The effect of dosing interval on the efficacy of misoprostol in the prevention of aspirin-induced gastric injury

Gastroduodenal ulceration in dogs with liver disease

Background

Liver disease is frequently cited as a cause of gastroduodenal ulceration (GDU) in dogs but studies regarding GDU and liver disease are limited.

Objectives

To document the presence of GDU in dogs with liver disease.

Animals

Forty dogs that underwent liver biopsy, computed tomographic (CT) angiography or both at the University of Florida Small Animal Hospital to diagnose congenital or acquired liver disease.

Methods

Cross‐sectional study. Dogs had gastroduodenoscopy performed with photographic and video documentation in a standardized fashion. Lesions (hemorrhage, erosions, ulcers) in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum were scored based on a grading scale. Presence of esophageal varices was recorded. Dogs were categorized into 4 groups according to cause of liver disease (inflammatory disease, cirrhosis, congenital, other). Presence or absence of ulcers, erosions or both as well as total endoscopic scores were compared among groups.

Results

Forty dogs were enrolled with the following distribution: 13 congenital, 13 inflammatory, 3 cirrhosis, and 11 other. Four dogs had GDU (10%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3%‐24%) and 6 dogs had erosions (15%; 95% CI, 6%‐30%). No difference was found in total endoscopic score (P = .21) or in the proportion of dogs with ulcers, erosions or both versus those without (P = .25) among the groups.

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

Gastroduodenal ulceration was found in 10% of dogs with liver disease in this population. Additional studies are warranted to confirm these findings in larger numbers of dogs with specific disease etiologies.

Gastroprotective Therapy

A range of gastroprotective drugs are available for the treatment of esophagitis and gastroduodenal mucosal injury including acid suppressants (ie, histamine-2 receptor antagonists, proton pump inhibitors), coating agents, prostaglandin analogs, and antacids. Of these, the proton pump inhibitors are the most effective drugs for the medical treatment of upper gastrointestinal injury. However, proton pump inhibitors are not effective for all causes of upper gastrointestinal injury. The choice of gastroprotective drug should be guided by the cause and location of gastrointestinal injury and the potential for adverse effects.

Clinical, clinicopathologic, and gastrointestinal changes from administration of clopidogrel, prednisone, or combination in healthy dogs: A double-blind randomized trial

Background

Dogs with immune‐mediated disease often receive glucocorticoids with clopidogrel, but ulcerogenic effects of current protocols are unknown.

Hypothesis/Objectives

To compare gastrointestinal endoscopic findings among dogs administered clopidogrel, prednisone, and combination treatment.

Animals

Twenty‐four healthy research dogs.

Methods

Double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled randomized trial. Dogs received placebo, clopidogrel (2–3 mg/kg q24h), prednisone (2 mg/kg q24h), or prednisone with clopidogrel PO for 28 days. Attitude, food intake, vomiting, and fecal score were determined daily. Clinicopathologic testing was performed at baseline and on day 28. Gastrointestinal hemorrhages, erosions, and ulcers were numerated by 2 blinded investigators for endoscopies performed on days 0, 14, and 28, and endoscopic mucosal lesion scores were calculated. Results were compared using mixed model, split‐plot repeated measures ANOVAs and generalized estimating equation proportional odds models as appropriate. P < .05 was considered significant.

Results

Clinical signs of gastrointestinal bleeding were not noted. Endoscopic mucosal lesion scores differed significantly by group (F[3, 20] = 12.8, P < .001) and time (F[2, 40] = 8.3, P < .001). Posthoc analysis revealed higher lesion scores in the prednisone‐receiving groups (P ≤ .006 for each) and on day 14 (P ≤ .007 for each). Ulcers were identified in 4 dogs administered prednisone and 3 dogs administered prednisone/clopidogrel. Odds of having endoscopic mucosal lesion scores ≥4 were 7‐times higher for dogs in prednisone (95%CI 1.1, 43.0; P = .037) and prednisone‐clopidogrel (95%CI 1.1, 43.4; P = .037) groups than those in the placebo group.

