Double-blind comparison of efficacy and gastroduodenal safety of diclofenac/misoprostol, piroxicam, and naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis

Association between misoprostol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced kidney injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Misoprostol is a prostaglandin E1 analogue that is used to prevent nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastrointestinal disorders. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether use of misoprostol also decreases the risk of NSAID-induced kidney injury.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials that compared misoprostol vs. placebo in an adult patient population were selected. The primary outcome was kidney injury and the secondary outcome was severe adverse events. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were eligible for inclusion. Although the rates of kidney injury and severe adverse events did not differ significantly between misoprostol and placebo, a posthoc subgroup analysis that excluded studies in which different NSAIDs were used in the misoprostol and placebo groups suggested that misoprostol may reduce the risk of NSAID-induced kidney injury (risk difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.15 to -0.03, P < .01, I2  = 87%; evidence of very low certainty).

CONCLUSION

There is limited evidence that misoprostol reduces the risk of NSAID-induced kidney injury. Misoprostol possibly contributes to reducing the risk of kidney injury associated with chronic NSAID use. The findings of this meta-analysis suggest further high-quality clinical trials are warranted.

Clinical Guidelines for Drug-Related Peptic Ulcer, 2020 Revised Edition

Korean guidelines for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced peptic ulcer were previously developed in 2009 with the collaboration of the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research and Korean Society of Gastroenterology. However, the previous guidelines were based mainly upon a review of the relevant literature and expert opinion. Therefore, the guidelines need to be revised. We organized a guideline Development Committee for drug-related peptic ulcer under the auspices of the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research in 2017 and developed nine statements, including four for NSAIDs, three for aspirin and other antiplatelet agents, and two for anticoagulants through a de novo process founded on evidence-based medicine that included a literature search and a meta-analysis, A consensus was reached through the application of the modified Delphi method. The primary target of these guidelines is adult patients undergoing long-term treatment with NSAIDs, aspirin or other antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants. The revised guidelines reflect the expert consensus and is intended to assist clinicians in the management and prevention of drug-induced peptic ulcer and associated conditions.

[Clinical Guidelines for Drug-induced Peptic Ulcer, 2020 Revised Edition]

The Korean guidelines for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced peptic ulcers were previously developed under co-work with the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research and Korean Society of Gastroenterology at 2009. On the other hand, the previous guidelines were based mainly on a literature review and expert opinions. Therefore, the guidelines need to be revised. In this study, a guideline development committee for drug-induced peptic ulcers was organized under the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research in 2017. Nine statements were developed, including four for NSAID, three for aspirin and other antiplatelet agents, and two for anticoagulants through de novo processes based on evidence-based medicine, such as a literature search, meta-analysis, and the consensus was established using the modified Delphi method. The primary target of this guideline was adult patients taking long-term NSAIDs, aspirin, or other antiplatelet agent and anticoagulants. The revised guidelines reflect the consensus of expert opinions and are intended to assist relevant clinicians in the management and prevention of drug-induced peptic ulcers and associated conditions.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy in patients with hypertension, cardiovascular, renal or gastrointestinal comorbidities: joint APAGE/APLAR/APSDE/APSH/APSN/PoA recommendations

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most commonly prescribed medications, but they are associated with a number of serious adverse effects, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, kidney injury and GI complications.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a set of multidisciplinary recommendations for the safe prescription of NSAIDs.

METHODS

Randomised control trials and observational studies published before January 2018 were reviewed, with 329 papers included for the synthesis of evidence-based recommendations.

RESULTS

Whenever possible, a NSAID should be avoided in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, high risk of cardiovascular disease and severe chronic kidney disease (CKD). Before treatment with a NSAID is started, blood pressure should be measured, unrecognised CKD should be screened in high risk cases, and unexplained iron-deficiency anaemia should be investigated. For patients with high cardiovascular risk, and if NSAID treatment cannot be avoided, naproxen or celecoxib are preferred. For patients with a moderate risk of peptic ulcer disease, monotherapy with a non-selective NSAID plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), or a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor should be used; for those with a high risk of peptic ulcer disease, a selective COX-2 inhibitor plus PPI are needed. For patients with pre-existing hypertension receiving renin-angiotensin system blockers, empirical addition (or increase in the dose) of an antihypertensive agent of a different class should be considered. Blood pressure and renal function should be monitored in most cases.

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs are a valuable armamentarium in clinical medicine, but appropriate recognition of high-risk cases, selection of a specific agent, choice of ulcer prophylaxis and monitoring after therapy are necessary to minimise the risk of adverse events.

Evolving therapeutic strategies to improve nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug safety

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) possess potent anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties through inhibition of cyclooxygenase enzymes (COX-1 and COX-2), which are responsible for synthesis of proinflammatory mediators. NSAIDs are frequently used for treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions. However, their use is associated with serious dose-dependent gastrointestinal (GI), cardiovascular, renal, and hepatic adverse effects, which pose a serious clinical concern for both patients and physicians. During the past 2 decades, approaches to improving the tolerability of NSAIDs were mainly directed toward discovery of COX-2 selective NSAIDs (coxibs), which were expected to minimize the risk of GI injury. Unfortunately, the results from multiple clinical studies have shown that treatment with coxibs may increase the risk for cardiovascular complications. This review summarizes current strategies used to reduce the toxicity of NSAIDs and outlines novel therapeutic approaches still in preclinical development. To minimize the risk of GI ulcerations and bleeding, combination therapies with gastroprotective agents are currently recommended. The new therapeutic agents anticipated to have similar effects include nitric oxide- and hydrogen sulfide-releasing NSAIDs. Novel manufacturing technologies enhance dissolution and absorption of NSAID products, allowing for their administration at low doses, which could lead to improved drug tolerability without diminishing the analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy of NSAIDs. This principle is in line with the current recommendation by the US Food and Drug Administration that NSAIDs should be used at the lowest effective dosage. Finally, NSAID formulations targeted directly to the site of inflammation are expected to reduce systemic drug exposure and thus decrease the risk of systemic adverse effects.

