Short term treatment of gastric ulcer: a comparison of sucralfate and cimetidine

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.

What are the current possibilities in treating peptic ulcer disease?

There are two major principles of ulcer therapy. Today, the most widely accepted drugs are those which substantially reduce aggressive factors (i.c. acid and pepsin), namely histamine H2-receptor antagonists, antimuscarinics and antacids. Less frequently applied are mucoprotective agents like colloidal bismuth compounds and sucralfate. Prostaglandins both reduce acid secretion substantially and are believed to enhance mucosal resistance. Their anti-ulcer efficacy, however, is solely explicable by their antisecretory activity. Although mucosa-strengthening agents and H2-receptor blockers have nearly identical healing rates, mucosa-strengthening agents have inconvenient dosage regimens (four times or twice daily) and are probably less effective in relieving pain. The same holds true for antacids. Prostaglandins, antimuscarinics and antacids have dose related side effects. In contrast, H2-receptor blockers are characterized by a clear mechanism of action, convenient dosage regimens, good tolerance and a low incidence of side-effects. H2-receptor antagonists are the most effective anti-ulcer drugs presently available.

Policy analysis of the conversion of histamine2 antagonists to over-the-counter use

OBJECTIVES

The authors assess the costs associated with treatment of dyspepsia with histamine2 antagonists versus without availability of over-the-counter (OTC).

METHODS

A cost analysis was performed using a decision-analysis model. Patients with an initial episode of dyspepsia were studied. The model includes costs associated with consumption of OTC and prescription (Rx) medications for dyspepsia, physician visits and associated diagnostic testing, time spent for physician visits and diagnostic tests, and hospitalization costs.

RESULTS

The model is sensitive to the relative cost of histamine2 antagonists when purchased Rx or OTC, as well as to the efficacy of these drugs in relieving dyspeptic symptoms. For patients with nonulcer dyspepsia (the largest group of likely consumers), the model demonstrates a cost savings if the OTC cost of the medication is slightly less than one third the Rx cost. Costs are similar whether or not histamine2 antagonists are available OTC. If the symptom relief efficacies of histamine2 antagonists are equivalent whether purchased by prescription only or OTC, then the health-care expenditures for a typical patient with dyspepsia are $204 for OTC availability and $203 for Rx-only use. Viewing costs from the perspective of a managed-care organization, expenditures for an episode of dyspepsia are $149 regardless of whether or not histamine2 antagonists are available OTC. Restricting the analysis to patients with underlying nonulcer dyspepsia yields similar results. Variation of numerous assumptions and probabilities other than histamine antagonist cost and efficacy, including costs associated with physician visits and diagnostic tests, and the likelihood of seeking medical care, do not substantially affect the results of the model.

CONCLUSIONS

Health-care costs associated with initial treatment of dyspepsia are similar regardless of the availability of histamine2 antagonists OTC. This is due largely to the similar efficacy of these drugs compared with antacids and the predicted increase in diagnostic testing that may result if a patient visits a physician after failure to achieve symptom relief with OTC use of histamine2 antagonists.

Short-term treatment of gastric ulcer. A meta-analytical evaluation of blind trials

Gastric ulcer is relatively infrequent, and clinical trails are often based on small-sized samples. The aim of this study was to define the "gold standard" therapy of active gastric ulcer. We included all single- or double-blind clinical trials on the short-term treatment of gastric ulcer. All the articles published over the period 1977-1994 were reviewed. Meta-analysis was done with both fixed and random effect models; results were shown using Galbraith's radial plot. Forty-eight papers comprising 52 studies were evaluated. Cimetidine, ranitidine, and famotidine proved significantly better than placebo [odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI 95%) at four to six weeks were: 2.67 (2.03-3.52), 3.94 (2.28-6.80), 1.76 (1.08-2.88), respectively]. Cimetidine and ranitidine had results comparable with the newer H2 blockers [OR (CI 95%) at four weeks: 1.16 (0.91-1.47), 1.11 (0.80-1.55), respectively]. H2 blockers were proved comparable with either sucralfate [OR (CI 95%) at eight weeks: 0.81 (0.37-1.79)] or bismuth [OR (CI 95%) at four to six weeks: 0.67 (0.37-1.20)]. Omeprazole is more effective than H2 blockers [OR (CI 95%) at four weeks: 2.00 (1.57-2.55)]. It is concluded that H2 blockers are preferred to either a placebo or sucralfate for short-term gastric ulcer treatment; the newer H2 blockers do not have significant advantages over the older types; omeprazole can be regarded as the "gold standard" for active gastric ulcer treatment.

