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

Fabrication of Polymeric Hydrogels Containing Esomeprazole for Oral Delivery: In Vitro and In Vivo Pharmacokinetic Characterization

Hydrogel is one of the most interesting and excellent candidates for oral drug delivery. The current study focuses on formulation development of hydrogels for controlled oral delivery of esomeprazole. The hydrogels were prepared by solution casting method by dissolving polymers in Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) solution. Calcium alginate, Hydroxyl propyl methylcellulose (HPMC), acrylic acid and chondroitin sulfate were used in the preparation of hydrogels. Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analysis showed no incompatibilities between drug and excipients used in the preparation of formulations. The hydrogels were characterized for size and surface morphology. Drug encapsulation efficiency was measured by Ultraviolet-visible (UV-VIS) spectroscopy. In vitro release studies were carried out using dissolution apparatus. The formulated hydrogels were then compared with the marketed product in vivo using rabbits. The result indicates that prepared hydrogels have a uniform size with a porous surface. The esomeprazole encapsulation efficiency of the prepared hydrogels was found to be 83.1 ± 2.16%. The esomeprazole-loaded hydrogel formulations showed optimum and Pharmacopeial acceptable range swelling behavior. The release of esomeprazole is controlled for 24 h (85.43 ± 0.32% in 24 h). The swelling and release of drug results make the prepared hydrogels a potential candidate for the controlled delivery of esomeprazole. The release of the drug from prepared hydrogel followed the super case transport-2 mechanism. The in vivo studies showed that prepared hydrogel formulations showed controlled and prolonged release of esomeprazole as compared to drug solution and marketed product. The formulations were kept for stability studies; there was no significant change observed in physical parameters, i.e., (appearance, color change and grittiness) at 40 °C ± 2/75% ± RH. There was a negligible difference in the drug content observed after the stability study suggested that all the formulations are stable under the given conditions for 60 days. The current study provides a valuable perspective on the controlled release profile of Hydroxyl propyl methylcellulose (HPMC) and calcium alginate-based esomeprazole hydrogels.

Predictive value of gastrointestinal symptoms and patient risk factors for NSAID-associated gastrointestinal ulcers defined by endoscopy? Insights from a pooled analysis of two naproxen clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat pain and rheumatic conditions. To facilitate patient management, we determined the predictive value of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and risk factors for the development of NSAID-associated GI injuries.

METHODS

Post-hoc analysis of pooled data from naproxen treatment arms of two identical, randomized, double-blind, controlled phase 3 trials in arthritis patients at risk of GI adverse events. Endoscopic incidence of GI ulcers at baseline, and 1, 3, and 6 months was employed as a surrogate parameter for GI injury. For GI symptom analysis, Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment questionnaire was used. For GI risk factor analysis, the high risk factors: previous GI injury, concomitant selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or corticosteroids, ulcer history, concomitant low-dose aspirin, and age >65 years were employed.

RESULTS

Data of 426 naproxen patients were analyzed. Distribution of GI symptoms between patients with and without ulcer was similar; about one third of patients developing an ulcer reported no GI pain symptoms. GI symptoms experienced under naproxen treatment were thus not indicative of GI injury. The proportion of patients developing an ulcer increased with the number of risk factors present, however, about a quarter of patients without any of the analyzed risk factors still developed an ulcer.

CONCLUSION

GI symptoms and the number of risk factors are not reliable predictors of NSAID-induced GI injury to decide which patients need gastroprotection and will lead to a large group of patients with GI injuries. A preventive rather than reactive approach should be taken.

Novel Esomeprazole Magnesium-Loaded Dual-Release Mini-Tablet Polycap: Formulation, Optimization, Characterization, and In Vivo Evaluation in Beagle Dogs

