A double-blind comparison of the gastroduodenal safety and efficacy of diclofenac and a fixed dose combination of diclofenac and misoprostol in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

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 druginduced 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.

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.

Long-Term Safety of a Coordinated Delivery Tablet of Enteric-Coated Aspirin 325 mg and Immediate-Release Omeprazole 40 mg for Secondary Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Patients at GI Risk

Introduction

In two, 6‐month, randomized, double‐blind Phase 3 trials, PA32540 (enteric‐coated aspirin 325 mg and immediate‐release omeprazole 40 mg) compared to aspirin alone was associated with fewer endoscopic gastric and duodenal ulcers in patients requiring aspirin therapy for secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention who were at risk for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) events.

Aims

In this 12‐month, open‐label, multicenter Phase 3 study, we evaluated the long‐term cardiovascular and gastrointestinal safety of PA32540 in subjects who were taking aspirin 325 mg daily for ≥3 months for secondary CVD prevention and were at risk for aspirin‐associated UGI events. Enrolled subjects received PA32540 once daily for up to 12 months and were assessed at baseline, month 1, month 6, and month 12.

Results

The overall safety population consisted of 379 subjects, and 290 subjects (76%) were on PA32540 for ≥348 days (12‐month completers). Adverse events (AEs) caused study withdrawal in 13.5% of subjects, most commonly gastroesophageal reflux disease (1.1%). Treatment‐emergent AEs occurred in 76% of the safety population (11% treatment‐related) and 73% of 12‐month completers (8% treatment‐related). The most common treatment‐related AE was dyspepsia (2%). One subject had a gastric ulcer observed on for‐cause endoscopy. There were five cases of adjudicated nonfatal myocardial infarction, one nonfatal stroke, and one cardiovascular death, but none considered treatment‐related.

Conclusions

Long‐term treatment with PA32540 once daily for up to 12 months in subjects at risk for aspirin‐associated UGI events is not associated with any new or unexpected safety events.

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.

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.

Diclofenac sodium and occlusal splint therapy in TMJ osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial

The aim of the study was to compare treatment with diclofenac sodium (Voltaren 3 x 50 mg) to occlusal splint therapy in a randomized, single-blind controlled trial of patients with a diagnosis of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) osteoarthritis (OA) in accordance with Research Diagnostic Criteria for temporomandibular disorders. Patients with general joint disorders or restrictions against medication with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug were not included. Twenty-seven females and two males (aged 36-76 years) included, answered a standardized questionnaire and were clinically examined and they underwent TMJ tomography. The treatment was randomized to either splint (n = 15) or diclofenac (n = 14). The temperatures over the TMJs were determined. The patients were re-examined 1 week, 1 month and 3 months after the start of treatment. A 1-year follow-up was carried out using questionnaires. After 1 week of treatment with diclofenac, significant reductions of pain and discomfort, TMJ tenderness and joint pain on jaw movements were noted. The splint therapy gave a significant reduction of reported symptoms after 1 month of treatment. Both treatments gave few adverse effects and were on an equal level. Estimation of the degree of inflammation by measuring the surface temperature over the TMJ was not reliable. Structural changes of the symptomatic TMJs were radiographically found in 82%, the contralateral, symptom-free TMJ had changes in 36%. There was a discrepancy between the clinical and the radiographical findings. Diclofenac gave a more rapid improvement, but both treatments gave a significant reduction of symptoms of TMJ OA within 3 months which remained at the one-year follow-up.

Systematic review: ulcer definition in NSAID ulcer prevention trials

BACKGROUND

In clinical trials of peptic ulcer prevention, the most appropriate definition of an ulcer remains challenging.

AIMS

To evaluate the ulcer definitions used in clinical trials of ulcer prevention among non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users and to determine whether any specific definition is preferred.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the PubMed, Medline and EMBASE databases was conducted. Results were limited to full papers published in English from June 1987 to June 2007 that met the following criteria: randomized, controlled non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug trials of > or =8 weeks' duration, with a primary end point of ulcer upon endoscopy.

