Etodolac, aspirin, and gastrointestinal microbleeding

Expression of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases and matrix metalloproteinases in the ischemic brain of photothrombosis model mice

Middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) is the most widely used animal model of ischemic stroke. This model well recapitulates the pathological features of most human cases; however, MCAO is technically difficult to achieve in mice and has some disadvantages for investigating the molecular mechanisms of pathological progression in stroke. The recently developed photothrombosis model may be more suitable for research on the molecular mechanisms of ischemic stroke in mice. Yet, similarities and differences between the photothrombosis and MCAO models are not well characterized. In the present study, we examined the expression of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases (TIMPs) and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) in the brains of photothrombosis model mice. Our results indicated that the gene expression of TIMP-1 was upregulated in endothelial cells in the pathological area surrounding the infarction, similar to the MCAO model. Yet, pathologically induced changes in TIMP-1 were not affected by treatment with aspirin or etodolac. Whereas MMP-2 and MMP-8 mRNA were upregulated after infarction in both models, MMP-9 expression, which is induced in the infarct area in the MCAO model, was unchanged in the photothrombosis model. These findings suggest that the expression patterns of TIMP-1 and MMP-9 are regulated independently in photothrombosis model mice.

Gastrointestinal blood loss induced by bromfenac sodium, aspirin, and placebo

The effects of bromfenac sodium, aspirin, and placebo on gastrointestinal (GI) blood loss were compared. In a 22-day, randomized study, healthy men received treatment with either bromfenac sodium 300 mg/d, aspirin 3900 mg/d, or placebo for 10 days. On days 3 through 9 and days 20 through 22, all patients received placebo. Fecal blood was measured using the chromium 51-labeled red blood cell technique. Thirty-seven subjects entered the treatment period (13 in the aspirin group, 12 in the bromfenac sodium group, and 12 in the placebo group). The mean change in fecal blood loss during the treatment period compared with the baseline period was significantly greater in the aspirin group (8.00 +/- 4.17 mL/d) than in the bromfenac sodium group (1.63 +/- 1.01 mL/d). Blood loss in both the aspirin and bromfenac sodium groups was significantly greater than in the placebo group (-0.12 +/- 0.25 mL/d). It is concluded that bromfenac sodium 300 mg/d, a higher daily dose than the proposed daily dose, causes significantly less GI blood loss than aspirin 3900 mg/d.

A comparison of the efficacy of etodolac SR (Lodine SR) and etodolac (Lodine) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis

The efficacy and safety of a sustained-release (SR) formulation of etodolac were compared with those of conventional etodolac in two separate, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, 6-week trials. This report presents an interim analysis of the data from these studies. One study included 174 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA): 58 received etodolac SR 400 mg once daily (q.d.), 59 received etodolac SR 600 mg q.d., and 57 received etodolac 200 mg twice daily (b.i.d.). The second study included 230 patients with osteoarthritis (OA): 80 patients received etodolac SR 400 mg q.d., 76 received etodolac SR 600 mg q.d., and 74 received etodolac 300 mg b.i.d. Efficacy was evaluated by physician's global and patient's global assessment (both studies), number of painful joints (RA study), number of swollen joints (RA study), pain intensity (OA study), and weight-bearing pain (OA study). The interim analyses of the data from the studies indicates that all three regimens produced significant improvements from baseline in all mean efficacy values at each assessment; there were no significant differences between the treatment groups. The incidence of study events, except for dyspepsia, was comparable among the treatment groups in each study; dyspepsia occurred at a significantly lower rate in patients treated with etodolac SR than in patients treated with the conventional formulation of etodolac. We conclude that etodolac SR is as effective and safe as conventional etodolac for the treatment of patients with RA or OA.

The safety profile of sustained-release etodolac

The safety profile of a new sustained-release (SR) form of etodolac was evaluated in 539 young and elderly patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Four long-term, open-label studies were conducted in nine different countries totaling 3,827 patient-months' exposure to etodolac SR. Patients were treated with either 400 mg or 600 mg etodolac SR once a day for up to 52 weeks. Withdrawals due to adverse reactions were low, occurring in only 5% (26/539) of all patients. The most common drug-related study events were GI-related, occurring in < 8% of patients. Elderly persons (> or = 65 years of age) were not at greater risk for adverse reactions or drug-related study events than were younger patients. Serious GI-related study events were rare (0.2%). The low level of serious GI effects was consistent with a separate study measuring gastrointestinal (GI) blood loss. Etodolac SR produced significantly less GI blood loss than naproxen in normal subjects. Because of its favorable safety profile, etodolac SR can serve as an alternative to conventional etodolac, providing the convenience of once-daily administration.

