Search

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and Helicobacter pylori are known to share a number of pathogenic mechanisms, but there is no evidence to show a significant synergistic action between these two risk factors. Studies to assess possible interactions in the pathogenesis of dyspepsia and upper gastrointestinal mucosal lesions have differed in their endpoints, the definition of dyspepsia, and the regimens used for eradication of H. pylori. However, some conclusions may be drawn from the results of clinical trials. As far as dyspepsia is concerned, an association between NSAID dyspepsia and infection with H. pylori, seems likely, but it is difficult to make sense of the discrepant data that are currently available. On the contrary, neither short- nor long-term NSAID administration presents a definite major risk of gastric and duodenal injury or, above all, of ulcer-related complications (bleeding or perforation) in H. pylori-positive patients. Based on these considerations, what recommendations can be made with regard to H. pylori eradication in patients requiring treatment with NSAIDs? H. pylori and anti-inflammatory drugs are probably independent causes of gastric and duodenal damage. Patients taking NSAIDs who are found to have gastric or duodenal ulcers should, therefore, be tested for the bacterium and specifically treated, because H. pylori and NSAID-induced ulcers may be macroscopically indistinguishable. Whether asymptomatic patients taking NSAIDs should be tested and treated for H. pylori infection is still a matter of debate.

132 patients (mean age 46.9 +/- 1.4 years) with exacerbation of gastroduodenal ulcer (GDU) positive by Helicobacter pylori (HP) were examined clinically and using laboratory tests. All the patients received treatment with anti-HP drugs. Side effects were registered in 81(61.4%) patients. Negative trend in colon biocenosis occurred in all the patients. The treatment was poorly tolerated by women, aged patients and those with ulcer in the stomach. Biocenosis aggravation is indication for administration of eubiotics.

Background: A large variety of drugs have been implicated in causing dyspepsia. Due to the high background incidence of dyspepsia it is impossible to distinguish between spontaneous and truly drug-related symptoms. Most patients with dyspeptic symptoms are treated empirically. Drug-induced dyspepsia might therefore be reflected in the sequencing of prokinetics relative to other medications., Aim: To screen a large prescription database for signs of drug-induced functional dyspepsia, applying a symmetry principle., Methods: Prescription data on all incident users of cisapride and metoclopramide were used to identify individuals who had started their first therapies with a prokinetic drug and an index drug within a 100-day span. A dyspepsia-provoking effect of the index drug would manifest as an excess of persons with the prokinetic drug prescribed last in this selected population. Relative to conventional analyses based on case-control or cohort design, this principle is robust to confounders that are stable over time., Results: In the cisapride analysis (1825 persons) no single drug had adjusted rate ratios significantly above unity. An inverse signal for antidepressants (rate ratio 0.57; 95% CI: 0.39-0.84) suggests that these drugs may have a therapeutic effect against functional dyspepsia. In the metoclopramide analysis (6126 persons) positive signals were found for 14 drugs, all well-known for causing nausea as a side-effect, with the exception of insulin (rate ratio 2.91, 95% CI: 1.40-8.11)., Conclusions: Drug-induced symptoms of functional dyspepsia are rare and do not contribute to the use of cisapride. The start of insulin treatment may induce nausea.

