for gastroprotection. DUEXIS(®) (ibuprofen 800 mg, famotidine 26.6 mg) is a proprietary combination, immediate release tablet containing 800 mg of ibuprofen and 26.6 mg of famotidine. The efficacy of DUEXIS(®) taken three times daily has been demonstrated in two large-scale controlled clinical trials (Registration Endoscopic Studies to Determine Ulcer Formation of HZT-501 Compared with Ibuprofen: Efficacy and Safety Studies (REDUCE) and REDUCE-2) which showed that this new formulation significantly reduced the risk of endoscopic upper gastrointestinal ulcers compared with ibuprofen alone (REDUCE-1, p < 0.0001, REDUCE-2, p <0.05). DUEXIS(®) was also superior to ibuprofen in decreasing the risk for gastric ulcers (REDUCE-1, p < 0.001, REDUCE-2, p < 0.05) as well as duodenal ulcers (REDUCE-1, p < 0.05, REDUCE-2, p < 0.05). Safety results from these two studies indicated that treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 55% of patients treated with DUEXIS(®)versus 58.7% for ibuprofen, and serious adverse events were recorded for 3.2% of patients treated with DUEXIS(®)versus 3.3% of those on ibuprofen. Adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 6.7% of patients treated with DUEXIS(®) and 7.6% for ibuprofen. The combination of ibuprofen and famotidine in a single tablet has the potential to improve adherence to gastroprotective therapy in patients who require NSAID treatment and the use of a histamine type 2 receptor antagonist rather than a proton-pump inhibitor may decrease the risk for clinically significant drug interactions and adverse events (e.g. interaction with clopidogrel, fracture, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection).

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.

Prescription of and adherence to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and gastroprotective agents in at-risk gastrointestinal patients

OBJECTIVES

Patients with gastrointestinal (GI) risk factors who take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) should also take gastroprotective agents (GPAs). No studies have evaluated adherence and reasons for non-adherence to GPA and NSAID therapies.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, observational, longitudinal study. Patients attending rheumatology/orthopedic clinics who were co-prescribed NSAID plus GPA for at least 15 days and had risk factors for GI complications were followed up by telephone call. Optimal adherence was defined as taking the drug for ≥ 80% of prescribed days. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with non-adherence.

RESULTS

Of 1,232 patients interviewed, 192 were excluded because of inaccurate data. Of the remaining 1,040 patients, 74 % were prescribed low-dose NSAIDs and 99.8 % were prescribed a standard or high-dose GPA. In all, 70 % of NSAIDs and 63.1 % of GPA prescriptions were short term (< 30 days). The majority of patients who were prescribed either an NSAID (92.5 % ) or GPA (85.9 % ) started therapy. Optimal adherence to GPA or NSAIDs was reported by 79.7 % (95 % confidence interval (CI): 76.9-82.2 % ) and 84.1 % (95 % CI: 81.7-86.3 % ) of patients, respectively. More adverse events occurred among patients who reported non-optimal adherence than among patients with optimal adherence to GPA (22.1 vs. 1.9 % , P < 0.0001). As reasons for non-adherence, patients most frequently cited infrequent/low-intensity rheumatic pain (NSAIDs) or forgetfulness (GPAs). Adverse events and short-term treatment were independent factors associated with poor adherence for both NSAIDs and GPAs. History of uncomplicated peptic ulcer and frequent dosing were additional factors associated with non-adherence to NSAIDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Most frequent reasons for non-adherence are infrequent/low-intensity rheumatic pain (NSAIDs) or forgetfulness (GPAs). Short-term treatment and adverse events were associated with poor adherence for both therapies.

Double-blind randomized trials of single-tablet ibuprofen/high-dose famotidine vs. ibuprofen alone for reduction of gastric and duodenal ulcers

OBJECTIVES

We performed two 24-week double-blind trials (REDUCE-1 and -2 (Registration Endoscopic Studies to Determine Ulcer Formation of HZT-501 Compared with Ibuprofen: Efficacy and Safety Studies)) to assess whether double-dose famotidine given in a single-tablet combination with ibuprofen (HZT-501) significantly reduces gastric and duodenal ulcers as compared with ibuprofen.