Esomeprazole magnesium (EMP) is a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) that reduces acid secretion. EMP has a short plasma half-life (approximately 1.3 h); hence, nocturnal acid breakthrough (NAB) frequently occurs, disturbing the patient’s nighttime comfort and sleep. We aimed to develop a novel esomeprazole magnesium-loaded dual-release mini-tablet polycap (DR polycap) with a prolonged onset time and improved bioavailability to prevent NAB. The formulation of the EPM mini-tablet core resulted in rapid drug release. The core was coated with an inner coating and an Eudragit^® L30D-55 aqueous dispersion coating to prepare the first-release mini-tablet. In addition, the core was coated with an inner coating and an aqueous dispersion of Eudragit^® S100 and Eudragit^® L100 coating to prepare the second-release mini-tablet. Each mini-tablet type was characterized using an in vitro dissolution test and microscopic examination. After testing, 10 of each mini-tablets were placed together in hard capsules to form DR polycaps. The combination of mini-tablets was optimized via in vitro release testing and in vivo pharmacokinetic studies. The AUC_0–24h of the DR polycap was similar to that of a comparable commercial product (Nexium^®); C_max was lower by approximately 50%, and T_max was extended by approximately 1.7-fold. In conclusion, DR polycap is an alternative to commercial products with improved NAB and dosing compliance because of its dual-release characteristics.

Development, In-Vitro Characterization and Preclinical Evaluation of Esomeprazole-Encapsulated Proniosomal Formulation for the Enhancement of Anti-Ulcer Activity

Objective: The present study aimed to develop and optimize esomeprazole loaded proniosomes (EZL-PNs) to improve bioavailability and therapeutic efficacy. Method: EZL-PNs formulation was developed by slurry method and optimized by 33 box-Bhekhen statistical design software. Span 60 (surfactant), cholesterol, EZL concentration were taken as independent variables and their effects were evaluated on vesicle size (nm), entrapment efficiency (%, EE) and drug release (%, DR). Furthermore, optimized EZL-PNs (EZL-PNs-opt) formulation was evaluated for ex vivo permeation, pharmacokinetic and ulcer protection activity. Result: The EZL-PNs-opt formulation showed 616 ± 13.21 nm of vesicle size, and 81.21 ± 2.35% of EE. EZL-PNs-opt exhibited negative zeta potential and spherical confirmed scanning electron microscopy. EZL-PNs-opt showed sustained release of EZL (95.07 ± 2.10% in 12 h) than pure EZL dispersion. The ex-vivo gut permeation result exhibited a significantly (p < 0.05) enhanced flux than pure EZL. The in vivo results revealed 4.02-fold enhancement in bioavailability and 61.65% protection in ulcer than pure EZL dispersion (43.82%). Conclusion: Our findings revealed that EZL-PNs formulation could be an alternative delivery system of EZL to enhance oral bioavailability and antiulcer activity.

The pharmacotherapeutic management of duodenal and gastric ulcers

INTRODUCTION

Although the incidence and prevalence of duodenal and gastric ulcers have been declining, it remains challenging for health care systems. Based on the underlying cause, history, and characteristics of ulcers, management is generally provided by administering proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or antibiotics.

AREAS COVERED

This article is based on global guidelines and English language literature from the past decade obtained through searches using PubMed, Clinicaltrials.gov, the US FDA, and the Cochrane library. Using a stepwise approach, dose and duration of treatment, drug interactions, warnings and contraindications, adverse effects, and administration points were specified. New drug candidates that may get American and European approvals were also introduced.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the wide use of PPIs, their development lags behind the clinical need. There is an absolute requirement to develop third-generation PPIs with higher potency and improved pharmacokinetic and safety profiles. Regarding the antibiotic resistance crisis, including those used against H. pylori, conducting more clinical trials and investigating regional antibiotic resistance are warranted. Potassium competitive acid blockers, ilaprazole, and an H. pylori vaccine all show promise for the future.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease 2020

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

A comparative study of the efficacy of NAXOZOL compared to celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis

Objective

Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (celecoxib) can minimize the gastrointestinal complications related to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use. NAXOZOL is a new combination formulation designed to provide sequential delivery of a non-enteric-coated, immediate-release esomeprazole strontium tetrahydrate 20 mg mantle followed by an enteric-coated naproxen 500 mg core. However, there have been no studies comparing NAXOZOL to celecoxib with respect to gastrointestinal tract protection and pain relief in patients with osteoarthritis. This study was undertaken to compare the effects of NAXOZOL and celecoxib with respect to gastrointestinal tract protection and pain relief in patients with osteoarthritis.