Arthritis and hypertension are frequent comorbidities in the elderly hypertensive population. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are often used to relieve pain in arthritic patients but a side effect is sodium retention and consequent elevation of blood pressure (BP). The effect of dihydropyridine calcium blocking drugs is relatively independent of sodium intake, whereas the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors' effects can be blunted by a high-sodium diet. This study compared the effects of indomethacin with placebo in elderly patients with essential hypertension who had been controlled with amlodipine or enalapril. Indomethacin 50 mg twice daily or placebo was administered for 3 weeks in a double-blind crossover study to patients controlled with amlodipine or enalapril. The response was assessed by ambulatory BP measurement. Indomethacin raised BP and lowered pulse rates in patients taking enalapril but had little effect in patients receiving amlodipine. The difference caused by indomethacin between the two groups was 10.1/4.9 mm Hg increase in BP and a 5.6 beats/min fall in pulse in people taking enalapril. Addition of indomethacin to patients taking either drug caused a rise in weight and a fall in plasma renin. It is postulated that the effect is due to inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis, which causes sodium retention. In patients taking amlodipine, the fall in plasma renin ameliorates the effect of sodium retention on BP. In patients taking enalapril, plasma renin falls but this is not translated into an effect because of the blockage of converting enzyme. Thus, the full effect of sodium retention on BP is expressed. In patients treated with indomethacin, fewer patients may respond to ACE inhibitors. However, the major problem is the patient who intermittently takes indomethacin or other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, which, if a person is treated by an ACE inhibitor causes BP to go out of control. In such patients amlodipine would appear to be a preferred choice to enalapril.

Background: Most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are nonselective cyclooxygenase (COX-1 and COX-2) inhibitors and are associated with a variety of upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract symptoms. The roles of COX-1 and COX-2 in the pathogenesis of these symptoms are unclear. To test whether COX-2 inhibition with rofecoxib would have greater GI tolerability than nonselective COX-1 and COX-2 inhibition, we compared the incidences of (1) treatment discontinuations for GI adverse events (AEs) and (2) prespecified dyspeptic-type GI AEs among patients with osteoarthritis treated with rofecoxib vs NSAIDs., Methods: A prespecified, combined analysis of investigator-reported GI AEs in all 8 double-blind, randomized, phase 2b/3 osteoarthritis trials of rofecoxib was conducted. Patients included men and women with osteoarthritis (N = 5435); there was no upper age limit for entry. Treatments tested included rofecoxib, 12.5, 25, or 50 mg (combined), vs ibuprofen, diclofenac, or nabumetone (combined). Primary outcomes were the time (by survival analysis) to (1) treatment discontinuation due to GI AEs and (2) first reported dyspeptic-type GI AE. Between-treatment comparisons were made by log-rank test., Results: The number of treatment discontinuations caused by GI AEs during 12 months was significantly lower (P=.02) with rofecoxib vs NSAIDs (8.2 vs 12.0 per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.94). The incidence of prespecified dyspeptic-type GI AEs during the first 6 months was significantly lower (P=.02) with rofecoxib vs NSAIDs (69.3 vs 85.2 per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.97). However, the difference between treatments in dyspeptic-type GI AEs was attenuated after 6 months., Conclusion: Rofecoxib was associated with a lower incidence of treatment discontinuations due to GI AEs over 12 months and a lower incidence of dyspeptic-type GI AEs over 6 months than treatment with nonselective COX inhibitors, or NSAIDs. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2998-3003

Objectives: Sildenafil citrate (Viagra) has been shown to be an effective treatment for erectile dysfunction. Initial studies reported a high tolerability and low incidence of certain characteristic adverse reactions. We sought to evaluate the incidence of side effects of sildenafil citrate, independent of industry support and constraints, utilizing a heterogeneous cohort of patients from a university-based practice., Methods: A prospective, open-label, flexible-dose study of 256 patients treated with sildenafil citrate for erectile dysfunction was performed at a single institution. The patients were questioned explicitly about the occurrence of headache, flushing, dyspepsia, nasal congestion, visual changes, and other side effects., Results: The adverse reactions most commonly observed were flushing (30.8%), headache (25. 4%), nasal congestion (18.7%), and heartburn (10.5%). All events were short lived and mild in nature. In the present study, 31.6% of patients experienced one or more adverse events. However, no one withdrew from the study because of the severity of these events. There was a significant association between higher doses and the occurrence of side effects., Conclusions: The incidence of adverse events attributable to sildenafil citrate may be higher than initially reported, but an explanation may be the methodology of data collection and the industry-independent nature of this study. The side-effect profile is dose related and mild. Sildenafil citrate remains a safe and well-tolerated treatment for erectile dysfunction.