RESULTS

Forty five publications met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Overall, an ulcer diameter of > or =3 mm was used in 25 publications and most included a description of ulcer depth. Of the remainder, ulcer was defined as any lesion with unequivocal/observable depth (with no lower limit for ulcer diameter; five publications) or an excavated mucosal break >3 mm (one publication), whereas nine defined a minimum ulcer size of > or =5 or >5 mm. Ulcer definition was unclear in the remaining five publications.

CONCLUSION

In clinical trials of ulcer prevention among non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users, a gastric or duodenal lesion > or =3 mm in diameter with significant depth is the preferred definition.

[Mucosa protective therapy with long-term nonsteroidal antirheumatic drugs]

Due to the extraordinary high prevalence of peptic lesions in the upper gastrointestine in the long-term treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, a prophylaxis in patients belonging to high-risk groups is essential. Misoprostol, proton pump inhibitors and histamine 2-receptor antagonists have been evaluated in prospective studies. The efficacy of Misoprostol is well documented, though its use in prevention is frequently limited due to side effects. Proton pump inhibitors are also well established, especially in the therapy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs associated peptic ulcers and in consecutive secondary prevention. The histamine 2-receptor antagonist Famotidine in a high oral dosage is able to reduce the frequency of peptic lesions too, but not to the same degree as Misoprostol and proton pump inhibitors. It is very likely that helicobacter pylori eradication without any further mucosaprotective therapy will only decrease the incidence of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in low dose Aspirin application. In spite of controversial studies this eradication seems to be a useful additional therapy for ulcer prophylaxis in high risk groups. Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors may become a promising alternative, from a pathophysiological perspective. However, to date there has been a lack of clear comparative studies with common nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs plus mucosaprotecting agents. Daily therapy costs are higher with a Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor than using the traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs together with either proton pump inhibitors, histamine 2-receptor antagonists or Misoprostol--a fact that should be considered in primary therapeutic decisions. In the following review we will present the most important results of the different prophylactic and therapeutic modalities. On the basis of placebo-controlled, prospective studies on the one hand and the recommendations of the scientific societies on the other, a guideline for daily clinical practice will be suggested.

Management of peptic ulcer disease not related to Helicobacter

Most peptic ulcers not due to Helicobacter pylori are caused by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), among which an important subset are due to vascular protective ("low-dose") aspirin therapy. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ulcers heal quite quickly when treated with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), even though the NSAID is continued. If the NSAID can be stopped, the ulcers heal readily with either a PPI or a histamine H2-receptor antagonist (H2-RA). If anti-inflammatory treatment is still needed after ulcers are healed, prophylactic co-therapy with a PPI or misoprostol will reduce the risk of ulcer recurrence by about 60-80%. The alternative of switching to a highly selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor has been shown to reduce the risk of a complicated ulcer by about 50-60%, unless low-dose aspirin treatment needs to be given as well for vascular disease. Idiopathic ulcers are becoming more frequent as H. pylori prevalence falls. Some may be sequelae of previous NSAID ulceration even though the NSAID has been ceased and the original ulcer had healed. These are best treated with an H2-RA or a PPI, followed by long-term maintenance with either of these (often in half the healing dosage) to prevent recurrence. Ulcers due to Zollinger-Ellison syndrome and other hypergastrinemia syndromes are rare, and largely beyond the scope of this review.

Prophylaxis and treatment of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced upper gastrointestinal side-effects