Methods

The randomized enrolled patients were divided into two treatment groups: a NAXOZOL group and a celecoxib group. All participants received treatments (NAXOZOL, 500/20 mg (naproxen 500 mg, esomeprazole strontium tetrahydrate 20 mg) twice per day versus celecoxib, 200 mg daily) on a 1:1 allocation basis for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire (LDQ) score used for non-inferiority testing. Secondary outcome measures included the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) score, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, European Quality of Life-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) scale and the EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (EQ VAS). Other outcome measures included the use of supplementary or rescue drugs, and the incidence of adverse events.

Results

The baseline-adjusted LDQ scores immediately after 12 weeks of treatment in NAXOZOL group were not inferior to those in celecoxib group. The overall change in the baseline-adjusted GSRS score, VAS score, EQ-5D, and EQ VAS was not different between the two groups. The usage of supplementary drugs and the drug-related incidence of adverse events were not different. However, the days to use rescue drug were longer in celecoxib group than in NAXOZOL group.

Conclusion

NAXOZOL was not inferior to celecoxib in protecting the gastrointestinal tract and providing pain relief in patients with osteoarthritis.

Heartburn and dyspepsia symptom severity improves after treatment and correlates with histology in adults with eosinophilic esophagitis

Non-dysphagia symptoms, such as heartburn and dyspepsia, are poorly characterized in adults with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). It is unclear if treatment improves these symptoms. The aim of this paper was to assess (i) heartburn and dyspepsia symptom severity in adult EoE patients using validated symptom measures; (ii) change in symptoms after treatment; and (iii) symptom association with endoscopic and histologic features. In a prospective cohort of adult EoE patients who were not responsive to proton pump inhibitor therapy, non-dysphagia symptoms were assessed with heartburn items from the validated GERD-HRQL (gastroesophageal reflux disease health-related quality of life) and SODA (severity of dyspepsia assessment) instruments. Subjects completed the questionnaires at baseline and after treatment. Association of baseline symptoms with endoscopic and histologic features, and before and after treatment with diet or topical steroids, was assessed. Eighty-six EoE patients (mean age 39 years, 57% male, 95% white) completed a baseline questionnaire and 62 completed the follow-up questionnaire. The mean baseline GERD-HRQL score was 4.5 ± 6.5 and the mean total SODA score was 41.0 ± 12.6. At baseline, there was a weak but significant correlation between peak eosinophils and the SODA score (r = 0.28; p = 0.03) and no association between heartburn and SODA scores and endoscopic or other histologic findings. After treatment, there was a decrease in GERD-HRQL heartburn (4.3 vs. 2.6; p = 0.04) and SODA (49.5 vs. 35.5; p = 0.04) scores in histologic responders, but not in nonresponders. In a prospective cohort of EoE patients, baseline eosinophils positively correlated with dyspepsia severity. Heartburn and dyspepsia symptoms improved after treatment in histologic responders.

Controlled-release nanoencapsulating microcapsules to combat inflammatory diseases

The World Health Organization (WHO) has reported that globally 235 million people suffer from chronic and other inflammatory diseases. The short half-lives of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and their notoriety in causing gastrointestinal discomforts, warrants these drugs to be released in a controlled and sustained manner. Although polymeric particles have been widely used for drug delivery, there are few reports that showcase their ability in encapsulating and sustaining the release of NSAIDs. In this paper, polymeric nanoencapsulating microcapsules loaded with NSAIDs were fabricated using solid/water/oil/water emulsion solvent evaporation method. Two NSAIDs, ibuprofen and naproxen, were first pre-loaded into nanoparticles and then encapsulated into a larger hollow microcapsule that contained the third NSAID, celecoxib. A high encapsulation efficiency (%) of these NSAIDs was achieved and a sustained release (up to 30 days) of these drugs in phosphate-buffered saline was observed. Then, a gastrointestinal drug - cimetidine (CIM) - was co-loaded with the NSAIDs. This floating delivery system exhibited excellent buoyancy (~88% up to 24 h) in simulated gastric fluid. It also allowed a sequential release of the drugs, whereby an immediate release of CIM followed by NSAIDs was observed. Drug release of the NSAIDs observed Fickian diffusion mechanism, whereas CIM observed non-Fickian diffusion. Therefore, this delivery system is a promising platform to control the delivery of NSAIDs to combat inflammatory diseases, thereby protecting against possible gastrointestinal side effects that may arise from the overuse of NSAIDs.