Double-blind comparison of etodolac SR and diclofenac SR in the treatment of patients with degenerative joint disease of the knee

An on-going multi-centre, double-blind, parallel-group study is being carried out to compare the efficacy and tolerability of sustained-release (SR) formulations of etodolac and diclofenac in patients with degenerative joint disease (osteoarthritis) of the knee. An interim analysis of the findings has been made for 64 patients from two centres which have now completed their part in the study. Thirty-two patients were randomly assigned to receive 600 mg etodolac SR once daily for 4 weeks; the remaining 32 patients received 100 mg diclofenac SR. Primary efficacy assessments rated on a 5-point categorical scale were patient and physician overall assessments of the patient's condition, night pain and pain intensity. Secondary efficacy parameters included weight-bearing pain, stiffness duration, joint tenderness on pressure, degree of swelling and erythema, degree of knee flexion and time to walk 15 metres. The results showed that for both etodolac SR and diclofenac SR treatment groups there was an improvement from baseline in all efficacy parameters at the last visit and no statistically significant difference was observed between treatments. However, although not statistically significant, the improvement rate in the patient's condition at Week 2 was slightly greater in the etodolac SR treatment group, suggesting that improvement may occur more rapidly with etodolac SR than with diclofenac SR. With regard to tolerability, 5 patients in the etodolac SR treatment group and 3 in the diclofenac SR group withdrew from the study because of adverse reactions. Two events (dyspepsia and mouth ulceration) in the etodolac SR group and 4 events (headache, glossitis, depression and insomnia) in the diclofenac SR group were considered to be definitely drug-related. Dyspepsia was reported by 3 patients (1 withdrawal) treated with etodolac SR and by 4 patients (2 withdrawals) treated with diclofenac SR. A statistically significant decrease was observed in haemoglobin and haematocrit values after 4 weeks of treatment in the diclofenac SR group, but this was not considered to be clinically important. In addition, there were no clinically significant changes in blood chemistry and urinalysis for either treatments. In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that 600 mg etodolac SR once daily for 4 weeks is effective in the treatment of patients with degenerative joint disease of the knee, as is 100 mg diclofenac SR. In addition, both drugs have comparable tolerability profiles.

Comparison of the effects of etodolac SR and naproxen on gastro-intestinal blood loss

A single-blind, open-label controlled study was carried out in 30 healthy male volunteers to compare gastro-intestinal blood loss before, during and after treatment with a new, sustained-release formulation of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agent etodolac (etodolac SR) or with naproxen. Subjects remained at the study centre for 21 days and received placebo twice daily from Days 1 to 7 after which they were assigned at random to receive etodolac SR either as a single 600 mg or 1200 mg daily dose or naproxen (500 mg twice daily) for 7 days and then placebo again until the end of the study. There were 10 subjects in each of the three treatment groups. Gastro-intestinal blood loss was measured by the 51Cr-tagged erythrocyte method and was averaged for Days 4 to 7 (pre-treatment baseline), Days 11 to 14 (treatment period), and Days 17 to 20 (post-treatment period). The mean daily gastro-intestinal blood loss during the treatment period was significantly greater for the naproxen-treated group (1.20 ml/day) than for the 600 mg etodolac SR group (0.38 ml/day) and the 1200 mg etodolac SR group (0.45 ml/day). These results show that etodolac SR in doses of 600 mg and 1200 mg/day causes significantly less gastro-intestinal blood loss than does naproxen 500 mg twice daily.