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

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

Efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib versus naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib versus naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

METHODS

This 6-month, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial was conducted at 47 centres in the USA. Patients with OA of the knee were randomized to receive 200 mg celecoxib orally once daily or 500 mg naproxen orally twice daily. The primary endpoint was defined as a 20% improvement from baseline to 6 months in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) OA total score.

RESULTS

A total of 586 out of 589 randomized patients received at least one dose of celecoxib (n=294) or naproxen (n=292). The primary endpoint (6-month response rate) was achieved by 52.7% and 49.7% of patients in the celecoxib and naproxen treatment groups, respectively. Significantly fewer discontinuations due to gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in patients receiving celecoxib than in those receiving naproxen (4.1% versus 15.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the 6month study period, celecoxib provided similar improvements in OA symptoms to naproxen. In addition, celecoxib provided better upper gastrointestinal tolerability than naproxen.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and gastroprotection with proton pump inhibitors: a focus on ketoprofen/omeprazole

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most commonly prescribed agents for rheumatic disorders such as osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Despite the known association between NSAID use and gastropathy, however, only around one-third of patients at risk of NSAID-induced gastrointestinal toxicity receive adequate gastroprotection, and as many as 44% of these patients are non-adherent. We review the co-prescription of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the prevention of NSAID-induced gastropathy, with a particular focus on the first fixed-dose NSAID/PPI formulation: ketoprofen/omeprazole modified-release capsules. The ketoprofen/omeprazole fixed-dose combination is available in doses of 100 mg/20 mg, 150 mg/20 mg or 200 mg/20 mg as a single capsule for once-daily administration. Ketoprofen monotherapy has been shown to be generally equivalent to other NSAIDs when used in the treatment of OA. In RA, ketoprofen has demonstrated equivalent efficacy to diclofenac, indometacin, piroxicam, aceclofenac, phenylbutazone, naproxen and flurbiprofen. Studies comparing ketoprofen with ibuprofen and sulindac in patients with RA have, in general, favoured ketoprofen. Studies in AS have generally reported similar efficacy between ketoprofen and phenylbutazone and pirprofen. Prophylaxis with omeprazole is effective for the prevention of gastroduodenal ulcers, maintenance of remission and alleviation of dyspeptic symptoms in NSAID recipients. Omeprazole is well tolerated, and adverse events are generally gastrointestinal in nature. The fixed-dose combination of ketoprofen and omeprazole has demonstrated bioequivalence to the respective monotherapies. The incidence of digestive symptoms and the need for dose reduction was reported to be lower with the combination than with its components. Ketoprofen/omeprazole modified-release capsules are the first fixed-dose NSAID/PPI formulation to be approved. This formulation ensures compliance with the gastroprotective prophylaxis, as whenever the NSAID is taken, the PPI is co-administered. Additionally, the once-daily formulation has the potential to improve adherence to anti-inflammatory therapy.

Lafutidine prevents low-dose aspirin and loxoprofen induced gastric injury: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The concomitant use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is a risk factor for low-dose aspirin (LDA)-associated upper gastrointestinal toxicity. Lafutidine is an H2-receptor antagonist with gastroprotective activity, produced by acting on capsaicin-sensitive afferent neurons. To evaluate the preventive effect of lafutidine on gastric damage caused by LDA alone and by the combination of both LDA and loxoprofen, we conducted a clinical study using healthy volunteers.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study was carried out. Sixteen healthy volunteers without Helicobacter pylori infection were randomly assigned to two groups. Both groups received 81 mg of aspirin once daily for 14 days (on days 1 to 14) and 60 mg of loxoprofen three times daily for the last 7 days (on days 8 to 14). Placebo or 10 mg of lafutidine was administered twice daily for 14 days in each group. After a 2-week washout period, placebo and lafutidine were crossed over. Endoscopic findings of gastric mucosal damage were evaluated according to the modified Lanza score.

RESULTS

The mean modified Lanza score was 2.19 ± 1.06 (SD) for aspirin plus placebo as compared with 0.50 ± 0.77 for aspirin plus lafutidine (P < 0.001), and 3.00 ± 1.56 for aspirin plus loxoprofen and placebo as compared with 1.25 ± 1.37 for aspirin plus loxoprofen and lafutidine (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of loxoprofen to LDA increases gastric mucosal damage. Standard-dose lafutidine significantly prevents gastric mucosal damage induced by LDA alone or LDA plus loxoprofen in H. pylori-negative volunteers. Larger controlled studies are needed to strengthen these findings.

Prevention of NSAID-related upper gastrointestinal toxicity: a meta-analysis of traditional NSAIDs with gastroprotection and COX-2 inhibitors

Background:

Traditional NSAIDs (tNSAIDs) and COX-2 inhibitors (COX-2s) are important agents for the treatment of a variety or arthritic conditions. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of misoprostol, H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the prevention of tNSAID related upper gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, and to review the upper gastrointestinal (GI) safety of COX-2s.

Methods:

An extensive literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prophylactic agents used for the prevention of upper GI toxicity, and RCTs that assessed the GI safety of the newer COX-2s. Meta-analysis was performed in accordance with accepted techniques.