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.

Clinical importance of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug enteropathy: the relevance of tumor necrosis factor as a promising target

The pathogenesis of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) enteropathy is still unclear, and consequently, there is no approved therapeutic strategy for ameliorating such damage. On the other hand, molecular treatment strategies targeting tumor necrosis factor (TNF) exerts beneficial effects on NSAID-induced intestinal lesions in rodents and rheumatoid arthritis patients. Thus, TNF appears to be a potential therapeutic target for both the prevention and treatment of NSAID enteropathy. However, the causative relationship between TNF and NSAID enteropathy is largely unknown. Currently approved anti-TNF agents are highly expensive and exhibit numerous side effects. Hence, in this review, the pivotal role of TNF in NSAID enteropathy has been summarized and plant-derived polyphenols have been suggested as useful alternative anti-TNF agents because of their ability to suppress TNF activated inflammatory pathways both in vitro and in vivo.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease 2015

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

Comparison of the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of HCP1004 (a fixed-dose combination of naproxen and esomeprazole strontium) and VIMOVO® (a marketed fixed-dose combination of naproxen and esomeprazole magnesium) in healthy volunteers

Background

HCP1004 is a newly developed fixed-dose combination of naproxen (500 mg) and esomeprazole strontium (20 mg) that is used in the treatment of rheumatic diseases and can reduce the risk of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated ulcers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of HCP1004 compared to VIMOVO^® (a marketed fixed-dose combination of naproxen and esomeprazole magnesium).

Subjects and methods

An open-label, randomized, two-treatment, two-sequence crossover, single-dose clinical study was conducted in 70 healthy volunteers. In each period, a reference (VIMOVO^®) or test (HCP1004) drug was administered orally, and serial blood samples for PK analysis were collected up to 72 hours after dosing. To evaluate the PK profiles, the maximum plasma concentration (C_max) and the area under the concentration–time curve from 0 to the last measurable time (AUC_0−t) were estimated using a noncompartmental method. Safety profiles were evaluated throughout the study.

Results

Sixty-six of the 70 subjects completed the study. The C_max (mean ± standard deviation) and AUC_0−t (mean ± standard deviation) for naproxen in HCP1004 were 61.67±15.16 µg/mL and 1,206.52±166.46 h·µg/mL, respectively; in VIMOVO^®; these values were 61.85±14.54 µg/mL and 1,211.44±170.01 h·µg/mL, respectively. The C_max and AUC_0−t for esomeprazole in HCP1004 were 658.21±510.91 ng/mL and 1,109.11±1,111.59 h·ng/mL, respectively; for VIMOVO^®, these values were 595.09±364.23 ng/mL and 1,015.12±952.98 h·ng/mL, respectively. The geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) (HCP1004 to VIMOVO^®) of the C_max and AUC_0−t of naproxen were 0.99 (0.94–1.06) and 1.00 (0.98–1.01), respectively. For esomeprazole, the geometric mean ratios (90% CI) for the C_max and AUC_0−t were 0.99 (0.82–1.18) and 1.04 (0.91–1.18), respectively. The overall results of the safety assessment showed no clinically significant issues for either treatment.

Conclusion

The PK of HCP1004 500/20 mg was comparable to that of VIMOVO^® 500/20 mg for both naproxen and esomeprazole after a single oral dose. Both drugs were well-tolerated without any safety issues.

Gastroprotective efficacy and safety of single-tablet ibuprofen/famotidine vs ibuprofen in older persons

OBJECTIVES

A combination tablet of ibuprofen 800 mg and famotidine 26.6 mg given three times daily is effective for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis and decreases the risk of developing upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulcers. This analysis evaluated the gastroprotective efficacy and safety of the single-tablet combination of ibuprofen/famotidine compared with ibuprofen alone on the basis of age and the presence of one or more risk factors for development of upper GI ulcer.

METHODS

Pooled data from the 24-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group REDUCE-1 and REDUCE-2 trials were used. Endoscopies were performed in patients aged 40-80 years. The proportion of patients who developed ≥ 1 upper GI ulcer during treatment with ibuprofen/famotidine versus ibuprofen alone stratified on the basis of age (< 60 or ≥ 60 years) was evaluated. Further, analyses were performed on additional risk factors for ulcer development.