NSAID-associated dyspeptic symptoms are common and can be managed empirically with an H2-receptor antagonist or a proton-pump inhibitor. Treatment of established gastroduodenal ulcers is accomplished best by withholding the offending drugs. Proton-pump inhibitors appear to heal ulcers at the same rate whether or not NSAID therapy is continued. After the ulcer is healed and if NSAID therapy must be continued, prophylaxis is accomplished best by the concomitant use of proton-pump inhibitors, misoprostol (at least 200 micrograms 3 times a day), or a NSAID that preferentially inhibits COX-2. The future development of newer, safer NSAID preparations, including highly selective COX-2 inhibitors and nitric oxide-releasing NSAIDs, should provide better treatment options for the increasing number of individuals requiring anti-inflammatory agents.

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.

Objective: To determine the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability of celecoxib, naproxen, and placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA)., Methods: An analysis of 5, 12-week, randomized, double blind, parallel group, placebo controlled clinical trials was conducted. In these trials, patients were randomized to: naproxen 500 mg bid (n = 1,099), placebo (n = 1,136), celecoxib 50 mg bid (n = 690) (subtherapeutic dose), celecoxib 100 mg (n = 1,131) or 200 mg bid (n = 1,125) (therapeutic dose), or celecoxib 400 mg bid (n = 434) (supratherapeutic dosage). The incidence and time until moderate to severe abdominal pain, dyspepsia, nausea, and any of the aforementioned 3 upper GI symptoms (composite endpoint) were determined using time-to-event analysis., Results: The cumulative incidences of moderate to severe abdominal pain, dyspepsia, or nausea (composite endpoint) were: naproxen 500 mg (12.0%; 95% CI 9.9%-14.0%), celecoxib 50 mg bid (7.1%; 95% CI 5.0%-9.2%), celecoxib 100 mg bid (7.8%; 95% CI 6.0%-9.5%), celecoxib 200 mg bid (8.1%; 95% CI 6.4%-9.9%), celecoxib 400 mg bid (6.0%; 95% CI 3.6%-8.4%), and placebo (8.5%; 95% CI 6.5%-10.8%). After controlling for independent predictors of the composite endpoint, relative risks (RR) for the various treatments relative to naproxen 500 mg bid were: celecoxib 50 mg (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.37-0.77; p < 0.001), celecoxib 100 mg (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.45-0.80; p < 0.001), celecoxib 200 mg bid (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.47-0.83; p = 0.001), celecoxib 400 mg bid (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.35-0.89; p = 0.015), and placebo (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.47-0.85; p = 0.002). After controlling for independent predictors of the composite endpoint, celecoxib treatment group patients did not differ from placebo patients when reporting the composite endpoint, with p values ranging from 0.40 to 0.96., Conclusion: The upper GI tolerability of celecoxib is superior to naproxen. A dose-response relationship between celecoxib and upper GI symptoms was not apparent.

The tolerance and pharmacokinetics (PK) of tacrolimus (T) by the addition of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in stable kidney transplant patients (6/group) on long-term tacrolimus-based therapy were investigated. Patients received combination T and MMF therapy at three MMF doses: 1, 1.5, and 2 g/day administered twice daily. A 12-hour blood PK profile for T was obtained prior to MMF dosing; concomitant 12-hour profiles for T, mycophenolic acid (MPA), and mycophenolic acid glucuronide (MPAG) were obtained after 2 weeks of administration. Tolerance was monitored through 3 months. The intra- and intergroup PK of T were variable. The mean AUC0-12 of T for each group was increased after 2 weeks of concomitant MMF administration, but the increase was not statistically significant. Both drugs were well tolerated. Gastrointestinal events were of interest as such have been attributed to both T and MMF. Events reported were diarrhea, nausea, dyspepsia, and vomiting. Other common adverse events were headache, hypomagnesemia, and tremors. Most were mild, although a few were considered to be moderate. There was no apparent relationship between the incidence of any adverse event and MMF treatment group. In the present study, the coadministration of T and MMF did not significantly alter T pharmacokinetics.