Results:

39 gastroprotection and 69 COX-2 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Misoprostol, PPIs, and double doses of H2RAs are effective at reducing the risk of both endoscopic gastric and duodenal tNSAID-induced ulcers. Standard doses of H2RAs are not effective at reducing the risk of tNSAID-induced gastric ulcers, but reduce the risk of duodenal ulcers. Misoprostol is associated with greater adverse effects than the other agents, particularly at higher doses. COX-2s are associated with fewer endoscopic ulcers and clinically important ulcer complications, and have fewer treatment withdrawals due to GI symptoms than tNSAIDS. Acetylsalicylic acid appears to diminish the benefit of COX-2s over tNSAIDs. In high risk GI patients, tNSAID with a PPI or a COX-2 alone appear to offer similar GI safety, but a strategy of a COX-2 with a PPI appears to offer the greatest GI safety.

Conclusion:

Several strategies are available to reduce the risk of upper GI toxicity with tNSAIDs. The choice between these strategies needs to consider patients’ underlying GI and cardiovascular risk.

Costs and effects of various analgesic treatments for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

To assess the balance between costs and upper gastrointestinal (GI) side effects of treatment with celecoxib, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) alone, NSAID plus misoprostol, NSAID plus histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H(2)RA), NSAID plus proton pump inhibitor (PPI), and Arthrotec in The Netherlands.

METHODS

A model was used to convene data from various sources on the probability of GI side effects and resource use. The probabilities of GI side effects for celecoxib and NSAIDs alone were derived from trial data. Calculations were based on 6 months of treatment, and were from a societal perspective. Distinction was made between low-, medium-, and high-risk patients. An extensive probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to address uncertainty.

RESULTS

Assuming an average patient, the total costs per 6 months of therapy were: celecoxib 255 Euro, NSAIDs alone 166 Euro, NSAID plus misoprostol 285 Euro, NSAID plus H(2)RA 284 Euro, NSAID plus PPI 243 Euro, and Arthrotec 187 Euro. Treatment with celecoxib was associated with the lowest number of GI side effects and related deaths. Incremental costs per life-year saved for Arthrotec compared to NSAIDs alone were 5676 Euro for all patients and 526 Euro for medium-to-high-risk patients, whereas for high-risk patients, Arthrotec dominated NSAID alone. For celecoxib compared to Arthrotec, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were 56,667 Euro, 33,684 Euro, and 15,429 Euro, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Assuming a limit of 20,000 Euro per life-year gained, from an economic point of view, Arthrotec is the preferred treatment when all patients or medium-to-high-risk patients are considered. In high-risk patients, celecoxib is the preferred treatment strategy.

Traitements curatif et préventif des ulcères gastro-duodénaux induits par les AINS

The use of treatments to heal or to prevent nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) associated gastroduodenal lesions is based on replacement of mucosal prostaglandin deficiency or inhibition of acid secretion. Four-week acid suppression by proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with 7-day eradication triple therapy in Helicobacter pylori positive patients is effective in healing gastric and duodenal ulcer upon discontinuation of NSAIDs. In the event NSAIDs must be continued, PPIs (omeprazole 20 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg) are more effective than H2-blockers and cytoprotective agents (sucralfate, misoprostol) to heal mucosal lesions. In long-term prevention studies, omeprazole 20 mg, lansoprazole 15 mg, and pantoprazole 20 mg significantly reduce gastric and duodenal ulcer rates. Misoprostol 800 microg is as effective as PPIs for preventing symptomatic and complicated gastric ulcers, but less effective to prevent duodenal ulcer, with a high rate of adverse effects such as diarrhea. Helicobacter pylori eradication in infected patients decrease the risk of NSAIDs-associated lesions but is less effective than concomitant antisecretory treatment. Current data from comparative studies of PPIs vs ranitidine or misoprostol are in favor of the PPIs as well tolerated and effective drugs in the prophylaxis of NSAIDs-related gastroduodenal lesions in high-risk patients.

The CINOD, AZD3582, exhibits an improved gastrointestinal safety profile compared with naproxen in healthy volunteers

COX-inhibiting nitric oxide donators (CINODs) are a new class of drugs in development for the treatment of acute and chronic pain. They comprise a COX-inhibiting moiety linked to a nitric-oxide-donating component and are designed to provide an innovative mechanism of action of balanced COX inhibition and controlled nitric oxide donation. Through these pathways, CINODs should provide analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy, while offering gastrointestinal safety through the tissue-protective effects of nitric oxide donation. AZD3582 [4-(nitrooxy)butyl-(2S)-2-(6-methoxy-2-naphthyl)propanoate] is the first agent in the CINOD class to enter extensive clinical development. Pre-clinical studies demonstrate that AZD3582 has a superior gastrointestinal safety profile to naproxen, while demonstrating analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy. In healthy human volunteers, AZD3582 caused little gastrointestinal damage compared with equimolar doses of naproxen. Studies to evaluate the longer-term gastrointestinal safety of AZD3582, alongside its efficacy in alleviating chronic and acute pain, are ongoing.

Meta-analysis of dyspepsia and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs

OBJECTIVE

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) use is a known risk factor for gastrointestinal (GI) perforations, ulcers, and bleeds, but there are limited data on its association with the very common symptom of dyspepsia. Using published and unpublished data sources, we sought to determine estimates of the risks of dyspepsia associated with NSAIDs.

METHODS

We searched computerized databases (1966-1998) for primary studies of NSAIDs reporting on GI complications. We also obtained Food and Drug Administration (FDA) new drug application reviews for the 5 most common NSAIDs. We included studies reporting defined upper GI outcomes among subjects (>17 years old) who used oral NSAIDs for more than 4 days. Two reviewers evaluated 4,881 published titles, identifying 55 NSAID versus placebo randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 37 unpublished (FDA data) placebo-controlled RCTs; 86 NSAID versus NSAID RCTs (sample size >or=50); and 103 observational studies.

