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

Efficacy and safety of oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol for induction of labor in high-risk obese pregnant women with hypertension or diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of misoprostol administered orally and vaginally in obese pregnant women at term with either gestational hypertension or diabetes.

METHODS

A total of 264 pregnant women were enrolled and categorized into two groups based on their primary condition: hypertension (134 cases) or diabetes mellitus (130 cases) and were further divided into subgroups for misoprostol administration: orally (Oral group) or vaginally (Vaginal group). The primary outcomes measured were changes in the Bishop score following treatment, induction of labor (IOL) success rates, requirement for oxytocin augmentation, duration of labor, mode of delivery, and cesarean section rates.

RESULTS

Significant enhancements in Bishop scores, decreased cesarean section rates and increased success rates of IOL were noted in both administration groups. The incidence of vaginal delivery within 24 h was significantly higher in the Vaginal group compared to the Oral group. Adverse effects, including nausea, uterine overcontraction, hyperfrequency of uterine contraction and uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate deceleration, were significantly more prevalent in the Vaginal group than in the Oral group.

CONCLUSION

Misoprostol administration, both orally and vaginally, proves effective for labor induction in obese pregnant women with hypertension or diabetes. However, the oral route presents a lower risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, suggesting its preference for safer labor induction in this demographic.

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.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of celecoxib for the treatment of osteoarthritis]

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used for the treatment of osteoarthritis, can produce serious gastrointestinal (GI) adverse reactions.Celecoxib, a specific COX-2 inhibitor, has a proven efficacy equivalent to that of traditional NSAIDs with an improved tolerance and safety profile.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of celecoxib versus traditional NSAIDs in the treatment of osteoarthritis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This cost-effectiveness analysis was designed through a pharmacoeconomic model; each effectiveness unit was defined as each year of life gained after the ingestion of celecoxib or NSAIDs. The probability of different clinical results appearing was obtained from published articles and incorporated assumptions. Only direct medical costs were evaluated (medication, hospitalization, additional tests, analyses, extra visits, etc.) and other costs were excluded. The study perspective was the national health system and the time horizon chosen was 6 months.

RESULTS

The additional cost for each year of life gained through the use of celecoxib compared with that of traditional NSAIDs amounted to 8017; (1,333,834 ptas). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated how these values were sensitive to changes in the costs of NSAIDs and gastroprotective agents as well as to the inclusion of younger population groups.

CONCLUSION

Celecoxib can be considered as a cost-effective option in the treatment of osteoarthritis because its use prevents deaths and increases survival rate and the additional cost is reasonable and moderate compared with that of NSAIDs. Its efficiency increases in proportion to its use in younger patients and probably in those at high risk for developing GI 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.