Objective: Alendronate is rapidly gaining widespread use in the treatment of osteoporosis. However, recent postmarketing surveys and endoscopic studies suggest that its use may be associated with significant predictable esophageal and gastric mucosal toxicity, similar to that of aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Because treatment of osteoporosis may be needed in as many as 30% of all postmenopausal women, and considering that alendronate could be used in all postmenopausal women as prevention, definition of potential mucosal toxicity is crucial. Our aim was to study the upper gastrointestinal toxicity of alendronate in an age-appropriate female population using a clinically applicable dose (10 mg/day) to determine whether it causes predictable damage in the proximal gastrointestinal mucosa in a fashion similar to that seen with aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs., Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 32 healthy female volunteers between the ages of 40 and 65 yr recruited by newspaper advertisement. Endoscopic mucosal abnormalities in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum both before and after 1 month of treatment were scored and compared using validated endoscopic grading systems. Symptom scores before and after treatment were determined. Noninvasive measurements of gastrointestinal permeability were obtained before, during, and after treatment using sucrose and mannitol/lactulose urinary excretions., Results: Endoscopic scores before and after treatment with alendronate were not significantly different. Similarly, mean symptom scores in the alendronate group did not change significantly after treatment. There were no significant mucosal permeability changes in the stomach or small intestine after treatment., Conclusion: Alendronate does not cause predictable esophageal, gastric, or duodenal mucosal damage when used as directed.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of sildenafil (Viagra) in the treatment of male erectile dysfunction in Nairobi., Design: Prospective open label extension study., Setting: Urology clinics at the Nairobi Hospital, Kenyatta National Hospital and the author's private clinic in Hurlingham, Nairobi., Participants: Two hundred and nineteen adult male patients with erectile dysfunction., Results: The age range was 33-80 years with a mean of 62.5 years and a peak incidence in the 60-69 year age group. One hundred and nineteen patients (54.34%) had organic causes, 85 patients (38.81%) had psychogenic causes and 15 patients had mixed causes. Two hundred patients (91.32%) had improved sexual function after treatment with viagra. This improvement was sustained during the study period of sixteen weeks and included improved erectile and orgasmic functions and overall sexual satisfaction. One hundred and fifty seven of these patients responded to therapy with 50 mg of viagra; 40 patients with 25 mg and three patients with 100 mg of therapy. Nineteen patients (8.68%) had no improvement in sexual function after viagra administration. Seven patients (3.2%) had adverse effects which were mild and transient. They included mild headaches in three patients, mild dyspepsia in two patients and facial flushing and nausea and vomiting in one patient, respectively., Conclusion: Oral sildenafil (Viagra) is an effective well tolerated and simple treatment for male erectile dysfunction in the majority of cases. The cost of treatment at about ten United States dollars for the 50 mg tablet is prohibitive and may limit its wide use by many deserving patients in this locality.

Aims: To evaluate capsaicin's effects on heartburn, dyspepsia, gastric acidity and emptying, and gastro-oesophageal reflux, and to test the hypothesis that capsaicin induces heartburn and exacerbates symptoms by sensitizing the oesophagus., Methods: Eleven heartburn sufferers underwent two separate pH monitoring sessions and assessments of gastric emptying (13C-octanoic acid breath test), heartburn and dyspepsia (100 mm VAS) after a non-irritant meal. The meal consisted of a sausage biscuit with egg, cheese and 30 g raw onion, 8 oz chocolate milk and a peppermint patty. Thirty minutes prior to meal consumption, subjects were administered a placebo capsule. On visit 1, subjects consumed the meal containing 100 microl 13C-octanoic acid cooked in the egg, over 15 min. On visit 2, subjects consumed the meal plus 5 mg capsaicin in gelatin capsules., Results: Oesophageal and gastric pH profiles and gastric emptying were not different between meals. Capsaicin did not alter mean heartburn and dyspepsia scores (P > 0.05), but significantly decreased time to peak heartburn (120 min vs. 247 min; P < 0.003). Time to peak dyspepsia was not altered by capsaicin (P > 0.05)., Conclusion: Capsaicin enhances noxious postprandial heartburn, presumably by direct effects on sensory neurons.