RESULTS

The majority of clinical trials were of good quality. Meta-regression identified an increased risk of dyspepsia for users of specific NSAIDs (adjusted odds ratio [OR] of indomethacin, meclofenamate, piroxicam = 2.8), and for high dosages of other NSAIDs (OR = 3.1), but not for other NSAIDs regardless of dosage (OR = 1.1). Dyspepsia was not reported as an outcome in the case control or cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trial data indicate that high dosages of any NSAID along with any dosage of indomethacin, meclofenamate, or piroxicam increase the risk of dyspepsia by about 3-fold. Other NSAIDs at lower dosages were not associated with an increased risk of dyspepsia.

Adverse gastrointestinal effects of NSAIDs: consequences and costs

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are some of the most widely consumed medications. They are available by prescription and 'over the counter'. The same pharmacological properties which make them effective in the treatment of a variety of painful and/or arthritic conditions are responsible for a variety of adverse gastrointestinal effects, ranging from relatively mild dyspepsia to potentially lethal gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and perforated ulcers. Yearly medical costs of GI complications associated with the use of NSAIDs are very high and likely to increase with the growth of the ageing US population. A review of the literature (1970-2000) on consequences and costs of NSAID-associated GI adverse effects, including iatrogenic cost factors of NSAIDs, was performed. The results were tabulated and compared. Knowledge and comparison of the consequences and costs of NSAID-associated GI adverse effects in various populations and across various health care systems are important for clinical care, pharmacoeconomics and policy arenas.

Economic evaluation of celecoxib, a new cyclo-oxygenase 2 specific inhibitor, in Switzerland

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to predict the cost effectiveness of celecoxib, a cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX-2) specific inhibitor, in the treatment of arthritis patients in Switzerland.

METHODS

We applied a decision analytical model to compare the effects of 6 months' treatment with the following: (i) celecoxib; (ii) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) alone; NSAID protected with (iii) proton pump inhibitor (PPI), (iv) histamine H2 receptor antagonist (H2RA), or (v) misoprostol; and (vi) diclofenac/misoprostol. Treatment costs included drug acquisition and the management of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects, classified as GI discomfort, symptomatic ulcer, anaemia and serious GI events (requiring hospitalisation). Probabilities were derived from celecoxib clinical trials and the literature. Drug utilisation patterns and treatment costs reflecting Swiss practice were obtained from local sources. Analysis was from the public health insurers' perspective. A range of sensitivity analyses was performed.

RESULTS

For the base case of patients at typical risk (0.56% per 6 months) of serious GI events, the total expected costs of 6 months' treatment were as follows: celecoxib 435 Swiss francs (SwF); NSAID alone SwF510; diclofenac/misoprostol SwF522; and other protected NSAID regimens between SwF1034 and SwF1415. Celecoxib remained the lowest costing treatment over all categories of GI risk. Celecoxib generated 115 expected adverse events per 1000 patients per 6 months, followed by NSAID + PPI (119), NSAID + H2RA (154), NSAID + misoprostol (202), diclofenac/misoprostol (203), and NSAID alone (220), again for the base case. The cost per adverse event averted for celecoxib compared with NSAIDs alone was estimated in a stochastic version of the model using Monte Carlo simulation. In 95% of 500 iterations, celecoxib was predicted to save both costs and adverse events, thus dominating NSAIDs alone; the maximum cost per adverse event averted was SwF440.

CONCLUSIONS

Celecoxib is predicted to be the most cost effective of the treatments considered for managing arthritis patients in Switzerland. A policy of switching patients from NSAIDs to celecoxib is predicted to be cost saving for public health insurers, while reducing the burden of iatrogenic GI side effects. Greater cost savings would be realised when patients are switched from NSAIDs used with gastroprotective agents. Models such as this can provide a useful but simplified view of treatment outcomes and predicted results require prospective validation in clinical practice.

A framework for evaluating the clinical consequences of initial therapy with NSAIDs, NSAIDs plus gastroprotective agents, or celecoxib in the treatment of arthritis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to provide a framework for estimating the economic efficiency of nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), concomitant gastroprotective agents (GPAs) to reduce the risk of NSAID toxicity, and celecoxib, a specific cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor. Concomitant GPA therapies considered include one of the following: proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) plus NSAIDs, histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) plus NSAIDs, misoprostol plus NSAIDs, and a single tablet formulation of diclofenac/misoprostol.

DESIGN

The study employs a decision-tree framework to establish probabilities of upper gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events occurring over a 6-month time frame. Celecoxib clinical trial data are used to establish probabilities of upper GI events for celecoxib and NSAIDs, and published literature is used to predict upper GI events for the other concomitant therapies. Upper GI adverse events included in the decision-tree are as follows: GI discomfort, symptomatic ulcer, serious GI complications (with and without death), and anaemia with occult bleeding.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

Clinical probabilities indicate celecoxib has significant tolerability and safety advantages compared with nonselective NSAIDs. Celecoxib also reduces the risk of GI adverse events to a similar or superior degree when compared with reductions observed with NSAIDs with concomitant GPAs.

CONCLUSION

Use of celecoxib is expected to significantly reduce the economic costs of GI toxicity and its associated morbidity.

An economic model for determining the costs and consequences of using various treatment alternatives for the management of arthritis in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To construct a decision analytical model to compare the costs and clinical consequences of treating patients with celecoxib or various nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)/gastrointestinal (GI) co-therapy regimens for the management of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. The model quantified the number of patients expected to experience any GI complication commonly associated with NSAID therapy.