METHODS

Patients (40-80 years) requiring daily non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for ≥6 months with no prior ulcer complications, negative H. pylori stool test, and baseline endoscopy showing no ulcers and <5 erosions were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to HZT-501 or identical-appearing ibuprofen 800 mg tablets thrice daily. Study endoscopies were done at 8, 16, and 24 weeks. After unblinding and initial analyses, 12 patients were found to be misclassified as having gastric ulcers based on the adjudication of endoscopy reports, and analyses were re-run.

RESULTS

In REDUCE-1, the primary end point analysis of gastric ulcers at 24 weeks with HZT-501 vs. ibuprofen was 12.7% vs. 22.9% (P=0.0044) in the post-adjudication analysis. In REDUCE-2, the primary end point analysis of upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulcers was 13.0% vs. 20.5% (P=0.0587) in the post-adjudication analysis. Prespecified pooled analyses showed significantly fewer gastric (12.5% vs. 20.7%) and duodenal ulcers (1.1% vs. 5.1%) with HZT-501 vs. ibuprofen. Proportional hazards analysis of multiple potential risk factors showed the risk ratio of upper GI ulcers with HZT-501 vs. ibuprofen was 0.46, 95% confidence interval was 0.34-0.61.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined results of the REDUCE studies indicate that double-dose famotidine plus ibuprofen, given as a combination tablet, decreases endoscopic upper GI ulcers as compared with ibuprofen alone.

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

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

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

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

A fixed-dose combination of naproxen and esomeprazole magnesium has comparable upper gastrointestinal tolerability to celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: results from two randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are associated with poor upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tolerability and increased ulcer risk, but patient adherence to gastroprotective co-therapy is frequently inadequate. A fixed-dose combination of enteric-coated naproxen 500 mg and immediate-release esomeprazole magnesium 20 mg was evaluated: efficacy is reported by Hochberg et al. (Curr Med Res Opin 2011;27:1243-53); tolerability findings are reported here. PATIENTS AND METHODS. In two 12-week double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase III studies (PN400-307 and PN400-309), patients aged ≥ 50 years with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis randomly (2:2:1) received naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium BID, celecoxib 200 mg QD, or placebo. Tolerability end-points included: modified Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment (mSODA); heartburn severity; and UGI adverse events (AEs). RESULTS. Overall, 619 (PN400-307) and 615 (PN400-309) patients were randomized; mSODA scores improved (baseline to week 12) in each group, with no significant treatment differences between naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium and celecoxib (95% CIs: PN400-307: -0.4, 1.9; PN400-309: -1.8, 0.6). Naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium-treated patients reported significantly more heartburn-free days versus celecoxib (95% CIs: PN400-307: 2.1, 12.7; PN400-309: 2.5, 13.4). UGI AE incidence (PN400-307: 17.3%; PN400-309: 20.3%) was similar between treatment groups. UGI AEs resulted in few discontinuations (< 4%, either study). CONCLUSIONS. Naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium has comparable UGI tolerability to celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis.

Impact of a fixed-dose combination of naproxen and esomeprazole magnesium on serum thromboxane B2 inhibition by low-dose aspirin over 5 days in healthy adults: a phase I, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Low-dose aspirin (LDA) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used concomitantly; however, some NSAIDs may interfere with LDA antiplatelet activity.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the impact of coadministered enteric-coated naproxen 500 mg and immediate-release esomeprazole magnesium 20 mg (fixed-dose combination) on LDA-mediated platelet cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 inhibition.

METHODS

In this Phase I, single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, healthy volunteers (50-75 years) received enteric-coated LDA 81 mg once daily (QD) on days 1 to 5 (open-label), then enteric-coated LDA 81 mg QD plus either naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium or placebo twice daily (BID) on days 6 to 10 (randomized). Serum thromboxane B(2) (TXB(2)) inhibition from baseline to day 11 was the primary end point. The primary analysis excluded volunteers with ≤95% inhibition at day 6. Assay sensitivity and noninferiority of naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium versus placebo were concluded if the 90% CI lower limit for percent inhibition of TXB(2) was >90.0% in both treatment groups (prespecified criterion). Tolerability was a secondary end point.