The authors carried out an open prospective study analyzing methotrexate (MTX) efficacy and toxicity in 34 patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) for a period of one year. All the patients presented with active axial disease, characterized by inflammatory spinal pain, prolonged morning stiffness, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) > or = 25 mm, and failure on treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for a period of more than two years. MTX was taken at a single weekly intramuscular dose of 12.5 mg. Thirty-one patients (91%) concluded treatment. Eighteen patients (53%) were considered responders to MTX; most of them presented peripheral arthritis. Despite clinical improvement, axial measures were unaltered at the end of the study. The mean value of ESR decreased significantly at the end of the treatment (p=0.0001), predominantly in the responders group. Side effects were observed in 23 patients (68%) and included dyspeptic syndrome, transient elevation of liver enzymes, and dizziness. The results of this one year open study suggest that MTX can be an efficient drug in the treatment of AS.

New information indicates that cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) is constitutively expressed in several tissues, including brain, lung, pancreas, kidney, and ovary, and plays an important role in renal and gastrointestinal function. Selective COX-2 inhibition has been associated in animal studies with impairment of ulcer healing and renal function and inhibition of prostacyclin, an effect that inhibits vasodilation without inhibiting platelet aggregation. The clinical consequences, if any, of these effects remain to be determined in long-term studies in humans. The premise that selective COX-2 inhibitors will cause less gastrointestinal toxicity than nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs that inhibit both COX isoforms needs to take into account the low toxicity of nabumetone. The gastrointestinal safety profile of this nonacidic, dual COX inhibitor that does not undergo enterohepatic circulation has been evaluated in extensive clinical trials. The data submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration in the New Drug Application for nabumetone (Relafen), the comparative trials subsequently completed, the published databases of the comparative gastrointestinal toxicity of various nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and the meta-analysis published in this issue of The American Journal of Medicine (Schoenfeld, page 48S) indicate that nabumetone has the lowest incidence of gastrointestinal toxicity among the extensively studied NSAIDs. Overall, the incidence is approximately 10-fold less than with comparator drugs. This rate is an appropriate current reference against which the gastrointestinal toxicity of COX-2 inhibitors can be compared.

Individual comparative studies suggest that nabumetone has a gastrointestinal (GI) safety profile superior to comparator NSAIDs but lack power to show a statistical difference. The aim of this study was to evaluate systematically the difference in GI adverse events--especially the rate of perforations, ulcers, and bleeds (PUBs)-- between studies, meta-analyses of comparative trials of nabumetone and conventional NSAIDs, and postmarketing, open-label studies of nabumetone meeting predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A fully recursive literature search identified 13 studies consisting of 29 treatment arms and 49,501 patients that met the predefined criteria. Tests for heterogeneity found no significant difference between studies of each subgroup. Overall, the dyspeptic symptoms flatulence, constipation, and diarrhea were the most commonly reported adverse events accounting for 98.6% of the total GI adverse events. Significantly more patients treated with a comparator NSAID experienced GI adverse events than did those taking nabumetone (P = 0.007). After adjustment for patient-exposure years, PUBs were 10 to 36 times more likely to develop in patients treated with a comparator NSAID than with nabumetone. This was consistently seen in patients in nonendoscopic (n = 7,468) and endoscopic studies (n = 244). In the analysis of postmarketing or open-label studies of nabumetone, only one PUB was reported per 500 patient-exposure years over 17,502 treatment years (n = 39,389). GI adverse event-related dropouts and hospitalizations were increased by 1.3- and 3.7-fold if patients were treated with a comparator NSAID than with nabumetone. Significantly fewer treatment-related GI adverse events, especially PUBs, are seen in patients treated with nabumetone than with a comparator NSAID. Nabumetone is very safe for the GI tract.