DESIGN

Resource use for the treatment of each GI complication in the model was estimated after consulting Canadian experts. Standard unit costs from Ontario were applied to resources to calculate the cost of each complication.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

The model revealed that the NSAID-alone regimen was associated with the lowest cost [$262 Canadian dollars ($Can) per patient per 6 months] followed by the celecoxib regimen ($Can273), diclofenac/misoprostol ($Can365), NSAID + histamine H2 receptor antagonist ($Can413), NSAID + misoprostol ($Can421), and NSAID + proton pump inhibitor ($Can731). A break-even analysis showed that up to 80% of the study cohort could be treated with celecoxib instead of the NSAID-alone regimen without increasing the health system's overall budget. Celecoxib was associated with the fewest GI-related deaths, hospitalised events; symptomatic ulcers, and cases of anaemia. The celecoxib regimen was also associated with the fewest cases of upper GI distress. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the model was most sensitive to the distribution of GI risk in the population and to the ingredient costs of the treatment alternatives.

CONCLUSIONS

This model indicates that the use of celecoxib could lead to the avoidance of a significant number of NSAID-attributable GI adverse events, and the incremental cost of using celecoxib for arthritis patients > or = 65 years of age in place of current treatment alternatives would not impose an excessive incremental impact on a Canadian provincial healthcare budget.

Randomized trial of low-dose misoprostol and naproxen vs. nabumetone to prevent recurrent upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage in users of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic misoprostol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with low gastric toxicity (nabumetone) has been shown to reduce mucosal injury.

AIM

To compare nabumetone vs. co-therapy of naproxen with low-dose misoprostol for secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in NSAID users.

METHODS

NSAID users presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding were enrolled if they required long-term NSAIDs. After ulcer healing, they were randomized to receive: naproxen (500-1000 mg/day) and misoprostol (200 microg b.d.), or nabumetone (1000-1500 mg/day) and placebo misoprostol for 24 weeks. The primary end-point was recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The secondary end-point was the proportion of patients suffering from major gastrointestinal events including ulcer bleeding, symptomatic ulcers and severe dyspepsia.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (misoprostol/naproxen 45, nabumetone 45). Recurrent bleeding occurred in 10 patients (22.2%) receiving misoprostol/naproxen compared with three (6.7%) receiving nabumetone (relative risk 3.33, 95% CI: 0.98-11.32, P=0.069). The proportion of patients suffering from major gastrointestinal events at 24 weeks was 31.1% in the misoprostol/naproxen group and 28.9% in the nabumetone group.

CONCLUSIONS

Misoprostol/naproxen is not superior to nabumetone for secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Neither low-dose misoprostol nor nabumetone is adequate for high-risk NSAID users.

Prevention of chronic NSAID induced upper gastrointestinal toxicity

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are important agents in the management of arthritic and inflammatory conditions, and are among the most frequently prescribed medications in North America and Europe. However, there is overwhelming evidence linking these agents to a variety of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effectiveness of common interventions for the prevention of NSAID induced upper GI toxicity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A literature search was conducted, according to the Cochrane methodology for identification of randomized controlled trials in electronic databases, including MEDLINE from 1966 to January 2000, Current Contents for 6 months prior to January 2000, Embase to Febuary 1999, and a search of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register from 1973 to 1999. Recent conference proceedings were reviewed and content experts and companies were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of prostaglandin analogues (PA), H2-receptor antagonists (H2RA) or proton pump inhibitors (PPI) for the prevention of chronic NSAID induced upper GI toxicity were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data regarding population characteristics, study design, methodological quality and number of patients with endoscopic ulcers, ulcer complications, symptoms, overall drop-outs, drop outs due to symptoms. Dichotomous data was pooled using Revman V3.1. Heterogeneity was evaluated using a chi square test.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-three RCTs met the inclusion criteria. All doses of misoprostol significantly reduced the risk of endoscopic ulcers. Misoprostol 800 ug/day was superior to 400 ug/day for the prevention of endoscopic gastric ulcers (RR=0.18, and RR=0. 38 respectively, p=0.0055). A dose response relationship was not seen with duodenal ulcers. Misoprostol caused diarrhea at all doses, although significantly more at 800ug/day than 400ug/day (p=0.0012). Misoprostol was the only prophylactic agent documented to reduce ulcer complications. Standard doses of H2RAs were effective at reducing the risk of endoscopic duodenal (RR=0.24; 95% CI: 0.10-0. 57) but not gastric ulcers(RR=0.73; 95% CI:0.50-1.09). Both double dose H2RAs and PPIs were effective at reducing the risk of endoscopic duodenal and gastric ulcers (RR=0.44; 95% CI:0.26-0.74 and RR=0.37;95% CI;0.27-0.51 respectively for gastric ulcer), and were better tolerated than misoprostol.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Misoprostol, PPIs, and double dose H2RAs are effective at preventing chronic NSAID related endoscopic gastric and duodenal ulcers. Lower doses of misoprostol are less effective and are still associated with diarrhea. Only Misoprostol 800ug/day has been directly shown to reduce the risk of ulcer complications.