Comparison of sucralfate and ranitidine in the treatment of duodenal ulcers

Ninety patients with endoscopically proven duodenal ulcers, enrolled in this prospective, single-blind study, were randomized to sucralfate, 1 g q.i.d., 0.5 hour before meals on an empty stomach or at bedtime, or ranitidine, 150 mg b.i.d., for 4-8 weeks (phase I). Patients who healed during the treatment period were invited to participate in a maintenance therapy follow-up covering 1 year (phase II), during which they were treated with sucralfate, 1 g b.i.d. (before breakfast and at bedtime) or 150 mg of ranitidine at bedtime. After 4 weeks of treatment, healing rates were 30/40 (75.0%) with sucralfate and 36/42 (85.7%) with ranitidine, and healing rates were 39/40 (97.6%) and 40/42 (95.2%) respectively, after 8 weeks of treatment. At the end of the 6th and 12th months of phase II, respectively, relapse rates were 3/33 (9.4%) and 10/32 (31.3%) in the sucralfate group and 5/33 (15.2%) and 10/29 (34.5%) in the ranitidine group. Differences between sucralfate- and ranitidine-treated groups were not significant. Both treatments were well tolerated. We conclude that sucralfate is as effective and safe as ranitidine in the short-term treatment and prevention of relapse in patients with ulcer disease.

Clinical efficacy of sucralfate in the treatment of gastric ulcer

We performed a randomized, single-blind study in Japan to investigate the efficacy and safety of two dosage regimens of sucralfate granules, 2 g, twice daily (b.i.d. group, n = 30) and 1 g, 4 times daily (q.i.d. group, n = 27), on ulcer healing in 57 patients with endoscopically proven gastric ulcer. Endoscopy was performed after 4 weeks and, if complete healing was not achieved, again after an additional 4 weeks. Of 57 patients, 11 were excluded from the statistical analysis because of protocol violation (six in b.i.d. group, five in q.i.d. group). Of 46 patients eligible for the analysis of healing rates, four patients in the b.i.d. group (all at 8 weeks) and five patients in the q.i.d. group (two at 4 weeks and three at 8 weeks) were withdrawn due to patients' inconvenience. As the possibility that the withdrawals were due to the treatment failures could not be denied, we used the Kaplan-Meier method and generalized Wilcoxon test/logrank test for the calculation and evaluation of healing rates in this study, respectively. Healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks were 50% and 94% in the b.i.d. group and 35% and 68% in the q.i.d. group. There was no significant difference in healing rates between the groups. No serious adverse effect was observed in either group. These results suggest that the 2 g b.i.d. dose of sucralfate in granule form is at least as effective as the conventional dose of 1 g q.i.d. in the treatment of active gastric ulcers and could lead to better patient compliance.

Comparative study of sucralfate 2 grams twice daily versus sucralfate 1 gram four times daily in the treatment of benign gastric ulcers in outpatients

In a double-blind, randomized study, we compared the healing of gastric ulcer during a twice-daily regimen of 2 g sucralfate or sucralfate 1 g q.i.d. Patients receiving the former therapy received the tablets one-half hour before breakfast and at bedtime. Patients receiving sucralfate 1 g q.i.d. received their therapy 30 minutes before breakfast, lunch, and supper, and at bedtime. The study included 52 patients with endoscopically proven gastric ulcer; 41 patients completed the study. Healing was endoscopically assessed at 8 weeks and 12 weeks. After 8 and 12 weeks the healing rate for sucralfate 2 g b.i.d. was 67% and 92%, respectively; the healing rate of sucralfate 1 g q.i.d. was 59% and 71%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the two regimens. The results suggest that 2 g sucralfate twice daily is as effective in the healing of gastric ulcer as 1 g sucralfate q.i.d.