The use of specific agents to heal mucosal lesions or to prevent non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug toxicity, has focused upon two approaches: replacement of prostaglandin deficiency and inhibition of acid secretion. Acid suppression with traditional ulcer healing doses of H2-blockers is effective in healing gastric and duodenal ulcers upon discontinuation of the offending drug. In the event the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug must be continued, the use of H2-blockers is associated with a decrease in the healing rate. In long-term prevention studies, H2-blockers significantly reduce duodenal ulcer rates, but are ineffective in reducing gastric ulceration. More potent acid inhibition with a double-dose of H2-blockers (famotidine 80 mg daily, ranitidine 600 mg daily) may reduce the risk of gastric and duodenal ulcers. Marked acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors (omeprazole 20-40 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg daily) also appears to be very effective in healing gastric and duodenal ulcers in patients continuing the offending drug as well. An analysis of pooled data from comparative studies on omeprazole vs ranitidine, misoprostol and sucralfate shows a therapeutic advantage in favour of the proton pump inhibitor, ranging from 10 to 40%. In long-term prevention studies, omeprazole (20 mg daily) and pantoprazole (40 mg daily) have also been shown to reduce the risk of gastric and duodenal ulcers and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-related dyspepsia. Current data from recent comparative studies of omeprazole (20 mg daily) vs ranitidine (150 mg daily) and misoprostol (200 microg daily) showed that, after 6 months' follow-up, the proton pump inhibitor was significantly superior to control drugs in reducing the risk both of gastric and duodenal ulcer. Misoprostol (at doses ranging from 400 microg to 800 microg/day) is an effective form of therapy for preventing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastroduodenal lesions. However high-dose misoprostol only, seems adequate for the prevention of ulcer complications, mainly in high-risk non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users. Thus, available data are undoubtedly in favour of the proton pump inhibitors as well tolerated and effective drugs in the prophylaxis and treatment of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-related mucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal tract.

Approaches to healing and prophylaxis of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated ulcers

Treating and preventing peptic ulcers associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) calls for clinical judgment. Physicians must weigh their patients' need for anti-inflammatory therapy against their individual risks for ulcer development; their likelihood of coping with an ulcer complication if it should develop; and the economics, efficacy, and tolerability of various treatment and prevention options. This article considers some general strategies common to both treatment and prevention. Data from randomized trials that can guide clinicians and their patients as they attempt to heal an established NSAID ulcer or prevent one occurring in the future are also reviewed.

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.

The gastroduodenal toxicity of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a review of the literature

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are popular and important for the treatment of inflammation and pain. However, conventional NSAIDs are intrinsically toxic to the gastroduodenal (GD) mucosa. The literature can, and should, guide us towards safer prescribing of NSAIDs. Factors known to increase the risk of GD toxicity include: history of peptic ulcer disease; advanced age; high doses; and coadministration of aspirin, anticoagulants or corticosteroids. Patients with any one of these risk factors, with the possible exception of age alone, should receive gastroprotective prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors or misoprostol. Standard dose H2 antagonists do not protect against NSAID-induced gastric ulcers and are unsuitable for prophylaxis. Awareness of risk factors and appropriate prophylactic agents will minimize the risk to patients. Whether the new generation of highly selective COX-2 inhibitors and nitric oxide-donating NSAIDs are safer drugs in long-term use be remains to be proven, though initial clinical trial data are positive.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy

By inhibiting prostaglandin synthesis, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) compromise gastroduodenal defense mechanism including blood flow and mucus/bicarbonate secretion. This has led to NSAIDs being the most widely reported drug cause of adverse events. While NSAIDs also cause dyspepsia, inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis may reduce this from even higher levels that would otherwise prevail and mask ulcer-related dyspepsia, making anticipatory management difficult. On average, the risk of ulcer complications increases 4-fold, resulting in 1.25 additional hospitalizations per 100 patient-years according to one estimate. Older patients, those with a past history, and those taking anticoagulants or corticosteroids are at higher risk. Risk is dose dependent and is lower with ibuprofen at low doses than with other NSAIDs. It is unlikely that Helicobacter pylori increases the risk, and under some circumstances it may be protective. Selective inhibitors of the inducible cyclooxygenase 2 spare gastric mucosal prostaglandin synthesis and do not damage the gastric mucosa. Their place in therapy, compared with use of misoprostol or proton pump inhibitors, is currently emerging. Future competitors may include nitric oxide-donating, zwitterionic, or R-enantiomer NSAIDs.