Etodolac. A reappraisal of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in rheumatic diseases and pain states

Etodolac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and ankylosing spondylitis, and in the alleviation of postoperative pain. Etodolac also provides relief of other types of pain, including that arising from gouty conditions and traumatic injury. In all indications, etodolac appears to be at least as effective as other NSAIDs. The incidence of clinical adverse effects other than abdominal pain and dyspepsia is similar to that observed with placebo, and etodolac has been associated with a low rate of gastrointestinal ulceration and other serious events. Data from preliminary animal studies have suggested that etodolac may provide more selective inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis at sites of inflammation than some other currently available NSAIDs. Thus, available evidence indicates that etodolac, with its low incidence of gastrointestinal events, is an effective and well tolerated alternative to other NSAIDs in the treatment of arthritic diseases and pain of various aetiologies and should be considered a first-line therapy.

Double-blind, parallel comparison of etodolac and indomethacin in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee

The efficacy and tolerability of etodolac and indomethacin were compared in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Sixty-four patients entered a double-blind, parallel trial and were randomly assigned to receive 300 mg etodolac twice daily (n = 31) or 50 mg indomethacin 3-times daily (n = 33) for 6 weeks. Both groups showed significant (p less than or equal to 0.05) improvement from baseline in all efficacy assessments at the final evaluation. However, significantly (p less than or equal to 0.05) greater decreases from baseline were seen for etodolac than for indomethacin in patients' global evaluation, pain intensity, night pain, standing pain, walking pain, pain getting up from a chair, tenderness on pressure, and knee flexion. In addition, 67% of the patients in the etodolac group indicated improvement in their condition at the final evaluation, compared with 53% of the patients who received indomethacin. No patients in the etodolac group withdrew because of adverse reactions compared to 4 patients in the indomethacin group. Furthermore, significantly more patients in the indomethacin group (52%) than in the etodolac group (19%) reported drug-related adverse reactions. Thus, the results of this study strongly indicate that etodolac is more effective and produces fewer side-effects than indomethacin in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis.

Double-blind comparison of etodolac and piroxicam in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

A study was carried out to compare the efficacy and tolerability of etodolac and piroxicam in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Sixty patients entered this double-blind, parallel study and after a wash-out period of up to 2 weeks were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg etodolac twice daily or 20 mg piroxicam once daily for 12 weeks. Efficacy and tolerability assessments were made after 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12 weeks. Patients in the etodolac group demonstrated statistically significant improvement in the number of tender joints and the duration of morning stiffness after 12 weeks, as did the piroxicam-treated patients. In addition, the etodolac-treated patients had significant improvement according to the patients' and physician's global evaluations, pain intensity, number of swollen joints, and grip strength. There were significant differences between therapies favouring etodolac for the assessments of the number of tender joints and the physician's global evaluation by the end of the study. Forty-seven percent (47%) of 15 etodolac-treated patients compared with 7% of 15 piroxicam-treated patients showed improvement according to the physician's global evaluation at Week 12. Similarly, the patients' global evaluation showed that 40% of etodolac-treated patients and 19% of piroxicam-treated patients had improved by the end of therapy. Both therapies were well tolerated. There were no significant differences between groups in the incidence of any adverse reactions or the frequency of withdrawals.

Endoscopic evaluation of etodolac and naproxen, and their relative effects on gastric and duodenal prostaglandins

Etodolac has been shown to have a favorable safety profile in short-term and long-term studies in both osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Two studies were conducted to further assess the gastrointestinal (GI) safety profile of this drug. These studies were designed to compare the therapeutic efficacy and upper GI effects of etodolac (600 mg/day) and naproxen (1000 mg/day) administered over 4 weeks in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. In addition, the relative effects of the drugs on prostaglandin levels in the stomach and duodenum were assayed in one study. Fifteen patients were included in each study and received either 300 mg b.i.d. of etodolac or 500 mg b.i.d. of naproxen. In both studies, endoscopic examinations were performed on day 1 of the study and again 4 weeks later. In the second study, at the time of each endoscopy, samples of gastric and duodenal mucosa were taken for histologic study and prostaglandin assay. Endoscopy results from the first study showed significant differences in favor of etodolac between the two treatment groups. In the second study more naproxen-treated patients had abnormal endoscopy results than did etodolac-treated patients. Results from prostaglandin assays in gastric and duodenal mucosa showed no overall suppression of gastric or duodenal prostaglandin levels for etodolac-treated patients in contrast to naproxen-treated patients, who showed suppression of PGE2 and PGI2. The results of these studies show that etodolac therapy caused less gastric and duodenal injury than naproxen and also support the theory that the GI safety of etodolac may be due to selective sparing of cytoprotective prostaglandins.