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

Gastrointestinal bleeding and ulceration occur commonly in healthy dogs administered prednisone or prednisone/clopidogrel treatment, but not clopidogrel monotherapy. Though lesions are severe in many cases, they are not accompanied by clinical signs.

Clinical, clinicopathologic, and gastrointestinal changes from aspirin, prednisone, or combination treatment in healthy research dogs: A double-blind randomized trial

Background

Dogs with immune‐mediated disease are often coadministered glucocorticoids and aspirin, but ulcerogenic effects of current protocols are unknown.

Objectives

To compare gastrointestinal changes among dogs administered aspirin, prednisone, and combination treatment.

Animals

Twenty‐four healthy research dogs.

Methods

Double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled randomized trial of dogs administered placebo, aspirin (2 mg/kg q24h), prednisone (2 mg/kg q24h), or combination treatment PO for 28 days. Clinical signs were recorded daily, with laboratory work performed at baseline and day 28. Gastrointestinal mucosal hemorrhages, erosions, and ulcers were numerated for endoscopic studies performed on days 0, 14, and 28; endoscopic mucosal lesion scores were calculated. Results were compared using mixed model repeated‐measures analyses of variance and generalized estimating equation proportional odds models. P < .05 was considered significant.

Results

Gastric mucosal lesion scores differed by treatment‐by‐time (F[6, 40] = 4.4, P = .002), treatment (F[3, 20] = 7.1, P = .002), and time (F[2, 40] = 18.9, P < .001). Post hoc analysis revealed increased scores in the aspirin (day 14 only), prednisone, and prednisone/aspirin groups during treatment. Ulcers were identified on 14 studies, representing 10 dogs. Dogs receiving prednisone and prednisone/aspirin had 11.1 times (95% CI, 1.7‐73.6) and 31.5 times (95% CI, 3.5‐288.0) higher odds, respectively, of having endoscopic mucosal lesion scores ≥4 than dogs receiving placebo (P ≤ .01).

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

Gastrointestinal bleeding occurs commonly in dogs administered aspirin, prednisone, or prednisone/aspirin treatment, with higher lesion scores for dogs receiving combination treatment. Even severe lesions are not accompanied by clinical signs.

ACVIM consensus statement: Support for rational administration of gastrointestinal protectants to dogs and cats

The gastrointestinal (GI) mucosal barrier is continuously exposed to noxious toxins, reactive oxygen species, microbes, and drugs, leading to the development of inflammatory, erosive, and ultimately ulcerative lesions. This report offers a consensus opinion on the rational administration of GI protectants to dogs and cats, with an emphasis on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine type-2 receptor antagonists (H2 RAs), misoprostol, and sucralfate. These medications decrease gastric acidity or promote mucosal protective mechanisms, transforming the management of dyspepsia, peptic ulceration, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. In contrast to guidelines that have been established in people for the optimal treatment of gastroduodenal ulcers and gastroesophageal reflux disease, effective clinical dosages of antisecretory drugs have not been well established in the dog and cat to date. Similar to the situation in human medicine, practice of inappropriate prescription of acid suppressants is also commonplace in veterinary medicine. This report challenges the dogma and clinical practice of administering GI protectants for the routine management of gastritis, pancreatitis, hepatic disease, and renal disease in dogs and cats lacking additional risk factors for ulceration or concerns for GI bleeding. Judicious use of acid suppressants is warranted considering recent studies that have documented adverse effects of long-term supplementation of PPIs in people and animals.