RESULTS

Overall, 42 volunteers were enrolled, 40 randomized, and 32 included in the primary pharmacodynamic analysis (day 6 TXB(2) inhibition ≥95%). Most volunteers (86%) were white, and 57% were female. Mean age was 60 (7) years, and mean body mass index was 26.4 (2.6) kg/m(2). Day 11 mean serum TXB(2) inhibition was 99.1% (90% CI, 98.7-99.6) in the LDA plus placebo group (n = 18) versus 99.6% (90% CI, 99.4-99.8) in the LDA plus naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium group (n = 14). Noninferiority of naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium versus placebo was established (CI lower limit >90.0%). Adverse event (AE) incidence was 40% (n = 8/20) in the LDA plus placebo group and 15% (n = 3/20) in the LDA plus naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium group. No serious AEs or discontinuations due to AEs were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot investigation suggests that LDA coadministered with naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium is noninferior to LDA alone for platelet COX-1 inhibition, as measured by serum TXB(2) concentration, in healthy volunteers. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01094483.

Safety aspects and rational use of a naproxen + esomeprazole combination in the treatment of rheumatoid disease

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely prescribed for reduction of pain and inflammation, particularly in the setting of rheumatologic disorders. While effective, they are associated with risks, including nephrotoxicity, gastrointestinal inflammation, peptic ulcer disease, and worsened cardiovascular outcomes. After development of cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibitors to minimize gastrointestinal complications, early use revealed increased cardiovascular event rate risk, and retrospective analysis of traditional NSAIDs revealed similar concerns, with the exception of naproxen. PN400 is a fixed-dose combination formulation designed to provide sequential delivery of a nonenteric-coated, immediate-release esomeprazole 20 mg mantle followed by an enteric-coated naproxen 500 mg core. This review summarizes the pharmacokinetics, benefits, safety, and tolerability of PN400. Phase I trials demonstrated pharmacokinetics consistent with its formulation, and at different esomeprazole combination doses, PN400 containing esomeprazole 20 mg was the lowest dose that still resulted in substantial sustained increases of gastric pH > 4. In two Phase III trials (Study 301 and Study 302), PN400 resulted in a significant reduction in gastric ulcers relative to enteric-coated naproxen (4.1% to 23.1% in Study 301, 7.1% to 24.3% in Study 302). Discontinuation due to NSAID-associated upper gastrointestinal adverse events or duodenal ulcers was significantly less in PN400 patients (3.2% to 12%, P < 0.001, in Study 301; 4.8% to 11.9%, P = 0.009, in Study 302). Two subjective patient indices were utilized to assess tolerability, ie, the Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment (SODA) and Overall Treatment Evaluation of Dyspepsia (OTE-DP). Patients with PN400 had significantly better upper gastrointestinal tolerability compared with those treated with enteric-coated naproxen in terms of SODA scores, proportion of heartburn-free patients, and OTE-DP response. While no formal recommendations are available at this time for use of this new combination medication, it will likely become an important treatment option with application for many patients.

Fixed-dose combination of enteric-coated naproxen and immediate-release esomeprazole has comparable efficacy to celecoxib for knee osteoarthritis: two randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate that a fixed-dose combination of enteric-coated naproxen 500 mg and immediate-release esomeprazole magnesium 20 mg has comparable efficacy to celecoxib for knee osteoarthritis.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Two randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III studies (PN400-307 and PN400-309) enrolled patients aged ≥50 years with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Following an osteoarthritis flare, patients received naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium twice daily, celecoxib 200 mg once daily, or placebo for 12 weeks.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00664560 and NCT00665431.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Three co-primary efficacy endpoints were mean change from baseline to week 12 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and function subscales, and Patient Global Assessment of osteoarthritis using a visual analog scale (PGA-VAS).