Drug-induced diarrhoea

Diarrhoea is a relatively frequent adverse event, accounting for about 7% of all drug adverse effects. More than 700 drugs have been implicated in causing diarrhoea; those most frequently involved are antimicrobials, laxatives, magnesium-containing antacids, lactose- or sorbitol-containing products, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, prostaglandins, colchicine, antineoplastics, antiarrhythmic drugs and cholinergic agents. Certain new drugs are likely to induce diarrhoea because of their pharmacodynamic properties; examples include anthraquinone-related agents, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, lipase inhibitors and cholinesterase inhibitors. Antimicrobials are responsible for 25% of drug-induced diarrhoea. The disease spectrum of antimicrobial-associated diarrhoea ranges from benign diarrhoea to pseudomembranous colitis. Several pathophysiological mechanisms are involved in drug-induced diarrhoea: osmotic diarrhoea, secretory diarrhoea, shortened transit time, exudative diarrhoea and protein-losing enteropathy, and malabsorption or maldigestion of fat and carbohydrates. Often 2 or more mechanisms are present simultaneously. In clinical practice, 2 major types of diarrhoea are seen: acute diarrhoea, which usually appears during the first few days of treatment, and chronic diarrhoea, lasting more than 3 or 4 weeks and which can appear a long time after the start of drug therapy. Both can be severe and poorly tolerated. In a patient presenting with diarrhoea, the medical history is very important, especially the drug history, as it can suggest a diagnosis of drug-induced diarrhoea and thereby avoid multiple diagnostic tests. The clinical examination should cover severity criteria such as fever, rectal emission of blood and mucus, dehydration and bodyweight loss. Establishing a relationship between drug consumption and diarrhoea or colitis can be difficult when the time elapsed between the start of the drug and the onset of symptoms is long, sometimes up to several months or years.

Cost effectiveness of replacing diclofenac with a fixed combination of misoprostol and diclofenac in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the costs and health consequences of replacing treatment with diclofenac 50 mg with a fixed combination of diclofenac 50 mg and misoprostol 0.2 mg 3 times a day in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A decision tree was developed to simulate 6 months of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) treatment for RA. The probabilities of the clinical outcomes were based on a literature review. A survey of Norwegian rheumatologists was undertaken to explore their clinical management of dyspepsia in RA patients taking NSAIDs. Valuation of health states was based on results of the Short Form 36 health survey.

RESULTS

In female RA patients without any risk factors associated with serious gastrointestinal (GI) complications, the incremental cost of replacing diclofenac with the fixed misoprostol/diclofenac combination therapy was $72,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. For patients with 1 risk factor, the cost was less than $16,000. With 2 or 3 risk factors, the use of misoprostol was cost saving. The cost-effectiveness ratios in males were approximately 20% higher than in females.

CONCLUSION

Replacing diclofenac with a fixed diclofenac/misoprostol combination is cost effective when restricted to RA patients at increased risk of serious GI events.

Arthrotec: the evidence speaks for itself

This article examines the most recently published scientific literature on arthritis therapy options and available mucosal-protective agents. Emphasis is placed on the risks of current nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy, the options for reducing such risks, and the published information that either supports or refutes current thinking in these areas. A comprehensive evaluation is made of clinical data related to the use of Arthrotec (diclofenac/misoprostol) in the treatment of arthritis. A recent meta-analysis of the prophylaxis of NSAID-associated upper gastrointestinal complications is reviewed. The results of this meta-analysis should help to consolidate much of the current scientific literature on the safe and effective treatment of arthritis.

Diclofenac/misoprostol. Pharmacoeconomic implications of therapy

The combined formulation of diclofenac/misoprostol provides effective relief of pain and inflammation, with a 2- to 3-fold lower incidence of NSAID-associated gastroduodenal ulcers than diclofenac monotherapy. Both components of the combined formulation have been widely used and have well documented efficacy and tolerability profiles. Compared with other agents used as prophylaxis for NSAID-induced gastropathies, misoprostol is generally considered to have the most extensive outcomes data establishing its efficacy in preventing both gastric and duodenal ulcers associated with long term NSAID use. Economic analyses conducted to date have shown that diclofenac/misoprostol is associated with similar or lower total direct medical treatment costs compared with other NSAIDs (with or without coprescribed misoprostol or an alternate prophylactic agent). As with pharmacoeconomic studies of coprescribed misoprostol with NSAIDs, the most favourable results with the combined formulation of diclofenac/misoprostol appear to be in patients at high risk of developing NSAID-associated gastroduodenal ulcers (e.g. the elderly). Although economic analyses with diclofenac/misoprostol were conducted in several different countries using a variety of methodologies and employing a wide range of clinical and economic assumptions, results have been generally favourable for the combined formulation. However, as is the case with pharmacoeconomic analyses in general, results of individual studies with diclofenac/misoprostol may not be generalisable between countries and are subject to change over time. Overall, clinical and economic data suggest that the optimal and most cost-effective use of the combined formulation of diclofenac/misoprostol is in patients requiring long term NSAID therapy who are at increased risk of developing NSAID-induced gastropathy, such as elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis.

Comparison of the upper gastrointestinal safety of Arthrotec 75 and nabumetone in osteoarthritis patients at high risk for developing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal ulcers

A 6-week, multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study compared the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) safety of Arthrotec 75 (diclofenac sodium 75 mg-misoprostol 200 microg; G.D. Searle & Co., Skokie, Illinois) administered twice daily with that of nabumetone 1500 mg administered once daily in 1203 patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee. All patients had a documented clinical history of endoscopically confirmed gastric, pyloric-channel, or duodenal ulcer or > or = 10 erosions in the stomach or duodenum. UGI endoscopy was performed at baseline and again at week 6 or early withdrawal. Treatment with Arthrotec 75 resulted in a significantly lower combined incidence of endoscopically confirmed gastric and duodenal ulcers compared with nabumetone (4% vs 11%), and its rate of endoscopically confirmed ulceration was equivalent to that of placebo. The incidence of gastric ulcers alone was also significantly lower with Arthrotec 75 than with nabumetone (1% vs 9%). The incidence of duodenal ulcer with Arthrotec 75 was not significantly different from that with nabumetone (4% vs 3%). Types of adverse events were similar for all treatment groups, with GI adverse events predominating. Arthrotec 75 was well tolerated by the majority of patients. The results of this study demonstrate that Arthrotec 75 has a superior UGI safety profile, causing significantly fewer UGI ulcers, in comparison with nabumetone in patients with symptomatic OA and a documented history of ulcers or > or = 10 erosions.