Peptic ulcer disease. How to treat it now

Options for treatment of peptic ulcer disease are becoming more diverse. Most new agents are effective yet offer no real advantage over more traditional therapy. However, omeprazole (Prilosec) may be of benefit owing to its potent inhibition of acid secretion, but it is not yet approved for this purpose. Whether treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection will prove beneficial is not yet known, but the answer should be forthcoming. Finally, as with any disease process, alleviation of risk factors is always important. Appropriate counseling regarding use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cigarette smoking is a necessity.

Peptic ulcer in geriatric long-term care medicine

This study was based upon deceased patients in a geriatric university hospital with a high autopsy rate (81%). Of 6200 autopsied patients, 333 (5.4%) had had an active peptic ulcer; agonal and other acute erosions were not included. 257 cases were selected for the study (average age 83.8 yr). The diagnostic accuracy, and the symptoms of peptic ulcer in stationary, elderly, chronically ill patients were studied retrospectively. Only 16% of cases with duodenal ulcer and 29% with gastric ulcer had been correctly diagnosed antemortem. The clinical features of ulcer disease in the elderly may often differ from the standard presentation in younger people. Prior to death, appetite and weight loss, nausea/vomiting, anaemia and positive occult blood test had been more common among patients with ulcer, than abdominal pain and heartburn. The predictive values of single symptoms and of combined findings were low (range 2-21%), thus supporting observations from clinical practice that diagnosis is difficult in geriatric medicine. Prospective studies of ulcer disease in living elderly are needed.

Cimetidine and adverse reactions: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of short-term therapy

PURPOSE

We pooled data from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials to determine the frequency of adverse reactions among patients treated with cimetidine for acute acid-peptic disorders.

METHODS

Meta-analysis was used to analyze data obtained from a search of English language reports of trials of cimetidine in the ambulatory treatment of acute acid-peptic disorders that were published between January 1982 and April 1987.

RESULTS

Of 161 trials of cimetidine that we identified, 84 provided complete reporting of data on adverse reactions and, of these, 24 employed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design. Across these 24 trials, the overall rate of reported adverse reactions among 622 patients randomly assigned to receive cimetidine was 10.9%; the corresponding rate among 516 patients randomly assigned to receive placebo was 10.1%. This difference was not statistically significant (p greater than 0.10), nor were any significant differences noted in the frequencies of reported central nervous system or gastrointestinal adverse reactions (p greater than 0.10). Rates of adverse reactions also did not differ by dosage or trial duration. The overall rate of adverse reactions reported in the 60 trials that did not utilize a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design was similar to the rate reported in those that did.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the frequency of adverse reactions among patients receiving cimetidine for acute acid-peptic disorders is not significantly different from that of patients receiving placebo.

Sclerotherapy-associated esophageal ulcers: lessons from a double-blind, randomized comparison of sucralfate suspension versus placebo

We undertook a double-blind randomized trial to assess whether sucralfate suspension would accelerate healing of sclerotherapy-associated esophageal ulcers. Consecutive patients who underwent sclerotherapy were evaluated. Patients were prospectively endoscoped 4 days (range, 3 to 5 days) after sclerotherapy. Those with ulcers greater than 5 mm in diameter were randomized to receive sucralfate suspension, 4 g/day (10 ml four times a day), or placebo. Endoscopic evaluations were done weekly for the 4 weeks of therapy. Nineteen patients survived long enough to be evaluated; complete ulcer healing was scored as success. Nine patients (13 ulcers) received sucralfate and 10 patients (17 ulcers) received placebo. At the end of 4 weeks, 78% of ulcers in sucralfate-treated patients had healed compared with 40% in the placebo group (p = not significant). Large ulcers were found to heal more slowly (p = 0.03, life table analysis) and small ulcers were disproportionally represented in patients receiving sucralfate (67% compared with 40% in the placebo group). When ulcer size was taken into account, the possible drug advantage disappeared; ulcer size appears to be a major determinant of rate of healing of sclerotherapy-associated esophageal ulcers. A large multicenter trial will be required to identify whether sucralfate accelerates postsclerotherapy esophageal ulcer healing.