Gastroprotectants in small animal veterinary practice - a review of the evidence. Part 1: cyto-protective drugs

Diverse drugs with presumed cytoprotective effect have been used therapeutically in small animal veterinary practice for various gastro-intestinal conditions such as oesophagitis, gastric ulceration, gastritis or chronic gastro-enteropathies. Their efficacy has been doubted in human medicine, raising similar questions in the veterinary field. The aim of this review was to assess the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of these drugs in dogs and cats. Through a systematic review of the literature, we identified 37 articles on the use of misoprostol, sucralfate and other gastroprotectants in dogs and cats. There was evidence to support use of misoprostol in the prevention of aspirin-induced gastroduodenal mucosal injury in dogs, and for use of sucralfate in the prevention of acid-induced oesophagitis in cats. However, the overall quality of evidence supporting the use of these drugs in small animal patients was poor. In contrast, there was evidence of important adverse effects, especially drug interaction and gastro-intestinal signs. We therefore recommend prescribing these drugs with caution until further well-conducted studies reveal a useful gastroprotectant effect.

Multiple gastric erosions diagnosed by means of capsule endoscopy in a dog

CASE DESCRIPTION A 6-year-old spayed female Golden Retriever was evaluated for a 2-week history of progressive hyporexia, signs of abdominal pain, and weight loss. CLINICAL FINDINGS Physical examination findings included mild signs of pain on palpation of the cranial part of the abdomen and a body condition score of 4 (scale, 1 to 9). A CBC revealed mild microcytosis and hypochromasia; results of serum biochemical analysis were within the respective reference ranges, and abdominal ultrasonography revealed no abnormalities. Capsule endoscopy was performed, and numerous gastric erosions and hemorrhages were detected, with rare dilated lacteals in the proximal aspect of the small intestine. TREATMENT AND OUTCOME Treatment was initiated with omeprazole and sucralfate for 6 weeks, and the dog was transitioned to a novel protein diet. Capsule endoscopy was repeated at the end of the initial treatment course and revealed overall improvement, with a few small erosions remaining; medical treatment was continued for an additional 2 weeks. At last follow-up 9 months after treatment ended, the dog was clinically normal. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Capsule endoscopy was useful for initial detection and subsequent reevaluation of gastrointestinal lesions in this patient without a need for sedation or anesthesia. Information obtained in the follow-up evaluation was valuable in identifying a need to extend the duration of medical treatment.

How Sensitive Is the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract to 90Y Radioembolization? A Histologic and Dosimetric Analysis in a Porcine Model

In ⁹⁰Y radioembolization, nontarget embolization to the stomach or small bowel can result in gastrointestinal injury, a rare but difficult to manage clinical complication. However, dosimetric thresholds for toxicity to these tissues from radioembolization have never been evaluated in a controlled setting. We performed an analysis of the effect of ⁹⁰Y radioembolization in a porcine model at different absorbed-dose endpoints.

METHODS

Six female pigs underwent transfemoral angiography and infusion of ⁹⁰Y-resin microspheres into arteries supplying part of the gastric wall. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy was performed after 4 wk to assess interim gastrointestinal health. Animals were monitored for side effects for 9 wk after ⁹⁰Y infusion, after which they were euthanized and their upper gastrointestinal tracts were excised for analysis. Histologic sections were used to map microsphere location, and a microdosimetric evaluation was performed to determine the absorbed-dose profile within the gastrointestinal wall.

RESULTS

⁹⁰Y radioembolization dosages from 46.3 to 105.1 MBq were infused, resulting in average absorbed doses of between 35.5 and 91.9 Gy to the gastric wall. No animal exhibited any signs of pain or gastrointestinal distress through the duration of the study. Excised tissue showed 1-2 small (<3.0 cm²) healed or healing superficial gastric lesions in 5 of 6 animals. Histologic analysis demonstrated that lesion location was superficial to areas of abnormally high microsphere deposition. An analysis of microsphere deposition patterns within the gastrointestinal wall indicated a high preference for submucosal deposition. Dosimetric evaluation at the luminal mucosa performed on the basis of microscopic microsphere distribution confirmed that ⁹⁰Y dosimetry techniques conventionally used in hepatic dosimetry provide a first-order estimate of absorbed dose.