RESULTS

In Study 307, 619 patients were randomized and 614 treated. In Study 309, 615 patients were randomized and 610 treated. Both naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium and celecoxib were associated with improvements (least squares mean change from baseline to week 12) in WOMAC pain (Study 307: -42.0 and -41.8, respectively; Study 309: -44.2 and -42.9, respectively), WOMAC function (Study 307: -36.4 and -36.3, respectively; Study 309: -38.9 and -36.8, respectively), and PGA-VAS (Study 307: 21.2 and 21.6, respectively; Study 309: 29.0 and 25.6, respectively). A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10 mm between naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium and celecoxib was satisfied for each co-primary endpoint at week 12 in both studies. Significant improvements were observed with naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium versus placebo in both studies (p < 0.05). Celecoxib was significantly different from placebo in Study 307 (p < 0.05); however, the improvements were not significant in Study 309. Acetaminophen use and patient expectation of receiving active treatment (80% probability) may have contributed to a high placebo response observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium has comparable efficacy to celecoxib for the management of pain associated with osteoarthritis of the knee over 12 weeks.

Pharmacokinetics and relative bioavailability of a fixed-dose combination of enteric-coated naproxen and non-enteric-coated esomeprazole magnesium

This randomized, 4-way crossover study assessed the single-dose pharmacokinetics and relative bioavailability of naproxen and esomeprazole after administration of a fixed-dose combination tablet of enteric-coated (EC) naproxen 500 mg and non-EC esomeprazole magnesium 20 mg (NAP/ESO tablet). Equivalent doses of an EC naproxen tablet plus an EC esomeprazole magnesium capsule taken concomitantly, an EC naproxen tablet alone, or an EC esomeprazole magnesium capsule alone were used as comparators. Forty healthy adults were randomized to receive 4 study treatments with a washout interval ≥12 days. Naproxen plasma profiles were similar between the NAP/ESO tablet and EC naproxen, although median t(max) was longest for the NAP/ESO tablet (5.3 vs 3.5-4.0 hours). Naproxen C(max), AUC(0-∞), and AUC(0-t) showed bioequivalence between naproxen formulations. The NAP/ESO tablet produced much shorter esomeprazole t(max) than the EC esomeprazole formulation (0.45 vs 2.5 hours). Esomeprazole C(max) and AUCs were comparable between the EC esomeprazole formulation administered with or without EC naproxen but were lower with the NAP/ESO tablet. In conclusion, there are no pharmacokinetic drug interactions between naproxen and esomeprazole. The NAP/ESO tablet is bioequivalent to EC naproxen, and as expected, the bioavailability of non-EC esomeprazole from the NAP/ESO tablet is lower than the EC esomeprazole formulation.

Long-term safety of naproxen and esomeprazole magnesium fixed-dose combination: phase III study in patients at risk for NSAID-associated gastric ulcers

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate long-term safety of enteric-coated naproxen 500 mg and immediate-release esomeprazole magnesium 20 mg fixed-dose combination (FDC) in patients at risk of NSAID-associated upper gastrointestinal (UGI) ulcers.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this open-label, multicenter, phase III study, Helicobacter pylori-negative patients aged ≥50 years or 18-49 years with history of uncomplicated ulcer within the past 5 years, who had osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or other condition requiring daily NSAIDs for ≥12 months received naproxen/esomeprazole twice daily for 12 months.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00527904.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Adverse events (AEs), vital signs, physical examination, and laboratory tests. Subgroup analyses included age and low-dose aspirin (LDA) use. Predefined NSAID-associated UGI and cardiovascular AEs were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 239 patients treated (safety population), 135 completed ≥348 treatment days (12-month completers). AE incidence was approximately 70%; dyspepsia, constipation, upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, back pain, and contusion were most frequent (≥5% patients, either population). Treatment-related AEs occurred in 28.0% and 23.7% of patients in the safety and 12-month completer populations, respectively; 18.8% of patients withdrew due to AEs (safety population). Few serious AEs and no deaths occurred. In the safety population, AE incidence was 71.4% and 76.9% in patients aged <65 years (n = 161) and ≥65 years (n = 78), respectively, and 67.6% and 75.8% in LDA users (n = 74) and non-users (n = 165), respectively. Predefined UGI and cardiovascular AEs were observed in 18.8% and 6.3% of patients, respectively, in the safety population, and 16.3% and 5.2%, respectively, in 12-month completers. Dyspepsia and hypertension were most common. Additional assessments showed no unexpected findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these outcome measures, long-term treatment with FDC naproxen/esomeprazole is not associated with any new safety issues, including predefined UGI and cardiovascular AEs, in patients requiring NSAID therapy who are at risk of UGI complications.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical trial: evaluation of gastric acid suppression with three doses of immediate-release esomeprazole in the fixed-dose combination of PN 400 (naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium) compared with naproxen 500 mg and enteric-coated esomeprazole 20 mg: a randomized, open-label, Phase I study in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

PN 400 is a fixed-dose combination formulated to provide sequential delivery of immediate-release (IR) esomeprazole and enteric-coated (EC) naproxen.