Two daily doses of sucralfate or cimetidine in the healing of gastric ulcer. A comparative randomized study

A double-blind, randomized study compared the healing of gastric ulcer during a twice-daily regimen of 2 g sucralfate or 400 mg cimetidine. The patients received the tablets one-half hour before breakfast and one-half hour before bedtime. The study included 76 patients with endoscopically proven gastric ulcer. Patients with ulcers less than 3 cm from the pyloric ring and patients with ulcers less than 3 mm in diameter were excluded from the study. Sixty-four patients completed the study. Healing was endoscopically assessed at four-week intervals for 12 weeks. After four, eight, and 12 weeks, the healing rates for cimetidine were 55, 81, and 94 percent, respectively; the healing rates for sucralfate were 52, 79, and 91 percent, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the two regimens. At 12 weeks, the risk of overlooking a difference in favor of one of the two dosage regimens was less than 20 percent. The results suggest that 2 g sucralfate twice daily is as effective in the healing of gastric ulcer as 400 mg cimetidine twice daily.

Diarrhoea and constipation

Drug-induced constipation is mostly caused by changes in gut motility, whilst diarrhoea is more frequently caused by an increase in intestinal fluid secretion. In both instances the drug has to reach the enteric nervous system or the enterocyte, either via the blood or from the lumen, in sufficient concentrations to affect the mediators that regulate motility and fluid transport. Diarrhoea and constipation are frequently mentioned as side-effects of drugs, and therapeutic agents for almost all organ systems have been implicated. However, both these side-effects are usually mild or moderate, and rarely necessitate interruption of drug treatment. An exception to this rule is the antibiotic-associated colitis seen in patients treated with antibiotics such as lincomycin or clindamycin; in principle almost all antibiotics may cause this severe and potentially life-threatening complication. Other rare forms of severe, drug-induced colitis and diarrhoea result from toxic or anaphylactic reactions against gold preparations, cytostatic agents and sulphonamides. Ischaemic colitis due to vascular complications has been described in some women taking oral contraceptives, and in patients treated with vasopressin or digitalis.

Impact of endoscopy on mortality from occult cancer in radiographically benign gastric ulcers. A probability analysis model

Endoscopy is commonly used in the management of patients with radiographically benign gastric ulcers to detect occult malignancy. Clinical studies examining the cost-effectiveness of using endoscopy in such patients, however, have not been done. To address this issue using probability analysis, a probability tree was designed incorporating the possible clinical courses of patients with radiographically benign gastric ulcers managed with and without endoscopy, and probability estimates for each course were derived by compiling data from the literature. Probability and sensitivity analysis was used to compare the impact on overall mortality rate and cost-effectiveness of six commonly practiced methods of using endoscopy to manage patients with radiographically benign gastric ulcers: (1) all follow-up by upper gastrointestinal x-ray only; (2) endoscopy for nonhealing ulcers only; (3) endoscopy for all ulcers before medical therapy with all follow-up by upper gastrointestinal x-ray; (4) endoscopy for all ulcers after an initial trial of medical therapy; (5) endoscopy for all ulcers before therapy and for nonhealers; (6) endoscopy before therapy, and all follow-up by endoscopy. This analysis predicts that the greatest decrease in mortality rate occurs when endoscopy is used before medical therapy and for all follow-up, reducing the estimated number of deaths per 1000 patients with radiographically benign gastric ulcers from 36.7 with follow-up by upper gastrointestinal x-ray only to 27.2. However, initial endoscopy with all subsequent follow-up by upper gastrointestinal x-ray increased the overall death rate by only a small amount, to 28.0, and was consistently the most cost-effective method, requiring 116 endoscopies and approximately 60,000 diagnostic dollars per additional 5-yr survivor.

Comparison of two sucralfate dosages presented in tablet form in duodenal ulcer healing

Two hundred twenty-two patients with endoscopically proven duodenal ulcers participated in a controlled trial to assess and compare the effects of two dosage regimens of sucralfate tablets on ulcer healing, i.e., 1 g four times daily (group A, n = 131) and 2 g twice daily (group B, n = 128). Healing was defined as complete re-epithelialization. Clinical and endoscopic assessments were performed after four weeks (Day 28) and, if complete healing was not achieved, after four more weeks (Day 56). After four weeks, in group A (n = 114: eight patients were lost and nine were withdrawn), the ulcers had healed in 90 patients (79 percent), and in group B (n = 108: six patients were lost and 14 were withdrawn), the ulcers had healed in 80 patients (74 percent). The cumulative healing rates after eight weeks were 94 percent in group A and 95 percent in group B. No serious adverse effect was observed in either group. These results suggest that sucralfate tablets in a dosage of 2 g twice daily are as effective as 1 g four times daily in the treatment of acute duodenal ulcers and could lead to better patient compliance.