RESULTS

Gastroprotective efficacy of the combination was not affected by age. Pooled results demonstrated statistically significantly fewer upper GI (10.0 vs 19.5%, p < 0.0001), gastric (8.9 vs 16.8%, p = 0.0004), and duodenal ulcers (1.1 vs 5.4%, p < 0.0001) in patients < 60 years treated with ibuprofen/famotidine versus ibuprofen alone compared with 12.9 vs 26.6% (p = 0.0002), 11.9 vs 23.4% (p = 0.0011), and 1.0 vs 4.5% (p = 0.0096), respectively, in patients ≥ 60 years. The ibuprofen/famotidine combination provided nearly 51 and 59% reduction in the risk of developing a GI ulcer in patients <60 years and ≥ 60 of age, respectively. Efficacy was maintained in the presence of additional risk factors, as well.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that the fixed-combination of ibuprofen/famotidine provides gastroprotection in those of older age, with or without additional risk factors for the development of upper GI ulcers, as compared with ibuprofen alone. US National Institutes of Health registry, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00450658 and NCT00450216.

Prevention of chemically induced urinary bladder cancers by naproxen: protocols to reduce gastric toxicity in humans do not alter preventive efficacy

The COX inhibitors (NSAID/Coxibs) are a major focus for the chemoprevention of cancer. The COX-2-specific inhibitors have progressed to clinical trials and have shown preventive efficacy in colon and skin cancers. However, they have significant adverse cardiovascular effects. Certain NSAIDs (e.g., naproxen) have a good cardiac profile, but can cause gastric toxicity. The present study examined protocols to reduce this toxicity of naproxen. Female Fischer-344 rats were treated weekly with the urinary bladder-specific carcinogen hydroxybutyl(butyl)nitrosamine (OH-BBN) for 8 weeks. Rats were dosed daily with NPX (40 mg/kg body weight/day, gavage) or with the proton pump inhibitor omeprazole (4.0 mg/kg body weight/day) either singly or in combination beginning 2 weeks after the final OH-BBN. OH-BBN-treated rats, 96% developed urinary bladder cancers. While omeprazole alone was ineffective (97% cancers), naproxen alone or combined with omeprazole-prevented cancers, yielding 27 and 35% cancers, respectively. In a separate study, OH-BBN -: treated rats were administered naproxen: (A) daily, (B) 1 week daily naproxen/1week vehicle, (C) 3 weeks daily naproxen/3 week vehicle, or (D) daily vehicle beginning 2 weeks after last OH-BBN treatment. In the intermittent dosing study, protocol A, B, C, and D resulted in palpable cancers in 27%, 22%, 19%, and 96% of rats (P < 0.01). Short-term naproxen treatment increased apoptosis, but did not alter proliferation in the urinary bladder cancers. Two different protocols that should decrease the gastric toxicity of NSAIDs in humans did not alter chemopreventive efficacy. This should encourage the use of NSAIDs (e.g., naproxen) in clinical prevention trials.

One-year open-label safety evaluation of the fixed combination of ibuprofen and famotidine with a prospective analysis of dyspepsia

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term safety of the single-tablet combination of ibuprofen 800 mg and famotidine 26.6 mg.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A phase 3b open-label study (NCT00984815) was conducted in 86 adults requiring daily non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administration for ≥12 months. The combination tablet of ibuprofen/famotidine was self-administered orally three times daily for up to 54 consecutive weeks. Adverse events (AEs) were collected beginning at the first dose and continued through completion (54 weeks). The Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment (SODA) questionnaire was completed by patients to assess tolerability.

RESULTS

Most patients (65%) finished the trial, with 76% contributing data at 6 months, and 21% withdrew due to adverse effects. Overall and gastrointestinal AE discontinuation rates (21% and 13%, respectively) were lower than that previously reported with ibuprofen 2400 mg given alone. Each of the SODA subscale scores demonstrated improvement by week 6 and improved statistically significantly at week 24 and week 54. Of the cardiovascular AEs, hypertension was reported most frequently (9/86, 9.3%), with 3.5% determined to be drug related. Twelve serious AEs were reported by 9 of 86 (10%) patients; two were considered possibly related to the study medication (unstable angina and gastric ulcer). There were no reports of serious gastrointestinal or CV complications. Most AEs were mild or moderate in severity and not considered drug related.