Clinical manifestations of gout and their management

Gout is an inflammatory response to deposition of monosodium urate crystals in and around joints. It is primarily a disease of adult men. In acute gout, treatment options include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), colchicine and corticosteroids, administered either intra-articularly, orally or parenterally. Asymptomatic hyperuricaemia does not require specific treatment, but should prompt screening for atherosclerosis risk factors, and general lifestyle modification to reduce serum urate levels. Gout presents differently in the elderly. Both women and men are affected, attacks are frequently polyarticular and in the upper limbs, and the gout may be associated with diuretic use, hypertension and renal impairment. In patients with peptic ulcer disease, selective COX-2 inhibitors provide another treatment option. In the presence of renal impairment, allopurinol is the treatment of choice for urate lowering therapy, but doses of allopurinol and colchicine must be adjusted. Urate lowering therapy should only be used if recurrent episodes of gout occur despite aggressive attempts to reverse or control the underlying causes. It should not be introduced or discontinued during an acute episode of gout, and gout prophylaxis (NSAIDs or colchicine) should be prescribed during the introduction of urate lowering therapy.

Quantitative estimation of rare adverse events which follow a biological progression: a new model applied to chronic NSAID use

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) alone are unlikely to provide reliable estimates of the incidence of rare events because of their limited size. Cohort, case control, and other observational studies have large numbers but are vulnerable to various kinds of bias. Wanting to estimate the risk of death from bleeding or perforated gastroduodenal ulcers with chronic usage of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with greater precision, we developed a model to quantify the frequency of rare adverse events which follow a biological progression. The model combined data from both RCTs and observational studies. We searched systematically for any report of chronic (>/=2 months) use of NSAIDs which gave information on gastroduodenal ulcer, bleed or perforation, death due to these complications, or progression from one level of harm to the next. Fifteen RCTs (19364 patients exposed to NSAIDs for 2-60 months), three cohort studies (215076 patients redeeming a NSAID prescription over a 3-12 month period), six case-control studies (2957 cases) and 20 case series (7406), and case reports (4447) were analysed. In RCTs the incidence of bleeding or perforation in 6822 patients exposed to NSAIDs was 0.69%; two deaths occurred. Of 11040 patients with bleeding or perforation with or without NSAID exposure across all reports, 6-16% (average 12%) died; the risk was lowest in RCTs and highest in case reports. Death from bleeding or perforation in all controls not exposed to NSAIDs occurred in 18 out of 849489 (0.002%). From these numbers we calculated the number-needed-to-treat for one patient to die due to gastroduodenal complications with chronic (>/=2 months) NSAIDs as 1/((0.69x¿6-16%, average 12%¿)-0.002%))=909-2500 (average 1220). On average 1 in 1200 patients taking NSAIDs for at least 2 months will die from gastroduodenal complications who would not have died had they not taken NSAIDs. This extrapolates to about 2000 deaths each year in the UK.

Management of gastroduodenal ulcers caused by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality, probably resulting in the death of 1200 patients per annum in the UK. The main mechanism of toxicity involves an inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis that results in mucosal erosion as a result of the abrogation of defence mechanisms. However, acid peptic attack can deepen this initial injury. Thus, logical treatments include prostaglandin analogues as 'replacement therapy', acid suppression, enteric coating to avoid topical effects and the use of safer NSAIDs, including those that have little or no effect on gastric mucosal prostaglandin synthesis. There is less logic to the strategy of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication, and the status of this approach is controversial. Overall, proton pump inhibitors have the best profile of efficacy and side-effects for the healing and prevention of NSAID-associated ulcers. Misoprostol is also effective and appears to be superior to proton pump inhibitors for superficial erosive injury. Early indications are that selective inhibitors of the inducible cyclooxygenase-2 enzyme have little or no effect in causing ulcers. Growing experience with these agents will probably revolutionize the management of patients with arthritic conditions. However, the increasing use of low-dose aspirin for cardiovascular prophylaxis means that gastroenterologists will have to continue to grapple with the problems of NSAID-associated ulcers for some time to come.

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.

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.

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.

