Search

Numerous studies report the relationship between aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) and cancer incidence, in particular for colorectal cancer. This paper systematically reviews the evidence of the effect of aspirin and other NSAIDs on the primary prevention of colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers in the general population. In 25 investigations of NSAIDs and colorectal cancer, 23 observational studies reported a relative risk reduction but estimates vary widely. Cohort studies generally indicate lesser reductions than case-control studies suggesting possible biases in the latter. Clear evidence of a dose relationship generally appears lacking but data do not indicate useful effects of aspirin in cardioprophylactic doses. Differences have otherwise not been detected between aspirin and other NSAIDs, nor between non-aspirin NSAIDs. There is some evidence that the risk of colorectal cancer reduces with increased duration of NSAID use. The lower incidence of oesophageal and gastric cancers results in smaller numbers of cases in the studies reporting these cancers, particularly in the cohort studies. The trend is for a risk reduction for oesophageal and gastric cancers in people taking NSAIDs, which is more likely to be statistically significant in the case-control studies. A very small number of observational studies have reported the relationship between NSAIDs and the incidence of pancreatic, gallbladder and liver cancers. These show no consistent relationship. In view of the inadequate information about optimal dose and duration of NSAIDs for colorectal cancer reduction, and the adverse effects of NSAIDs, we are not yet in a position to recommend NSAIDs for the primary prevention of colorectal cancer in the general population.

There have been a number of controlled trials of antacids in the treatment of patients with peptic ulcer disease. As a general rule the size of studies has been small and there have been difficulties ensuring adequate binding, because of the formulation and taste of the antacids. Despite these difficulties, antacids appear to be effective ulcer healing agents with efficacies resembling those of other antiulcer drugs. Definite dose relationships are unclear but high doses of buffering capacity over 200 mmol/day appear unnecessary and are associated with increasingly frequent adverse effects. Low dose maintenance treatment is effective at limiting duodenal ulcer relapse.

In summary, carbenoxolone is a useful drug in accelerating short-term ulcer healing during ambulatory treatments. Provided treatment is responsibly controlled the adverse effects should not present frequent or severe problems; however, there is a clear need for an analogue which is substantially side-effect free.

Surveillance of takers of the antisecretory drug cimetidine has failed to reveal any disturbing trends. This pattern is reassuring but the difficulties of detecting drug-induced disease mimicking ordinary community complaints deserve emphasis. Experience since the surveillance study began has not revealed any disturbing trends. Observed mortality rates have fallen to match population expectation, both for ordinary disease and for cancer. The pattern is generally reassuring and suggests that significant drug-induced disease is not being missed. Nevertheless the ability of this or any other surveillance study to detect drug-induced illness mimicking ordinary disease is likely to be low.