CONCLUSIONS

These data, together with previously reported findings of a significant decrease in upper gastrointestinal endoscopic ulcer rate at 6 months, support the overall safety, compliance, and tolerability of this single-tablet formulation.

One-year safety of ibuprofen/famotidine fixed combination versus ibuprofen alone: pooled analyses of two 24-week randomized, double-blind trials and a follow-on extension

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of the fixed combination of ibuprofen and famotidine compared with ibuprofen alone from two 24-week, multicenter, double-blind trials designed to evaluate the comparative incidence of endoscopically documented upper gastrointestinal ulcers and a 28-week double-blind extension study.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Safety was analyzed by pooling data from the two double-blind trials and the follow-on study. Safety was assessed by monitoring the incidence, causality, and severity of adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

In the pivotal efficacy and safety trials, discontinuation rates due to any cause and dyspepsia were significantly lower for the ibuprofen/famotidine combination versus ibuprofen alone. Other than dyspepsia, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular AEs of special interest were similar. Events judged to be treatment related were significantly lower with the ibuprofen/famotidine combination (20.6% vs. 25%). In the safety extension population, there were no differences in the discontinuation rates and the reporting of AEs or serious AEs (SAEs) between the two groups. Gastrointestinal-related events were similar between the groups. Incidence of cardiovascular-related AEs of special interest were 11% (ibuprofen/famotidine) and 2% (ibuprofen) (p=0.06), possibly due to a higher number of rheumatoid arthritis patients in the combination group. Of these, 80% were reports of hypertension (8% ibuprofen/famotidine vs. 2% ibuprofen). Three cases of hypertension in the ibuprofen/famotidine group were considered treatment related. The probability of a cardiovascular event decreased during days 112-167 of treatment and remained low with continued treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

One-year safety data from two pivotal trials and a long-term extension study indicate that the ibuprofen/famotidine combination demonstrates a favorable gastrointestinal safety profile and more patients continued on therapy compared to ibuprofen alone. No new safety signals have been identified. These data offer additional evidence supporting a new therapeutic option to improve gastrointestinal safety and adherence for patients who require long-term ibuprofen.

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.

Pharmacokinetic comparison study of a combination containing 500 mg of Naproxen and 20 mg of Esomeprazole: a randomized, single-dose, 2-way crossover, open-label study in healthy Korean men

PURPOSE

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been used for analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antithrombotic effects, but they carry a risk of major gastrointestinal damage. This risk can be greatly reduced by the coadministration of inhibitors of gastric acid secretion, such as proton pump inhibitors. This study was performed for the subsequent marketing of a combination drug that contained 500 mg of naproxen and 20 mg of esomeprazole in Korea. We evaluated the comparative bioavailability and tolerability of the test and reference formulations in healthy men.

METHODS

A total of 60 healthy men were enrolled in this single-dose, randomized, open-label, 2-period, 2-sequence, crossover study. During each period, men received a combination of 500 mg of naproxen and 20 mg of esomeprazole for test or reference, and between each period, there was a 1-week washout period. Blood samples were obtained 21 times throughout each period before dosing and 0.17, 0.33, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after oral administration. Plasma concentrations were determined using LC-MS/MS. The pharmacokinetic parameters, including Cmax, AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Tmax, were measured, and all treatment-emergent adverse events and their associations with the study medications were recorded throughout the entire study.

FINDINGS

A total of 59 men completed the study. No significant differences were found in the prevalence of AEs between the 2 formulations. In addition, there were no serious or unexpected AEs during the study. Both formulations had very similar Cmax, AUC, and t½ values, but the Tmax of naproxen appeared earlier in the test formulation than in the reference formulation and that of esomeprazole appeared later in the test formulation than in the reference formulation.