Future trends in the development of safer nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events, ranging from mild to life-threatening, are well-recognized sequelae to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use. Recent improvements in our knowledge of the mechanisms responsible for NSAID-associated gastropathy have enabled several experimental approaches to decreasing the risk of these events. Whereas such strategies as preassociation of NSAIDs to zwitterionic phospholipids to prevent NSAID-mucosal interactions and concomitant administration of trefoil peptides to stimulate mucosal defense pathways represent novel approaches, their clinical feasibility remains to be determined. Other strategies that appear more immediately promising in the reduction of NSAID-associated GI toxicity are the coupling of NSAIDs to nitric oxide (NO)-releasing compounds and the introduction of NSAIDs that are preferential or specific for cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2), the isoform implicated in the inflammatory response. Clinical trials of several specific COX-2 inhibitors, as well as European clinical data for a preferential COX-2 inhibitor, meloxicam, suggest that COX-2 inhibitors provide an advantage over standard NSAIDs in terms of GI tolerability. However, as recent observations have implicated COX-2 as an integral component in the maintenance of physiologic homeostasis, careful scrutiny of both the beneficial and the deleterious effects of the selective COX-2 inhibitors is requisite before their approval and widespread use. Furthermore, based on the physiologic importance of COX-2, the preferential inhibitors may ultimately prove to represent the optimal compromise for the treatment of various arthritides.

[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.

Management of NSAID-induced gastropathy: an economic decision analysis

The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is associated with a 2% to 4% annual incidence of serious gastrointestinal complications. These adverse clinical outcomes, and the strategies used to prevent their occurrence, translate into a significant economic burden. A decision-analysis model was constructed to contrast the 6-month costs associated with various approaches to preventing and managing NSAID-induced gastropathy and to evaluate the economic impact of two treatment regimens using fixed-dose formulations of diclofenac/misoprostol. After incorporating expected medical out-comes and predicted practice patterns, 6-month per-patient costs were derived from the model for each of five treatment regimens: (1) NSAID alone; (2) NSAID with a histamine2-receptor antagonist; (3) NSAID with coprescribed misoprostol; (4) diclofenac/misoprostol 50 mg/200 micrograms TID/BID; and (5) diclofenac/misoprostol 75 mg/200 micrograms BID. The combined diclofenac/misoprostol regimens demonstrated an 18.6% per-patient cost advantage compared with the combined NSAID regimens. Based on a 6-month period, this cost savings translated into a $214.00 per-patient overall cost savings ($1153.00 per patient for NSAID regimens versus $939.00 for diclofenac/misoprostol regimens). The magnitude of this difference was verified by Monte Carlo simulation. Despite the considerable cost difference, sensitivity analyses revealed that our model was robust and that no single variation substantially influenced the results. Given the lack of long-term prospective, comparative clinical-outcomes studies in this area, this decision analysis provides guidance to clinicians in developing a rational and cost-effective approach to the treatment of patients requiring chronic NSAID therapy.

Prevention of peptic ulcer and dyspeptic symptoms with omeprazole in patients receiving continuous non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy. A Nordic multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are known to cause gastroduodenal lesions and dyspeptic symptoms.

METHODS

Patients with a history of dyspepsia or uncomplicated peptic ulcer disease and with a need for continuous NSAID treatment were randomized to receive either 20 mg omeprazole once daily or placebo. Gastroduodenal ulcers, erosions, and dyspeptic symptoms were evaluated after 1 and 3 months.

RESULTS

During a 3-month study period 4.7% (4 of 85) of omeprazole-treated patients developed peptic ulcer, compared with 16.7% (15 of 90) of patients treated with placebo. This prophylactic effect of omeprazole was sustained independently of previous peptic ulcer history or Helicobacter pylori status. Development of dyspeptic symptoms requiring active treatment, either alone or in combination with ulcer(s) or erosions, occurred in 15.3% (15 of 85) of patients treated with omeprazole and 35.6% of those who received placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Omeprazole, 20 mg once daily, provides effective prophylactic therapy in patients at risk of developing NSAID-associated peptic ulcers or dyspeptic symptoms.

