Lafutidine can improve the quality of gastric ulcer healing in humans: a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial

Current Topics of Strategy of NSAID-Induced Small Intestinal Lesions

Small intestinal mucosal injuries have been recently recognized as common complications associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) because video capsule endoscopy and balloon enteroscopy are now available for the detection of small intestinal lesions. Small intestinal injury occurs not in an acid-dependent mechanism but by various factors such as enteric bacteria, bile acids, prostaglandin (PG) deficiency and topical factors (abnormal intestinal mucosal permeability, mitochondrial dysfunction, reactive oxygen species, endoplasmic reticulum stress and so on), and there is no well-established prophylactic approach. Several experimental and clinical studies found the effectiveness of some of the mucoprotective drugs, PG analogs, but not that of acid suppressants. Considering the effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for upper gastrointestinal (GI) disease and in the small intestine, the following 2 kinds of strategies against NSAID-induced GI injuries may be recommended. In patients with a high risk of upper GI disease (peptic ulcer etc.), simultaneous administration of a PPI (for upper GI disease) and a mucoprotective drug (for small intestine) is needed to prevent NSAID-induced GI injury. In other cases, an effective mucoprotective drug is enough for the protection of the entire digestive tract, that is, starting from the esophagus to the small intestine. These strategies may fulfill both economical and curative effects.

Efficacy of Lafutidine Versus Famotidine in Patients with Reflux Esophagitis: A Multi-Center, Randomized, Double-Blind, Non-inferiority Phase III Trial

BACKGROUND

There has been no study on the efficacy of lafutidine for patients with reflux esophagitis in Korea.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of a new-generation histamine-2 receptor antagonist, lafutidine, in comparison with famotidine in patients with reflux esophagitis.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial enrolling patients with erosive esophagitis. The efficacy and safety of 20 mg lafutidine (treatment group) were compared with those of 40 mg famotidine (control group) and 20 mg omeprazole (reference group). The primary endpoint was the complete healing rates of reflux esophagitis on endoscopy after 8 weeks of treatment. The non-inferiority margin was assumed to be -15 %.

RESULTS

The healing rates of reflux esophagitis on endoscopy after 8 weeks of treatment were 70.14 % (101/144) in the lafutidine, 63.45 % (92/145) in the famotidine, and 85.71 % (126/147) in the omeprazole group. The difference in healing rates between the lafutidine and famotidine groups was 6.69 % (95 % confidence interval = [-4.14 to 17.52]). In addition, lafutidine was superior to famotidine in clinical improvement (53.73 % vs. 39.55 %, P = 0.0200).

CONCLUSIONS

Lafutidine was non-inferior to famotidine in healing of reflux esophagitis. Lafutidine, however, was superior to famotidine in terms of symptom relief of reflux esophagitis.

Quality of healing of gastric ulcers: Natural products beyond acid suppression

Gastric ulcer is a chronic disease featured with unexpected complications, including bleeding, stenosis and perforation, as well as a high incidence of recurrence. Clinical treatments for gastric ulcer have allowed the rapid development of potent anti-ulcer drugs during the last several decades. Gastric ulcer healing is successful with conventional treatments including H₂-receptor antagonists, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been essential for ulcer healing and prevention of complications. Additionally, Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy is effective in reducing ulcer recurrence and leads to physiological changes in the gastric mucosa which affect the ulcer healing process. However, in spite of these advancements, some patients have suffered from recurrence or intractability in spite of continuous anti-ulcer therapy. A new concept of the quality of ulcer healing (QOUH) was initiated that considers the reconstruction of the mucosal structure and its function for preventing ulcer recurrence. Although several gastroprotection provided these achievements of the QOUH, which PPI or other acid suppressants did not accomplish, we found that gastroprotection that originated from natural products, such as a newer formulation from either Artemisia or S-allyl cysteine from garlic, were very effective in the QOUH, as well as improving clinical symptoms with fewer side effects. In this review, we will introduce the importance of the QOUH in ulcer healing and the achievements from natural products.

Quality of ulcer healing in gastrointestinal tract: Its pathophysiology and clinical relevance

In this paper, we review the concept of quality of ulcer healing (QOUH) in the gastrointestinal tract and its role in the ulcer recurrence. In the past, peptic ulcer disease (PUD) has been a chronic disease with a cycle of repeated healing/remission and recurrence. The main etiological factor of PUD is Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), which is also the cause of ulcer recurrence. However, H. pylori-negative ulcers are present in 12%-20% of patients; they also recur and are on occasion intractable. QOUH focuses on the fact that mucosal and submucosal structures within ulcer scars are incompletely regenerated. Within the scars of healed ulcers, regenerated tissue is immature and with distorted architecture, suggesting poor QOUH. The abnormalities in mucosal regeneration can be the basis for ulcer recurrence. Our studies have shown that persistence of macrophages in the regenerated area plays a key role in ulcer recurrence. Our studies in a rat model of ulcer recurrence have indicated that proinflammatory cytokines trigger activation of macrophages, which in turn produce increased amounts of cytokines and chemokines, which attract neutrophils to the regenerated area. Neutrophils release proteolytic enzymes that destroy the tissue, resulting in ulcer recurrence. Another important factor in poor QOUH can be deficiency of endogenous prostaglandins and a deficiency and/or an imbalance of endogenous growth factors. Topically active mucosal protective and antiulcer drugs promote high QOUH and reduce inflammatory cell infiltration in the ulcer scar. In addition to PUD, the concept of QOUH is likely applicable to inflammatory bowel diseases including Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Possible involvement of host defense mechanism in the suppression of rat acute reflux esophagitis by the particular histamine H2 receptor antagonist lafutidine