Relapse rate of healed duodenal, prepyloric, and gastric ulcers treated either with sucralfate or cimetidine

A multicenter double-blind study was designed to compare the relapse rates of peptic ulcers after initial healing with a cytoprotective agent and a histamine (H2)-receptor antagonist. Patients with endoscopically verified prepyloric or duodenal ulcers were treated with cimetidine 400 mg twice daily or sucralfate 1 g four times daily for a maximum of eight weeks; gastric ulcers were treated for up to 12 weeks. Patients with healed ulcers were followed up to 12 months, during which time anti-ulcer medication was not permitted. Control endoscopy was performed two to four and nine to 11 months after healing and at the time of symptomatic relapse. A total of 258 patients were followed for 12 months; of these, 143 had been previously treated with cimetidine and 115 had been treated with sucralfate. The relapse rates and the median time to relapse did not differ between the two groups. After 12 months, 71 percent of the previously cimetidine-treated patients and 68 percent of the sucralfate-treated patients had experienced a relapse. Smoking significantly increased the relapse rate and shortened the time to relapse in the total study population and among cimetidine-treated patients; it had no such effect in the sucralfate-treated group.

Recurrent ulcer after treatment with cimetidine or sucralfate

The recurrence of peptic ulcer disease after successful treatment with 400 mg cimetidine twice daily or 1 g sucralfate four times daily was investigated in a double-blind, 1-year follow-up study. Endoscopy was performed if ulcer symptoms recurred and 2-4 and 9-11 months after endoscopically confirmed healing of the initial ulcer. No anti-ulcer medication was permitted during the follow-up period. The recurrence rates were 71% in the cimetidine group (n = 143) and 68% in the sucralfate group (n = 115) (p greater than 0.3). The rate of asymptomatic ulcer relapse was 26% in the cimetidine and 23% in the sucralfate group (p greater than 0.4). The time to relapse did not differ between the treatment groups (p greater than 0.3). In the cimetidine group smokers had a higher 12-month recurrence rate than non-smokers, 83% compared with 58% (p less than 0.01). The corresponding figures in the sucralfate group were 76% and 57% (p = 0.057). The median time to recurrence in the cimetidine-treated group was 17 weeks among smokers, compared to 43 weeks among non-smokers (p less than 0.001). In the sucralfate-treated group the median time to recurrence was 23 weeks among smokers and 32 weeks among non-smokers (p greater than 0.3). Pre-study use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the time to healing of the initial ulcer did not influence the relapse rates in either of the treatment groups.

Short-term treatment of prepyloric ulcer. Comparison of sucralfate and cimetidine

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter study was performed to compare the effect of sucralfate (1 g qid) and cimetidine (400 mg bid) in the treatment of prepyloric ulcer. Altogether 142 patients (68 in the sucralfate and 74 in the cimetidine group) with endoscopically confirmed ulcer within 2 cm of the pylorus completed the study. Endoscopic follow up was performed after four weeks and, if the ulcer was not healed, after eight weeks of treatment. After four weeks, 65% of the ulcers in the sucralfate group were healed, compared to 70% in the cimetidine group. There was no significant difference between sucralfate and cimetidine at either time point. The 95% confidence interval for the difference in ulcer healing with sucralfate or cimetidine ranged from +4 to -19% at eight weeks. Said another way, with an observed difference of 7% (83% vs 90%), the 95% confidence limit ranged from 4% in favor of sucralfate to 19% in favor of cimetidine. Symptomatic relief, antacid intake, and side effects did not differ significantly between the two groups. The healing rate of prepyloric ulcer in this study is similar to that reported for duodenal ulcer after four and eight weeks when treated with sucralfate or cimetidine. Sucralfate is safe and as effective as cimetidine in the short-term treatment of prepyloric ulcer.