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.

Innovative treatment approaches for rheumatoid arthritis. New cyclo-oxygenase and cytokine inhibitors

A need remains for the development of more effective therapies for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (both NSAIDs and DMARDs). The NSAIDs remain the cornerstone of symptomatic therapy, but concern remains about their safety, potential for the delay in commencing definitive therapy and theoretical pro-inflammatory effects. Each of the NSAIDs reviewed here do provide an advantage over therapies previously available and should prove to be useful additions to the rheumatologists' therapeutic armament.

Prescribing rationale and budgetary outcomes associated with the introduction of a combined formulation of diclofenac sodium and misoprostol in Canada

The budgetary impact of prescribing a combined formulation of diclofenac sodium and misoprostol to patients previously using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs), cytoprotective agents, or a combination of agents from both therapeutic categories is assessed, as is the clinical rationale for prescribing the combined formulation. Analysis of data for Canada on claims paid by third parties showed that the use of the combined formulation in Canada had resulted in significant initial overall savings and that the greatest cost savings were made for those who had previously used both an NSAID and a cytoprotective concomitantly. The inclusion of shadow costs (secondary costs) indicates that the use of the combined formulation over a 6-month period involves very low shadow costs (medical expenses related to ulcer treatment) compared with other NSAIDs: the shadow cost multiplication factor was 1.03 for the combined formulation compared with 1.22 to 3.47 for other NSAIDs. Pharmaceutical costs alone are insufficient for evaluating total budgetary impacts.

Coprescribing of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cytoprotective and antiulcer drugs in Nova Scotia's senior population

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are frequently prescribed for the elderly and are commonly prescribed with cytoprotective or antiulcer drugs to prevent or treat gastrointestinal side effects. The objective of this study was to examine the utilization and drug costs of NSAIDs, and to examine coprescription of cytoprotective and antiulcer drugs with NSAIDs in the Nova Scotia population aged 65 years and older. The study used data from the Nova Scotia Seniors Pharmacare program database, which contains data on claims for all filled prescriptions to persons 65 years of age and older. We examined claims for the period April 1, 1993, to March 31, 1994. Aspirin accounted for the largest percentage of the total days supply of NSAIDs (25.2%), followed by diclofenac (18.8%) and naproxen (12.9%). Diclofenac accounted for the largest share of expenditures for NSAIDs (27.6%). Overall, 17.1% of the total days supply of NSAIDs were coprescribed with a cytoprotective or antiulcer drug. Histamine2 blockers accounted for most coprescribed days supply (83.6%) followed by sucralfate (8.1%), misoprostol (4.5%), and omeprazole (2.3%). The appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of these coprescriptions must be examined.

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.

Efficacy of 12 months' misoprostol as prophylaxis against NSAID-induced gastric ulcers. A placebo-controlled trial

We performed a 12-month, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study to determine the long term effect of misoprostol (600-800 micrograms/d) in the prevention of gastric ulcers and gastroduodenal erosions in 83 arthritis patients on chronic NSAID therapy. Patients underwent endoscopy at 0, 3, 6 and 12 months. At the initial endoscopy, 12 patients had an ulcer (11 gastric), which was healed prior to randomization. Seventy eligible patients reached the 3 month endoscopy. Four (12.5%) of the 32 patients given misoprostol developed a gastric ulcer compared with 11 (28.9%) of the 38 on placebo (p < 0.05, life-table analysis). Six of the 11 patients with an initial gastric ulcer developed a further gastric ulcer, compared to 9 of 58 patients without an initial ulcer (p < 0.05). We conclude that misoprostol decreases the cumulative development of NSAID-induced gastric ulcers. Patients with a previous NSAID-ulcer have a higher risk of further ulceration.

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

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and gastroduodenal safety of a fixed-dose combination of diclofenac sodium 50 mg and misoprostol 200 micrograms twice daily with those of piroxicam 10 mg twice daily and naproxen 375 mg twice daily in patients with osteoarthritis.