Agents used in the prevention and treatment of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated symptoms and ulcers

Coprescription of gastroprotective agents is a common practice for patients requiring nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy, although there is limited evidence that some of these agents are effective. The prostaglandin analog misoprostol and the proton pump inhibitor omeprazole appear to be efficacious in decreasing NSAID-associated ulcers. Misoprostol has also been shown to decrease NSAID-associated gastrointestinal (GI) complications by 40% compared with placebo. Despite the efficacy of these drugs, their effectiveness in the general population has not yet been adequately determined with respect to reduction of symptoms and improvement in patient quality of life. Sucralfate and bismuth appear to be largely ineffective, and histamine receptor antagonists, when given at traditional ulcer-healing doses, decrease symptoms and duodenal ulcers only. The issue of outcomes research, therefore, needs to be more fully incorporated into any analysis of the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of the widespread clinical use of such gastroprotective drugs.

Pain treatment in multimorbid patients, the older population and other high-risk groups. The clinical challenge of reducing toxicity

The prevalence of pain is high in multimorbid patients and they can experience a multitude of painful conditions. The changes in physiology and homeostasis associated with multimorbidity and increasing age and the immature metabolism of neonates all increase the risk of toxicity from analgesics. Altered pharmacokinetics and metabolism influence drug pharmacodynamics and therapeutic windows. Imbalances in local homeostatic mechanisms increase local toxicity. The gastrointestinal organs and the kidney have a major role in the absorption, metabolism and excretion of analgesics and changes in their function predispose individuals to adverse effects. Knowledge of such compromise should influence the choice of analgesic, the administration regimen and the mode of application. The mainstay of chronic pain treatment are 3 classes of drugs: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids and a host of so-called adjuvant drugs, which are used to enhance the analgesic action of the classic analgesics. In each class a wide range of drugs are available, that differ in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics. These differences can be exploited to either increase analgesic efficacy and reduce toxicity, or to minimise the interference of pain therapy with daily life. Clinically important differences in analgesic and toxic effects between drugs in each analgesic class will be discussed in this article from the perspective of reducing adverse effects. New knowledge concerning the mechanism of action of analgesics and their metabolites is making the specific selection of NSAIDs and opioids to reduce adverse effects in multimorbid, chronic pain patients possible.

Improving the gastrointestinal safety of NSAIDs: the development of misoprostol--from hypothesis to clinical practice

Arthritis is a major source of disability for the American population. It results in significant morbidity for the millions of patients affected and costs billions of dollars yearly for diagnosis and management. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the principal therapy for the majority of arthritis patients. It has been estimated that more than 15 million people with arthritis take these drugs daily. This use is predicted to increase greatly not only as a result of an aging population, with the consequent increase in the prevalence of arthritis, but also because NSAIDs may prove to have a role in decreasing colonic neoplasia and in reducing the likelihood of conditions such as Alzheimer's disease. It is therefore increasingly important to understand the nature of the side effects associated with these agents as well as ways of decreasing or preventing their occurrence. NSAIDs inhibit the enzymes cyclooxygenase-1 and cyclooxygenase-2. This reduces the synthesis of prostaglandins and therefore decreases joint inflammation, but it may also lead to the development of gastric and duodenal ulcers. For this reason, exogenous prostaglandins have been studied for their potential role in preventing NSAID-associated ulcers and ulcer complications. This paper reviews the development of the prostaglandin E1 analog misoprostol, the theory behind its use as a mucosal protective agent, and the results of studies in animals as well as in normal volunteers and patients with arthritis. Ultimately, a study was performed to evaluate whether misoprostol reduces the incidence of serious ulcer complications in patients taking NSAIDs. It is an interesting story, which promises to be of increasing importance as NSAID use expands to new indications while concern remains about their associated complications, especially those related to the gastrointestinal tract.

[Risk of ulcer and its prophylaxis in therapy with non-steroidal antirheumatic drugs]

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most frequently prescribed drugs in western countries. The high incidence of adverse gastrointestinal effects which are potentially life-threatening require steps for prevention. The use of NSAIDs should be restricted to patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. If NSAIDs are indicated it is important to identify patients who are at high risk to develop serious gastrointestinal side effects. These patients should receive Misoprostol at a dose of 2 to 3 x 200 micrograms per day. Up to date Misoprostol is the only drug with proven efficacy with respect to the prevention of gastroduodenal ulcer and its complications. NSAIDs inhibit the key enzyme of prostaglandin synthesis, the cyclooxygenase. Recently published data show that 2 isoenzymes of the cyclooxygenase exists. Cyclooxygenase-1 is primarily involved in the maintenance of organ function whereas cyclooxygenase-2 is expressed in inflamed tissue. Specific cyclooxygease-2 inhibitors have been developed. Clinical trials have to prove if the concept of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition with high antiinflammatory potency but lack of gastrointestinal side effects holds true in humans.

The cost effectiveness of diclofenac plus misoprostol compared with diclofenac monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

The objective of our study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of treatment with a fixed-dose combination of diclofenac and misoprostol compared with diclofenac monotherapy in the prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced ulcers in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. A model was used to incorporate estimates of costs, incidence of ulcers and their complications, death rates and the efficacy of misoprostol. The costs per ulcer-free period gained and costs per additional survivor were calculated. Cost effectiveness was calculated for the treatment of all RA patients, and of risk groups only. All costs were measured in 1995 Netherlands guilders (NLG; exchange rate at the time of the study: NLG1 = $US0.60). The analysis showed that if 100 RA patients receive 3 months of treatment with diclofenac plus misoprostol, instead of diclofenac alone, this will lead to overall additional costs of NLG773, while 0.82 symptomatic ulcers and 0.019 deaths will be prevented. If misoprostol is given only to patients at high risk for NSAID-induced ulcer, cost savings will occur instead of additional costs. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the outcomes are sensitive to changes in: (i) the percentage of ulcers treated in the ambulatory setting; (ii) the price difference between diclofenac and the fixed-dose diclofenac-misoprostol combination; (iii) the percentage of ulcers with complications; and (iv) the efficacy of misoprostol. In conclusion, it can be stated that treatment with diclofenac-misoprostol is cost saving in RA patients at high risk for NSAID-induced ulcers. For RA patients in general, the cost-effectiveness of this intervention compares favourably with that of other prophylactic treatments.