Global safety of etodolac: reports from worldwide postmarketing surveillance studies

Etodolac is a new nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that has shown a favorable safety profile in clinical trials in osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Four postmarketing surveillance studies were conducted with patients who had OA and RA to further assess the safety of etodolac. One study also had patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AKS). These studies were conducted in Italy, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and France. A total of 8334 patients received oral doses of 200 to 600 mg/day for periods ranging from 4 weeks to 1 year. The incidence of study events was low, 77% of the patients treated in these postmarketing surveillance studies reported no study events. Only 9% of all the patients treated withdrew from these studies because of adverse effects. Gastrointestinal events were the most commonly reported among the study events that did occur, as expected for an NSAID. These results further support the safety of etodolac that was previously established in clinical trials.

Theoretical mechanism for the gastrointestinal safety of etodolac: selective sparing of cytoprotective prostaglandins

The high concentrations of pro-inflammatory prostaglandins (PGs) produced in the joint during the initial stage of inflammation can be decreased by inhibiting their biosynthesis with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The commonly encountered gastrointestinal intolerance in human subjects treated with NSAIDs is generally attributed to inhibition of PG synthesis in gastric mucosa, where the natural role of locally biosynthesized PGs is to protect the mucosa from necrosis upon exposure to noxious agents. The action of an ideal NSAID should therefore be tissue specific, i.e., it should inhibit PG formation at the sites of inflammation but not in gastric mucosa, where PGs are needed for cytoprotection. We believe that etodolac, a new, structurally distinct NSAID, meets this criterion, inhibiting PG synthesis in a tissue-specific fashion. Experimental data supporting this interpretation were obtained in rats by demonstrating that daily administration of orally effective anti-inflammatory doses of etodolac had no significant effect on gastric mucosal PGE2 or prostacyclin levels (measured as the stable metabolite, 6-keto-PGF1 alpha). In contrast, naproxen, piroxicam, and aspirin caused a statistically significant PG depletion. The results obtained in rats thus support the view that the favorable gastrointestinal safety profile of etodolac in human patients may be attributable to selective sparing of the cytoprotective PGs in gastric mucosa.

Etodolac, a new nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug: gastrointestinal microbleeding and endoscopic studies

A review of the literature is presented on the gastrointestinal effects of etodolac, a new nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), as evaluated in both microbleeding and endoscopic studies. In four microbleeding studies, gastrointestinal blood loss in healthy subjects was estimated by a 51Cr-erythrocyte labeling method before drug treatment, after 7 days of treatment with NSAIDs including etodolac, and 1 week after the last day of treatment. In these 7-day studies, the gastrointestinal blood loss seen with etodolac (600 to 1200 mg/day) was similar to that seen with placebo and significantly (p less than 0.05) less than that seen with aspirin (2600 mg/day), naproxen (750 mg/day), ibuprofen (2400 mg/day), or indomethacin (200 mg/day). Naproxen, ibuprofen, and indomethacin caused mean daily blood losses in excess of 1 ml/day over baseline values. The increase with aspirin was 4 to 5 ml/day. In contrast, the greatest mean daily increase in blood loss with etodolac therapy was 0.2 ml. In a 4-week study of etodolac (600 and 1000 mg/day) and piroxicam (20 mg/day) given to patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, blood loss seen with etodolac was comparable to that seen with placebo and significantly less than that seen with piroxicam. Gastrointestinal irritation was also assessed by endoscopy after 1 week of NSAID or placebo treatment. Endoscopy scores after etodolac treatment (up to 1200 mg/day) were similar to scores at baseline and after placebo and were significantly lower than scores following treatment with aspirin (3900 mg/day), indomethacin (200 mg/day), ibuprofen (2400 mg/day), or naproxen (100 mg/day). The effects of etodolac (600 or 1000 mg/day) and diclofenac (150 mg/day) were not different from each other or from baseline. These data indicate that etodolac, in these studies, did not cause clinically significant gastrointestinal microbleeding or visible gastric injury. By the criteria used in these studies, etodolac is less irritating to the gastrointestinal tract than aspirin, indomethacin, ibuprofen, naproxen, or piroxicam, and compares favorably with diclofenac.