IMPLICATIONS

This study suggests that the test and reference formulations of a combination of 500 mg of naproxen and 20 mg of esomeprazole are bioequivalent in the extent of absorption and peak concentration. We anticipate that the test formulation will treat those who need relief from pain and inflammation and will decrease the risk of developing gastric ulcers. cris.nih.go.kr identifier: KCT0001117.

A novel ion-pair RP-HPLC method for simultaneous quantification of naproxen and esomeprazole in pharmaceutical formulations

A rapid, sensitive and stability indicating ion-pair reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatographic method was developed for simultaneous estimation of naproxen (NPX) and esomeprazole (ESP) in pharmaceutical preparations. In our study, this new method was used to overcome the instability problem of ESP during high-performance liquid chromatographic analysis in the presence of acidic drugs such as NPX. The method was validated according to ICH, FDA and USP guidelines with respect to accuracy, precision, specificity, linearity, solution stability, robustness, sensitivity and system suitability. The method was developed by using an isocratic condition of mobile phase comprising buffer [tetrabutylammonium hydroxide (0.0077 M) and n-heptane sulfonic acid-Na salt (0.002 M), pH 7.6], acetonitrile and methanol in a 60 : 20 : 20 v/v/v ratio at a flow rate of 1.5 mL/min over a C-18 (Octadecyl-silica, 5 µm, 250 × 4.6 mm) column at ambient temperature. The recovery for both drugs was found to be >99% which demonstrated the accuracy of this method. Intra- and inter-day precision studies of the new method were less than the maximum allowable limit [% relative standard deviation (RSD) ≤2.0 according to FDA]. The method showed linear response with a correlation coefficient (r(2)) value of 0.999 for both drugs. More importantly, ESP was quite stable in diluting solvent and mobile phase in the presence of NPX for >3 days. Therefore, it was found to be an accurate, reproducible, sensitive and highly stability-indicating method and can be successfully applied for routine analysis of simultaneous assay of NPX and ESP in pharmaceutical dosage forms.

Advice from professional societies: appropriate use of NSAIDs

OBJECTIVE

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are some of the most commonly used medications due to their well-known analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic actions. Due to their known benefits and inherent risks, there have been multiple guidelines from national professional societies that suggest appropriate use to provide both maximum benefit and mitigate risk of adverse events, particularly in older individuals.

DESIGN

A literature search was undertaken using PubMed and search terms including pain, aging, treatment, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, arthritis, older patient, and guidelines. Practice guideline reviews were conducted from the following sources: American Geriatric Society, American College of Rheumatology, and the European League Against Rheumatism suggesting the appropriate and safer use of NSAIDs, along with references to guidelines product by Osteoarthritis Research International, the American Gastroenterological Association.

CONCLUSIONS

Literature-based and professional society guidelines provides clinicians with means optimize efficacy and safety of NSAIDs in clinical practice. Summary recommendations are provided in this review.

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.

Use of NSAIDs in treating patients with arthritis

Patients with rheumatic diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis, almost universally describe pain and stiffness as important contributors to reduced health-related quality of life. Of the treatment options available, NSAIDs are the most widely used agents for symptomatic treatment. NSAIDs are effective anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs by virtue of their ability to inhibit biosynthesis of prostaglandins at the level of the cyclooxygenase enzyme. However, many of the adverse effects of NSAIDs are also related to inhibition of prostaglandin production, making their use problematic in some patient populations. For the clinician, understanding the biology of prostaglandin as it relates to gastrointestinal, renal, and cardiovascular physiology and the pharmacologic properties of specific NSAIDs is key to using these drugs safely. Of particular importance is the recognition of co-morbid conditions and concomitant drugs that may increase the risk of NSAIDs in particular patients. In patients with risk factors for NSAID toxicity, using the lowest dose of a drug with a short half-life only when it is needed is likely to be the safest treatment option. For those patients whose symptoms cannot be managed with intermittent treatment, using protective strategies is essential.