METHODS

A 4 week, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study was conducted in 643 patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee, who required continuous non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy for 4 weeks and who were without significant upper gastrointestinal damage as confirmed by endoscopy.

RESULTS

For patients who had pre- and post-treatment endoscopic examinations, gastroduodenal ulcers developed in 3 (1.5%) of 200 patients treated with diclofenac/misoprostol, 21 (10.3%) of 204 piroxicam-treated patients, and 17 (8.6%) of 198 patients receiving naproxen (Chi square = 13.771, p = 0.001). The improvement in the osteoarthritis severity index was greater in the diclofenac/misoprostol group than in the piroxicam group (p = 0.004). Changes in physician and patient global assessments showed no significant differences between treatment groups. The incidences of diarrhoea and abdominal pain were higher in the diclofenac/misoprostol group than in the piroxicam and naproxen groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Diclofenac/misoprostol at twice daily dosing is associated with significantly fewer gastroduodenal ulcers than either piroxicam or naproxen. The efficacy of diclofenac/misoprostol in treating the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis is at least comparable to that of piroxicam and naproxen.

Review of the safety of diclofenac/misoprostol

The safety of a fixed combination of diclofenac 50mg/misoprostol 200 micrograms has been evaluated in clinical trials involving almost 2000 patients. Short term trials have been conducted in patients with osteoarthritis (n = 1032) and rheumatoid arthritis (n = 685) over 1 or 3 months. Patients randomly received either diclofenac alone or diclofenac/misoprostol. In both groups, the most frequently reported adverse events were gastrointestinal in nature, with abdominal pain reported most frequently (in 22.6% of patients receiving diclofenac/misoprostol and 19.8% of patients receiving diclofenac), followed by diarrhoea (19.5 vs 11.3%), nausea (11.0 vs 6.5%) and dyspepsia (10.6 vs 7.8%). The most frequent nongastrointestinal adverse event was headache, which occurred in 7.9% of diclofenac/misoprostol recipients and 9.3% of diclofenac recipients. Although diclofenac/misoprostol was associated with a slightly higher prevalence of adverse events than diclofenac in these studies, the majority were of mild or moderate severity, and the treatment groups were similar as regards the number of patient withdrawals resulting from adverse events. An interim analysis of the results of an ongoing trial of longer term administration of diclofenac/misoprostol (for up to 24 months) has been conducted. In this uncontrolled study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis or ankylosing spondylitis received diclofenac/misoprostol for up to 24 months; to date 1003 patients have been enrolled and treatment has been continued for 6, 12, 18 and 24 months in 640, 327, 108 and 13 patients, respectively. As in the short term trials, the adverse events reported most commonly in this study have been predominantly gastrointestinal.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Efficacy of diclofenac/misoprostol vs diclofenac in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis

Patients with active ankylosing spondylitis of at least 6 months' duration were stabilised on diclofenac 50mg, given 2, 3 or 4 times daily in a 4-week open-label run-in. Patients were then randomised to receive a diclofenac 50mg/misoprostol 200 micrograms fixed combination tablet (n = 331) or diclofenac 50mg (n = 339) for 8 weeks at the same dosage frequency as in the open-label phase. For the intent-to-treat cohorts differences between treatment groups in the primary measures of efficacy were statistically significant. This between-group difference was thought to be attributable to the high incidence of 'unknown' outcomes, particularly in the diclofenac/misoprostol recipients. No significant differences were observed in the modified intention-to-treat or evaluable cohorts, which excluded patients with an 'unknown' outcome. No significant between group differences were observed in the change from baseline in the ankylosing spondylitis assessments. A difference was apparent between groups in the incidence of adverse events, particularly abdominal pain and diarrhoea (18.1 and 17.2%, respectively, in diclofenac/misoprostol recipients versus 12.4% each in diclofenac recipients). However, it was thought that the 4-week open-label phase of the study, during which patients received only diclofenac, may have selected for diclofenac-tolerant patients. Thus, in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis, the diclofenac/misoprostol fixed tablet was as effective as diclofenac. Furthermore, diclofenac/misoprostol was well tolerated.