A review of the antiarthritic efficacy and safety of etodolac

Etodolac (Lodine, Ramodar, Ultradol), an anti-inflammatory, analgesic agent, is the first of a new class of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the pyranocarboxylic acids. A review of the literature on numerous clinical studies showed that etodolac (200 to 600 mg/day) is effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Etodolac has also been shown to be very well tolerated. In double-blind studies, there were no significant differences in the incidences of new patient complaints except for indigestion between etodolac-treated groups and placebo-treated groups. Gastrointestinal microbleeding associated with etodolac was comparable to that with placebo and was significantly less than that associated with other commonly used NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, indomethacin, piroxicam, and naproxen. The results of laboratory tests, including a detailed analysis of hepatic and renal function, have revealed few abnormalities, most of which were clinically unimportant. When administered to healthy subjects, etodolac had no pharmacokinetic interactions with three other drugs that are highly bound to serum protein: warfarin, glyburide, and phenytoin.

Efficacy and tolerability of etodolac in the treatment of osteoarthritis

An open clinical trial was carried out in 57 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, hip or spine to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of etodolac. Patients received 200 mg etodolac twice daily for a period of 2 weeks. The results of clinical and patient assessments made at baseline and at the end of the study period showed that there was significant improvement in pain at rest and on active and passive movement, local tenderness, pain on climbing stairs, joint swelling and functional status. No significant changes were seen in clinical severity of the condition or, in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, in the degree of knee flexion. Patients judged the therapeutic results to be good or excellent more often than the investigator (75% vs 50%). Tolerability of etodolac was very good with few, generally mild side-effects and only 2 patients were withdrawn, more as a precautionary measure than of necessity.

Review: acute human models of gastric mucosal injury

The use of acute human models of gastric mucosal injury has been stimulated by a need to understand more fully the problems of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs but such models have other applications. None is ideal and they all share certain drawbacks. For none of them has a precise relationship to clinical events been established and they have all tended to be employed on a population of young healthy subjects who are not those at greatest clinical risk. Of individual methods mucosal potential difference is an indirect measure which is too often affected by other influences to be acceptable as a measure of mucosal injury when used alone, although it has some value as an adjunct to other measurements. Assay of DNA in gastric washings is a suitable technique for quantifying desquamation of gastric epithelial cells occurring in response to acute injury; on present evidence its significance is much more difficult to assess in the context of continuing challenge over several days. By contrast, measurement of microbleeding is more suitable for quantifying injury over several days of NSAID ingestion; little bleeding is recorded with a single acute challenge. Endoscopy can demonstrate macroscopic lesions which result from mucosal injury--injury which is quantified more easily and sensitively by measurements of cellular exfoliation or bleeding. Paradoxically, endoscopy's strength has been to underline the scientific weakness of acute models because it shows that it is rare for ulcers, which are the lesions of clinical concern to develop in these studies.

The effect of cigarette smoke on gastroduodenal mucosal endogenous prostacyclin level (experimental and clinical observations)

In our opinion the endogenous prostacyclin (PGI2) is one of the most important natural protective substances in the gastric mucosa. We have, therefore checked in experimental circumstances in rats, as well as in clinical observations in humans, the possible effect of smoking on endogenous gastroduodenal mucosal PGI2 level. The animal experiments seem to verify that cigarette smoke really has an unwanted effect on the gastric mucosa. The target of this action is the endogenous PGI2 content of the mucosa. According to our observations in humans there is a definite tendency toward decreased endogenous PGI2 production in the gastroduodenal mucosa of smokers too.