Endoscopic ulcers as a surrogate marker of NSAID-induced mucosal damage

The characteristic of a biomarker that makes it a useful surrogate is the ability to identify a high risk of clinically important benefits or harms occurring in the future. A number of definitions or descriptions of surrogate definition have been put forward. Most recently the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences in the USA has put forward an evaluation scheme for biomarkers, looking at validation (assay performance), qualification (assessment of evidence), and utilisation (the context in which the surrogate is to be used). This paper examines the example of endoscopy as a surrogate marker of NSAID-induced mucosal damage using the Institute of Medicine criteria. The article finds extensive evidence that the detection of endoscopic ulcers is a valid marker. The process of qualification documents abundant evidence showing that endoscopic ulcers and serious upper gastrointestinal damage are influenced in the same direction and much the same magnitude by a variety of risk factors and interventions. Criticisms of validation and qualification for endoscopic ulcers have been examined, and dismissed. Context is the key, and in the context of serious NSAID-induced upper gastrointestinal harm, endoscopic ulcers represent a useful surrogate. Generalisability beyond this context is not considered.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets compared with non-specific NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors: a systematic review and network analyses

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as non-selective NSAIDs (nsNSAIDs) or selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, are commonly prescribed for arthritic pain relief in patients with osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), or ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Treatment guidelines for chronic NSAID therapy include the consideration for gastroprotection for those at risk of gastric ulcers (GUs) associated with the chronic NSAID therapy. The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets for the relief of signs and symptoms of OA, RA, and AS, and to decrease the risk of developing GUs in patients at risk of developing NSAID-associated GUs. The European Medical Association has approved this therapy for the symptomatic treatment of OA, RA, and AS in patients who are at risk of developing NSAID-associated GUs and/or duodenal ulcers, for whom treatment with lower doses of naproxen or other NSAIDs is not considered sufficient. Naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets have been compared with naproxen and celecoxib for these indications in head-to-head trials. This systematic literature review and network meta-analyses of data from randomized controlled trials was performed to compare naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets with a number of additional relevant comparators. For this study, an original review examined MEDLINE®, Embase®, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register from database start to April 14, 2009. Using the same methodology, a review update was conducted to December 21, 2009. The systematic review and network analyses showed naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets have an improved upper gastrointestinal tolerability profile (dyspepsia and gastric or gastroduodenal ulcers) over several active comparators (naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, ketoprofen, etoricoxib, and fixed-dose diclofenac sodium plus misoprostol), and are equally effective as all active comparators in treating arthritic symptoms in patients with OA, RA, and AS. Naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets are therefore a valuable option for treating arthritic symptoms in eligible patients with OA, RA, and AS.

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).

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.

Acid-NSAID/aspirin interaction in peptic ulcer disease

The presence of gastric acid plays a critical role in the mechanisms of NSAIDs/aspirin-associated gastric and duodenal mucosal injury and ulceration. The role of gastric acid and its relationship to NSAIDs/aspirin in mucosal damage, ulcer and ulcer complications continues to be an important concern because of the increasing worldwide use of NSAIDs and aspirin. Acid suppression continues to be an important prevention strategy for NSAID-associated gastric and duodenal ulcer and ulcer complications. While a coxib or an NSAID and PPI in combination are considered to have comparable safety profiles, the evidence from direct comparisons in high-risk patients is limited, and the cardiovascular safety of coxibs and NSAIDs remains a concern especially in patients with a high risk of cardiovascular disease. An evaluation of individual gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks and benefits, selection of the most appropriate NSAID and dose for each particular patient should always be emphasized. Twice daily PPI is more appropriate to protect a patient who is taking NSAIDs twice daily. PPI co-therapy is still recommended in patients receiving dual antiplatelet treatment, although conflicting results have been reported about adverse drug interactions between PPIs and clopidogrel.

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.

What you need to know when you prescribe a proton pump inhibitor

Ever since they were launched, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been regarded as profligate prescription interventions and have become a favourite target for pharmacy advisers. Now that they are cheap, with generic omeprazole 20 mg daily costing £1.88 per month (£24.51 per annum) in the UK, it is time to ask whether this status should be reviewed, whether there are areas where the message should be reversed and whether there are any circumstances in which the extra cost of branded PPIs or combined preparations is justified. Equally, with the recognition of an extended toxicity profile, is prescribing profligacy not an economic but a safety issue?

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.

Annual drug update: 2010 in review

In 2010, the FDA approved several new drugs and new indications for use in primary care. From new therapies for adults with rheumatoid arthritis to a combination drug for benign prostatic hyperplasia, NPs need to be aware of the latest medications now available.