AIM

To evaluate gastric acid suppression with three doses of esomeprazole in PN 400 compared with EC esomeprazole 20 mg.

METHODS

In this Phase I, randomized, open-label study, 28 healthy adults received PN 400 b.d. (naproxen 500 mg plus esomeprazole 10, 20 and 30 mg) and non-EC naproxen 500 mg b.d. plus EC esomeprazole 20 mg o.d., each for 9 days in a crossover fashion. The primary endpoint was percentage of time on day 9 that intragastric pH was >4.0; secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics and safety.

RESULTS

Day 9 percentage of time where intragastric pH was >4.0 was 76.5%, 71.4%, 40.9% and 56.9% [corrected] for PN 400 containing 30, 20 and 10 mg esomeprazole, and naproxen plus esomeprazole 20 mg respectively. This was significantly greater for PN 400 containing 30 and 20 mg esomeprazole vs. naproxen plus esomeprazole 20 mg (95% CI: 13.0-26.0 and 7.8-20.7 respectively). The pharmacokinetics of PN 400 were consistent with its formulation. No serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

PN 400 containing 20 mg esomeprazole was the lowest dose to achieve gastric acid suppression comparable to EC esomeprazole 20 mg and was selected for further evaluation.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Uncomplicated peptic ulcer in the UK: trends from 1997 to 2005

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the incidence of uncomplicated peptic ulcer or the trends in factors affecting its incidence.

AIM

To estimate the incidence rate of uncomplicated peptic ulcer in the UK from 1997 to 2005 and report temporal changes in the main known preventive and risk factors.

METHODS

Population-based cohort study of 1 049 689 patients enrolled in The Health Improvement Network in the UK. We estimated the incidence rate of uncomplicated peptic ulcer and evaluated temporal trends in demographic characteristics and prescription patterns for various anti-inflammatory and gastroprotective agents.

RESULTS

Overall uncomplicated peptic ulcer incidence was 0.75 cases per 1000 persons-years, declining from 1.1 to 0.52 cases per 1000 person-years between 1997 and 2005. Distributions of age, gender and alcohol habits were similar in 1997 and 2005. The proportion of documented Helicobacter pylori-negative cases increased from 5% to 12%. Monthly prevalence of subjects with prescriptions for traditional non-aspirin NSAIDs changed from 7.7% to 6.8%, Coxibs from 0% to 0.7%, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) from 2.4% to 7.4%. The proportion of subjects on prescription NSAIDs on PPIs increased continuously over time.

CONCLUSION

A reduction in H. pylori-related peptic ulcers, changing patterns in NSAID use and increasing PPI use may have contributed to a decline in uncomplicated peptic ulcer incidence in the UK.

Cost-utility of celecoxib use in different treatment strategies for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis from the Quebec healthcare system perspective

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-utility of celecoxib in three treatment strategies for arthritis in Quebec, considering both upper gastrointestinal (GI) and cardiovascular (CV) events.

METHODS

A Markov analytic framework was used to model patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis at low/average and high risk of GI and CV toxicity over 5 years with monthly cycles. Treatment strategies were modelled in line with Canadian clinical practice. In first-line treatment, patients started on celecoxib; second-line, patients started on a non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and switched to celecoxib after a first GI event; third-line, patients started on a non-selective NSAID, added a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) after a first GI event, and switched to celecoxib after a second GI event (while maintaining the PPI). Model inputs were determined through comprehensive literature searches (MEDLINE and EMBASE) from 1995 to 2006. Included studies evaluated GI (dyspepsia, uncomplicated and complicated ulcers, death) and CV (myocardial infarction, stroke, death) events. Drug and procedure costs were derived from Canadian published sources (Can$2005).