Use of misoprostol in the elderly: is the expense justified?

Misoprostol is a prostaglandin E1 analogue which reduces both gastric ulcerations and clinically important bleeding in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Economic evaluations of prophylactic use of misoprostol with NSAIDs differ in their conclusions mainly because of different assumptions regarding the absolute risk reduction of symptomatic ulcers. Assuming a conservative estimate of the absolute risk reduction based on new effectiveness data, all studies would have concluded that misoprostol prophylaxis results in net costs in the general population of NSAID users. However, in the elderly with a clearly increased risk of gastrointestinal (GI) lesions and ulcer complications, and an increased hospitalisation rate, misoprostol may be cost saving. Also, in the elderly the gain in quality of life seems to offset the uncertain reduction in quality of life due to the adverse effects of misoprostol. However, the suggestion that misoprostol prophylaxis in the elderly is cost effective or cost saving needs to be confirmed in further studies.

Current pharmacological treatment of osteoarthritis

In this overview, the currently available symptomatic treatments of osteoarthritis from the published literature are evaluated. Paracetamol attracts growing interest as a less toxic yet potent alternative to NSAIDs. These latter agents are, however, used more widely than paracetamol, although adverse reactions associated with their use are of increasing concern among both patients and physicians. New NSAIDs are still under development. While there is not much evidence of important differences between NSAIDs in overall efficacy, they do vary with regard to toxicity. The cytoprotective effect of misoprostol in at-risk patients on NSAIDs is established but the cost-effectiveness is unclear. Furthermore, percutaneous administration of NSAIDs, capsaicin, and other substances may have some merit. Opioids, such as dextropropoxyphene, are used in combination with paracetamol in patients intolerant to NSAIDs or when pain is not controlled with NSAIDs. Locally administered glucocorticoids may have a disease-modifying effect and are of symptomatic use in certain situations. The role, if any, of hyaluronan therapy remains to be established. Although this agent appears to have a good safety profile, it is expensive. Chondroprotection is an interesting field for future research, although there is no good evidence supporting its existence in clinical medicine as practised now.

Strategies and practice for use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Many nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been developed and marketed since the discovery of aspirin in 1897. These agents frequently are prescribed for the management of arthritis symptoms, including joint pain and inflammation. Despite their therapeutic benefits, NSAIDs are known to be associated with serious gastrointestinal side effects, including ulceration, hemorrhage, and perforation. Thus, one of the main reasons for the continued development of new NSAIDs is the hope of of finding a drug with improved efficacy or safety. To date, clinically meaningful differences in the therapeutic efficacy of different NSAIDs have not been reported. However, recent studies have indicated that differences do exist in the gastrointestinal safety profiles of individual NSAIDs. This article reviews these studies and discusses strategies for NSAID use based on efficacy, safety, and cost issues.

Diclofenac/misoprostol. A review of its pharmacology and therapeutic efficacy in painful inflammatory conditions

Diclofenac is a well established nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used in the treatment of a variety of painful inflammatory conditions. Although generally well tolerated, diclofenac, like other NSAIDs, is associated with gastrointestinal adverse effects which infrequently can be serious and/or life-threatening. Misoprostol, a prostaglandin E1 analogue, reduces the incidence of NSAID related ulcers, both gastric and duodenal. The lack of conclusive pharmacoeconomic data for misoprostol and the widespread use of NSAIDs makes routine administration of misoprostol difficult to justify for all NSAID users. However, it appears to be an economically warranted approach in the elderly, who are at particularly high risk for NSAID-related gastrointestinal complications. The fixed combination of diclofenac 50mg and misoprostol 200 micrograms administered 2 to 3 times daily for 4 to 12 weeks has shown equivalent therapeutic efficacy to diclofenac (alone or combined with placebo), piroxicam and naproxen, and was slightly more effective than ibuprofen in clinical studies in patients with a variety of painful inflammatory conditions. No significant differences in therapeutic efficacy were noted between elderly (aged > or = 65 years) and younger patients in these studies. Gastrointestinal adverse events are common with diclofenac and misoprostol, administered alone or in combination. Diarrhoea (presumably attributable to the misoprostol component) appears to be more frequent in diclofenac/misoprostol recipients than in those receiving diclofenac alone or combined with placebo. However, diclofenac/misoprostol recipients had significantly fewer gastroduodenal ulcers at the end of treatment relative to patients receiving comparators in clinical trials. In addition, the types and incidences of adverse events are similar in elderly and younger patients. Routine ulcer prophylaxis with misoprostol in all NSAID users is not warranted from a pharmacoeconomic viewpoint. In common with other fixed combination products, dosage flexibility is somewhat compromised with diclofenac/misoprostol. However, once drug dosages are determined in the individual patient, the fixed combination of diclofenac and misoprostol offers the potential for increased patient convenience and possibly patient compliance, and lower drug acquisition costs than those of the individual drugs used together. Thus, it should be considered a useful treatment option in appropriately selected patients with a high risk for serious NSAID-related gastrointestinal complications who require NSAID therapy.