Gastrointestinal blood loss in arthritic patients receiving chronic dosing with etodolac and piroxicam

Etodolac, a new anti-inflammatory analgesic drug found to be effective in treating arthritis in a dose range of 100 to 300 mg bid, has been shown to induce significantly less gastrointestinal microbleeding in normal men than several other NSAIDs. In this study, the effect on gastrointestinal blood loss of high-dose etodolac, 300 and 500 mg bid, versus piroxicam at its normal therapeutic dose of 20 mg qd, was investigated by the 51Cr method in 23 men with osteo- or rheumatoid arthritis. Placebo periods preceded and followed 28 days of active drug treatment. Blood and stool analyses were performed by an analyst not aware of drug assignment or study design. Patients receiving piroxicam, but not those receiving either dose of etodolac, had a significantly higher mean level of fecal blood loss in the active treatment phase compared with the pretreatment placebo level (p less than 0.01). Further, microbleeding was significantly greater for the piroxicam group during treatment than for either of the etodolac groups (p less than 0.01). There were no significant differences in fecal blood loss between the two groups receiving etodolac compared with pretreatment. Even at doses two to three times those found effective in the treatment of arthritis, etodolac produces no increase in fecal blood loss, in contrast to blood loss seen with the recommended dose of piroxicam. Fecal blood loss in osteoarthritic patients, not receiving an NSAID, was similar to normal subjects in previous studies.

Comparison of etodolac, zomepirac, and placebo for relief of pain after oral surgery

A double-blind, randomized study of 137 patients compared the effectiveness of single doses of etodolac, 200 and 400 mg, zomepirac, 100 mg, and placebo in relieving moderate to severe pain following third molar extractions. Throughout the 12-hour evaluation period, doses of both etodolac and zomepirac were significantly superior to placebo for total analgesic effect, as measured by the sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) and sum of pain relief (TOTPAR) scores. However, there were no significant differences among the active drugs. It was concluded that etodolac, 200 and 400 mg, provides analgesic efficacy comparable to that of zomepirac, 100 mg, and superior to that of placebo.

Comparison of etodolac, aspirin and placebo for pain after oral surgery

Single oral doses of etodolac 50, 100 and 200 mg were compared with aspirin 650 mg and placebo in a double-blind, parallel group study of 189 outpatients reporting moderate or severe pain after oral surgery. Overall efficacy of test drugs was evaluated by sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) scores and total pain relief (TOTPAR) scores over 0.5-3, 0.5-6, 0.5-8 and 0.5-12 hours. Etodolac 200 mg provided significantly greater analgesia than aspirin by these measurements over all SPID and all but one TOTPAR interval, and was significantly more effective than placebo over all intervals. Etodolac 100 mg was superior to aspirin for SPID 0.5-8 and 0.5-12 hours, and superior to placebo for both SPID and TOTPAR over all time intervals. Onset of analgesia for etodolac 100 mg, 200 mg and aspirin was 1 hour or less for the majority of patients in each group; 42% receiving etodolac 200 mg reported onset of analgesia within 0.5 hour. Duration of analgesia for etodolac 200 mg appeared twice that of aspirin. A significant positive dose-response relationship was obtained for the three doses of etodolac. A low frequency of side effects was observed in all treatment groups.

Etodolac. A preliminary review of its pharmacodynamic activity and therapeutic use

Etodolac is a new non-steroidal agent (NSAID) with anti-inflammatory and analgesic activity. It has been studied in rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and pain resulting from minor surgery. In the latter setting, etodolac is at least as effective as aspirin in terms of overall pain relief, and the duration of analgesic effect of a dose of 200 to 400mg is longer than that of aspirin. In rheumatoid arthritis, etodolac, administered twice daily, appears comparable in efficacy to moderate doses of aspirin (3 to 4g daily), but is better tolerated. To date, etodolac has not been compared clinically with analgesics other than aspirin and sulindac. As with other non-steroidal agents, gastrointestinal complaints are the most frequently reported side effects, but the incidence of most gastrointestinal effects was only slightly higher than with placebo. Thus, from studies in small numbers of patients etodolac appears at least as effective as aspirin and better tolerated. The relatively low incidence of gastrointestinal side effects in these studies awaits confirmation in well designed comparisons with widely used NSAIDs.

Effects of flurbiprofen and aspirin on the gastric and duodenal mucosa. An endoscopic comparison

A single-blind, randomized endoscopic tolerance study was conducted to compare daily doses of flurbiprofen (Ansaid, Upjohn) at 100, 150, and 200 mg per day with 2,600 mg of aspirin per day. Ten normal volunteers were enrolled in each of the flurbiprofen groups, and five were enrolled in the aspirin group. Analysis of the mean gastric mucosal injury scores obtained on day eight revealed statistically significant lower mean scores (p = 0.05) in the 100-mg and 150-mg flurbiprofen treatment groups when compared with the 200-mg flurbiprofen group and the aspirin group. No significant differences were found between any of the treatment groups in duodenal mucosal injury scores. Mean scores for gastric mucosal injury in the three groups receiving flurbiprofen showed a definite dose relationship. The aspirin-treated subjects had significantly decreased uric acid levels (p = 0.006) and a significantly higher incidence of tinnitus (p = 0.04) compared with the flurbiprofen treatment groups. There was a poor correlation between subjective symptomatology and endoscopic pathologic findings.