AIMS

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is considered to be caused primarily by gastric juice refluxed into the esophagus. Here, we investigated the possible involvement of host defense mechanisms in the development of acute reflux esophagitis using lafutidine, a histamine H(2) receptor antagonist (H(2)RA) with proven gastric mucosal protective effects.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The ligation of both the pylorus and the forestomach of SD rats under anesthesia caused hemorrhagic lesions in the esophageal mucosa at 6 h. Lesion formation was significantly inhibited by treatment with H(2)RAs, including the conventional H(2)RAs famotidine and cimetidine as well as lafutidine. The maximum suppressive abilities of these agents were similar to that of the proton pump inhibitor lansoprazole. Interestingly, unlike famotidine, lafutidine at low doses significantly suppressed esophagitis without inhibiting gastric acid secretion. Note that neither lafutidine nor famotidine inhibited hexosamine output in gastric juice samples obtained 3 h after ligation. Additionally, the protective effect of lafutidine, but not of famotidine, was partly attenuated by the denervation of capsaicin-sensitive afferent nerves with a large dose of capsaicin.

CONCLUSION

The present results indicate that esophageal host-defense via capsaicin-sensitive afferent nerves may contribute to the therapeutic action of lafutidine.

Sofalcone, a gastroprotective drug, promotes gastric ulcer healing following eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori: a randomized controlled comparative trial with cimetidine, an H2-receptor antagonist

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

According to reports in Japanese patients, 1 week of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy alone is not adequate for healing of gastric ulcers; 7-8 weeks of anti-ulcer therapy are subsequently required. We compared a gastroprotective drug, sofalcone, and an H(2)-receptor antagonist, cimetidine, in terms of promoting ulcer healing after 7 weeks of administration following 1 week of eradication therapy.

METHODS

Eradication therapy was administered to 64 patients with H. pylori-positive active gastric ulcer at least 10 mm in diameter, after which 32 patients each received 7 weeks of ulcer treatment with sofalcone (300 mg/day) or cimetidine (800 mg/day).

RESULTS

The H. pylori eradication rate was 81.3% (intention-to-treat: ITT) and 81.3% (per protocol: PP) in the sofalcone group, and 62.5% (ITT) and 64.5% (PP) in the cimetidine group. The ulcer healing rate after 8 weeks was 71.9% (ITT) and 71.9% (PP) in the sofalcone group, and 71.9% (ITT) and 71.0% (PP) in the cimetidine group. The rate of a flat pattern of scarred mucosa was 43.5% (ITT) and 43.5% (PP) in the sofalcone group, and 47.8% (ITT) and 50.0% (PP) in the cimetidine group. No significant differences were seen between the two groups in terms of H. pylori eradication rate, ulcer healing rate and flat pattern rate.

CONCLUSION

Sofalcone promoted gastric ulcer healing during 7 weeks of treatment following 1 week of eradication therapy, and the healing rate was equivalent to that of cimetidine. Symptom disappearance rates were significantly better in the sofalcone group than in the cimetidine group. This may be a useful way of using a gastroprotective drug in the H. pylori era.

Present status and strategy of NSAIDs-induced small bowel injury

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are well known to cause gastroduodenal mucosal lesions as an adverse effect. Recently, the serious problem of NSAID-induced small intestinal damage has become a topic of great interest to gastroenterologists, since capsule endoscopy and balloon enteroscopy are available for the detection of small intestinal lesions. Such lesions have been of great concern in clinical settings, and their treatment and prevention must be devised as soon as possible. The prevalence of NSAIDs-induced small intestinal injury is higher than had been expected. Recent studies show that more than 50% of patients taking NSAIDs have some mucosal damage in the small intestine. The gross appearance of NSAID-induced enteropathy varies, appearing variously as diaphragm-like strictures, ulcers, erosions, and mucosal redness. To investigate NSAID-induced enteropathy, and to rule out other specific enteropathies, other useful methods (in addition to capsule endoscopy and balloon enteroscopy) include such modalities as radiological examination of the small intestine, the permeability test, scintigraphy or the fecal excretion test using (111)Indium-labeled white blood cells, and measurement of the fecal calprotectin concentration. Diaphragm-like strictures and bleeding from mucosal breaks may be treatable with interventional enteroscopy. Misoprostol, metronidazole, and sulfasalazine are frequently used to treat NSAID-induced enteropathy, but have undesirable effects in some cases. In the experimental model, we confirmed that several existing drugs for gastroduodenal ulcers prevented indomethacin-induced small intestinal injury. Such drugs may be useful for preventing the adverse effects of NSAIDs not only in the stomach but also in the small intestine. We hope to examine these drugs in future clinical studies.