CONCLUSION

The upper gastrointestinal tract may be less sensitive to ⁹⁰Y radioembolization than previously thought. Lack of charged-particle equilibrium at the luminal mucosa may contribute to decreased toxicity of ⁹⁰Y radioembolization compared with external-beam radiation therapy in gastrointestinal tissue. Clinical examples of injury from ⁹⁰Y nontarget embolization have likely resulted from relatively large ⁹⁰Y activities being deposited in small tissue volumes, resulting in absorbed doses in excess of 100 Gy.

Lyophilized aspirin with trehalose may decrease the incidence of gastric injuries in healthy dogs

Trehalose has several novel anti-inflammatory and cell-protective functions. We hypothesized that lyophilized aspirin/trehalose could decrease the severity of aspirin-induced gastropathy. Thirteen dogs were assigned into aspirin, lyophilized aspirin/trehalose, and control groups, and the gastric lesions were assessed on gastroscopy with the modified Lanza scale. Another 6 dogs were used to measure the plasma aspirin concentration by high-performance liquid chromatography after aspirin or lyophilized aspirin/trehalose administration. The results indicated that lyophilized aspirin/trehalose induced less gastric ulceration than aspirin despite maintaining therapeutic concentrations of plasma aspirin in both the groups. Lyophilized aspirin/trehalose might be a solution to decrease aspirin-induced gastropathy.

Effect of mosapride on prednisolone-induced gastric mucosal injury and gastric-emptying disorder in dog

Previous report demonstrated that prokinetic agent mosapride has anti-ulcerogenic action in rat-indomethacin gastric mucosal injury model. Here, we assessed the prophylactic effect of mosapride on gastric mucosal injury and emptying disorder induced by prednisolone in dogs. Crossover study design was employed. Six healthy beagles were administered prednisolone alone (2 mg/kg, twice a day [BID] subcutaneously) and prednisolone with mosapride (1 mg/kg, BID, orally), followed by an interval of at least 6 weeks. In each treatment, gastric mucosal injury was scored endoscopically according to the modified Lanza scale, and gastric emptying was assessed with (13)C-octanoic acid breath test. The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was also investigated. Coadministration of mosapride with prednisolone significantly (P<0.05) reduced the gastric mucosal injury score (mean ± SD, 17.67 ± 6.96), compared with that of prednisolone treatment alone (25.50 ± 13.03). Prednisolone treatment delayed the half-emptying time (184 ± 45 min) compared with that of controls (137 ± 19 min), and coadministration of mosapride improved this gastric-emptying delay (143 ± 29 min). Furthermore, the incidence of the gastrointestinal adverse event vomiting became less frequent upon coadministration with mosapride. In addition to its prokinetic action, our study suggests that mosapride has an anti-ulcerogenic action in dogs. The use of mosapride in combination with prednisolone is effective for attenuating prednisolone-induced gastrointestinal adverse events.

Effects of zinc-L-carnosine and vitamin E on aspirin-induced gastroduodenal injury in dogs

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs frequently cause gastrointestinal (GI) injury. Zinc-L-carnosine has antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, mucosal protective, and healing properties in rodent models and in some human studies of GI injury.

HYPOTHESIS

The combination of zinc-L-carnosine and vitamin E attenuates aspirin-induced gastroduodenal mucosal injury.

ANIMALS

Eighteen healthy random-source Foxhound dogs.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study dogs were treated with placebo (n = 6; 0X group), 30 mg/30 IU (n = 6; 1X group), or 60 mg/60 IU (n = 6; 2X group) zinc-L-carnosine/vitamin E orally every 12 hours for 35 days. Between Day 7 and 35, GI mucosal lesions were induced with aspirin (25 mg/kg p.o. q8h). Mucosal injury lesions (hemorrhage, erosion, and ulcer) were assessed by gastroduodenoscopy on Days 14, 21, and 35 with a 12-point scoring scale.