Minimum effective dose of etodolac for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Etodolac was compared with aspirin and placebo for efficacy and safety, and a minimum effective dose was established in 264 patients with adult-onset, active rheumatoid arthritis. In this six-week, 14-center, double-blind, parallel-group investigation, preceded by a washout period of up to two weeks, patients received daily doses of etodolac at 50, 100, or 200 mg/d; aspirin at 3,900 mg/d; or placebo. Both etodolac at the highest dose and aspirin produced statistically significant improvement from baseline in all disease activity assessments measured at four- and six-week end points and were superior to placebo in the majority of assessments. A greater number of patient complaints occurred with aspirin, especially in regard to gastrointestinal-related and otologic side effects. A significant therapeutic dose response was evident among the etodolac groups without an increase in side effects. Although the 100-mg/d dose was effective in many of the efficacy parameters measured, the 200-mg/d dose, which is comparably efficacious to aspirin 3.9 g/d, was suggested as the minimum effective dose for the relief of the signs and symptoms of active rheumatoid arthritis.

A review of selected investigational nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs of the 1980s

We reviewed the literature on 7 investigational nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): fenbufen, flurbiprofen, tiaprofenic acid, diclofenac, fenclofenac, etodolac and proquazone. These drugs all appear to be at least as effective as currently marketed NSAIDs. Toxicity reported with these newer agents is similar to that seen with other drugs in this class, with gastrointestinal complaints being most commonly reported. The frequency of gastritis and the extent of gastrointestinal microbleeding are less than what occur with aspirin therapy. Fenclofenac may affect thyroid function tests, an effect not noted with other NSAIDs. Proquazone and fenclofenac may have some effect on immunologic function similar to those of slow-acting antirheumatic drugs. These drugs decrease immunoglobulins, rheumatoid factor and C-reactive protein. The place for these drugs in the management of rheumatic diseases has yet to be defined. They may prove to be more beneficial than currently marketed drugs for some patients.

Etodolac: effect on prostaglandin concentrations in gastric mucosa of rats

Etodolac is a structurally novel compound exhibiting potent analgesic and anti-inflammatory activity in laboratory animals and man, with excellent G. I. tolerance. Like other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) etodolac inhibits prostaglandin (PG) biosynthesis. In view of the cytoprotective role of PGE2, we have investigated in normal rats the effect of etodolac on the gastric mucosal concentration of PGE2 as well as of 6-keto-PGF1 alpha, the stable metabolite of prostacyclin; naproxen and piroxicam served as reference NSAIDs. The orally effective anti-inflammatory doses in the chronic arthritic rat model (3 mg/kg for etodolac and naproxen; 0.5 mg/kg for piroxicam), and their arbitrarily selected multiples of 10 were used. Rats were killed at 1, 2, 6 and 24 hr after single doses and the PG concentrations were measured by RIA. With the low dose, 2 and 6 hr after dosing, etodolac diminished the PGE2 concentration by 20-25% (vs control) while naproxen and piroxicam caused a fall of 53-65%; the difference between etodolac and the untreated control group is not statistically significant but the difference between etodolac and both piroxicam and naproxen is significant (p less than 0.001). At the high doses, the lowering in PGE2 was similar after all three drugs, i.e. about 70% at 1 and 2 hr; 50% at 6 hr, and 20-50% at 24 hr after dosing. Except for the consistently smaller reduction of concentrations after etodolac, the effects on 6-keto-PGF1 alpha concentration followed a similar pattern but the differences are not significant. The lack of the G.I. irritation of etodolac in rats and man at therapeutically effective doses may be attributed to the benefits of the relatively short-lived and slight decrease in gastric mucosal PGE2 concentrations found in this study.