RESULTS

Total costs per patient for celecoxib first-, second-, and third-line treatment were Can$4,790, $3,390, and $3,466, and total quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were 3.251, 3.231, and 3.230, respectively. In all risk categories, celecoxib second-line was less costly and as effective as celecoxib third-line, producing savings to the healthcare system. Although celecoxib first-line generated incremental expenditures versus celecoxib second-line, it was also more effective. The resulting cost-utility ratio for the high-risk population was Can$54,696/QALY. Based on this analytical approach, a treatment strategy where celecoxib is used before the combination of a non-selective NSAID plus a PPI possesses cost advantages for the Quebec provincial drug programme. One-way sensitivity analysis (varying GI and CV event rates, utilities, and cost) generally showed second-line treatment with celecoxib as the dominant strategy compared with third-line treatment with celecoxib.

CONCLUSION

Although effectiveness of second- and third-line celecoxib use is similar, total cost is lower for second-line. These results suggest that the use of celecoxib before the combination of a non-selective NSAID plus a PPI is relatively cost-effective in the treatment of arthritis pain and support the full benefit listing of celecoxib in Quebec's drug programme.

Sociodemographic factors influence use of proton pump inhibitors among users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most frequently prescribed drugs. Although adequate gastroprotection is indicated in individuals at high risk for upper gastrointestinal complications, underutilization of preventive strategies has been demonstrated. We investigated the utilization of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in high risk, short term users of NSAIDs and assessed the association between sociodemographic factors and the rates at which PPIs are prescribed.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted using data from 2.8 million individuals. Short term use was defined as an isolated period of NSAID use between 7 to 30 days. Logistic regression was performed to determine sociodemographic factors associated with PPI inhibitor use.

RESULTS

A total of 155,825 short term users of NSAID were identified. Of these, 52,842 subjects (33.9%) had 1 or more risk factors; 56.1% of these subjects did not receive PPIs. Utilization was associated with sociodemographic factors of patients (such as older age [odds ratio (OR), 1.80; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.64-1.99], female gender [OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.18], risk factors for upper gastrointestinal complications [OR, 3.72; 95% CI, 3.45-4.00]) and physicians (such as female gender [OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.14], practice in a deprived area [OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.61], or an urban area [OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90]).

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate gastroprotection is not provided to more than 50% of short term users of NSAIDs who are at an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal complications. Utilization is associated with sociodemographic factors of patients and physicians.

Gastroprotection among new chronic users of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a study of utilization and adherence in The Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of gastroprotection (GP) among new chronic users of NSAIDs in the Netherlands by gastrointestinal (GI) risk factor (RF) score.

METHODS

Data for this retrospective follow-up study were extracted from the PHARMO database. We selected new chronic users of COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) or traditional NSAIDs (tNSAIDs) between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2004. GP strategies were defined as: use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI), coxibs or both. GI RF score at index date was based on: history of GI drug use, high dose of NSAIDs, age > 60 years, use of corticosteroids/anticoagulants/SSRIs, rheumatoid arthritis, heart failure or diabetes, with each condition accounting for one factor. Switching was assessed among those with > or = 1 GI RF during the first year of follow-up.

RESULTS

Among 58,770 new chronic NSAID users at index date, 80% used tNSAIDs alone, 8% used tNSAID + PPI, 10% used a coxib alone and 2% used coxib + PPI. Mean (SD) number of GI RF among these groups was 1.6 (2.1), 3.1 (1.3), 1.5 (1.5) and 2.8 (1.3), respectively. Among 48 390 patients (82.3%) with a GI RF score of > or = 1, 20.9% used a GP strategy, this increased with number of GI RFs. Within the first year, 5.3% (n = 2067) and 4.8%(n = 1 843) of tNSAID users with > or = 1 GI RF switched to tNSAID+PPI and coxib alone, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroprotection in users of tNSAIDs was inadequate. Over 80% of NSAID users with > or = 1 GI RF did not receive any gastroprotection, and even when prescribed, a PPI is used only half the time. More research should show if gastroprotection was used for prevention.