RESULTS

At baseline (Day -1) gastroscopy scores were not significantly different between groups (mean ± SD: 0X, 4.4 ± 0.8; group 1X, 4.4 ± 0.6; group 2X, 4.2 ± 0.3; P= .55). Gastroscopy scores increased significantly in all groups between Day -1 and Days 14, 21, and 35 (P < .0001). On Day 35, gastroscopy scores were 29.2 ± 5.2 (0X), 27.3 ± 3.7 (1X), and 28.6 ± 3.3 (2X). Mean gastroscopy scores were not significantly different among treatment groups on any of the days (P = .61).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

Administration of the combination of zinc-L-carnosine and vitamin E at 1X or 2X dosing did not attenuate aspirin-induced gastroduodenal mucosal injury.

Effects of prednisone alone or prednisone with ultralow-dose aspirin on the gastroduodenal mucosa of healthy dogs

BACKGROUND

The coadministration of prednisone and ultralow-dose aspirin has been recommended for the management of various diseases, but the safety of this combination in dogs has not been studied.

HYPOTHESES

The gastroduodenal lesions associated with prednisone and ultralow-dose aspirin administration will be similar to those caused by prednisone alone, but both treatments will result in more severe lesions than placebo.

ANIMALS

Eighteen healthy adult purpose-bred dogs.

METHODS

Randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled study of 3 treatment groups for 27 days: placebo, prednisone, and prednisone and aspirin. Gastroduodenoscopy was performed before and on days 5, 14, and 27 of treatment and mucosal lesions scores were assigned. Mucosal lesion scores were compared by a Kruskal-Wallis test. Clinical signs were compared by the Friedman's chi-square test (significance at P < .05).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the gastroduodenal lesion scores among groups, or within groups at any time during the study. Significantly more dog-days of diarrhea occurred in the prednisone and aspirin group during treatment, compared with baseline. No significant differences in clinical signs were found among any of the groups.

CONCLUSION

The concurrent use of prednisone and ultralow-dose aspirin did not increase the severity of gastroduodenal lesions compared with prednisone or placebo. Coadministration of prednisone and ultralow-dose aspirin increases the frequency of mild, self-limiting diarrhea in some dogs.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in veterinary ophthalmology

Uveitis is a common sequela to many ocular diseases. Primary treatment goals for uveitis should be to halt inflammation, prevent or control complications caused by inflammation, relieve pain, and preserve vision. Systemic and topical NSAIDs are essential components of the pharmaceutic armamentarium currently employed in the management of ocular inflammation by general practitioners and veterinary ophthalmologists worldwide. NSAIDs effectively prevent intraoperative miosis; control postoperative pain and inflammation after intraocular procedures, thus optimizing surgical outcome; control symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis;alleviate pain from various causes of uveitis; and circumvent some of the unwanted side effects that occur with corticosteroid treatment. Systemic NSAID therapy is necessary to treat posterior uveitis, because therapeutic concentrations cannot be attained in the retina and choroid with topical administration alone, and is warranted when diseases, such as diabetes mellitus or systemic infection, preclude the use of systemic corticosteroids. Risk factors have been identified with systemic and topical administration of NSAIDs. In general, ophthalmic NSAIDs may be used safely with other ophthalmic pharmaceutics; however, concurrent use of drugs known to affect the corneal epithelium adversely, such as gentamicin, may lead to increased corneal penetration of the NSAID. The concurrent use of NSAIDs with topical corticosteroids in the face of significant preexisting corneal inflammation has been identified as a risk factor in precipitating corneal erosions and melts in people and should be undertaken with caution[8]. Clinicians should remain vigilant in their screening of ophthalmic and systemic complications secondary to drug therapy and educate owners accordingly. If a sudden increase in patient ocular pain (as manifested by an increase in blepharospasm, photophobia, ocular discharge, or rubbing)is noted, owners should be instructed to contact their veterinarian promptly.