Transdermal nicotine delivery systems are widely used in smoking cessation. The purpose of this study was to determine whether common symptoms of pyrosis and dyspepsia associated with these patches are related to gastroesophageal reflux or esophageal dysmotility. Twenty-seven paid volunteer cigarette smokers (> 15 cigarettes/day) without symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease participated in this single-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Twenty subjects completed the study. Subjects underwent three sequential 24-h intraesophageal pH/motor studies (Synectics model T32342084, Shore View, MN). The pH/motility probe was positioned 5 cm above the manometrically determined LES. A placebo patch was applied for the first 24-h study and a 15-mg nicotine patch (Nicotrol) was applied for the initial 16 h (removed for remaining 8 h) of the second 24-h period. A 21-mg nicotine patch (Nicoderm) was applied for another 24-h study period. All subjects consumed an identical, defined diet documented by meal receipts, and refrained from smoking and tobacco use throughout the study periods (CO breath test confirmation). The Wilcoxon, paired t-test, exact McNemar statistical methods were used. The results showed that there were no significant differences in reflux symptoms (pyrosis, chest pain, nausea, dysphagia), supine gastroesophageal reflux (number of episodes, duration, or cumulative acid exposure), or the total number of reflux episodes between placebo and nicotine patch treatment periods. The number of post-prandial upright acid reflux episodes (p = 004) and number of upright acid reflux episodes lasting more than 5 min (p = 0.007) were statistically higher with the placebo patch compared to the active nicotine patches. No differences in intraesophageal pH or motility indices were noted between the two transdermal nicotine patches (Nicotrol, Nicoderm). It was concluded that dyspeptic symptoms in subjects utilizing transdermal nicotine patches are not related to gastroesophageal reflux or to esophageal motor abnormalities.

Pleconaril is an orally active broad-spectrum antipicornaviral agent with excellent penetration into the central nervous system and nasal epithelium. The authors report the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, dose escalation study of pleconaril oral capsules following single-dose administration of 50 to 1000 mg. Fifty-six healthy adults (ages 19-55) participated in the study. Each subject received a single dose of pleconaril oral capsule(s) or an identically matched placebo. Blood samples (n = 19) were obtained over 36 hours postdose, and pleconaril was quantified from plasma by gas chromatography. Pleconaril disposition was best characterized using a two-compartment open-model with first-order absorption. Fifty-five subjects completed the study (31 +/- 10 years, 77.6 +/- 11 kg). The administration of pleconaril was well tolerated. There was no difference in tmax, lambda z, ka, t1/2elim, Cl/F, or Vdss/F among the various dose groups. A significant difference in both Cmax and AUC was observed between study groups; however, this difference became insignificant when the parameters were corrected for dose. Cmax and AUC were dose proportional between 50 and 1000 mg (r2 > 0.97 and 0.90, respectively). Pleconaril demonstrates a favorable safety and pharmacokinetic profile following single-dose administration.

Twelve healthy volunteers were enrolled in an open-label, randomized, crossover study. Subjects received single doses of theophylline (5 mg/kg) alone and after a 10 day course of dirithromycin (two 250 mg tablets od). The study phases were separated by a 3 week washout period. Serum samples were collected before and for 24 h after theophylline doses. Serum theophylline concentrations were measured via a validated immunoassay system and the data were modelled via non-compartmental analysis. When the control phase (i.e. no dirithromycin) was compared with the treatment phase (i.e. with dirithromycin), theophylline exposures as measured by AUC0-->infinity were not significantly different: 141.7+/-25.9 and 136.4+/-33.1 mg x h/L respectively (P = 0.16). No significant changes in other theophylline pharmacokinetic parameters were evident. These results indicate that theophylline can be safely co-administered with dirithromycin.

Objective: H2 receptor antagonist therapy has been shown to produce rebound acid hypersecretion. The clinical significance of this phenomenon is not known. We performed this study to determine whether withdrawal of H2 receptor antagonist therapy results in dyspepsia in previously asymptomatic volunteers., Methods: Thirty-five Helicobacter pylori-positive asymptomatic volunteers were randomized in double-blind fashion to receive 2 months' treatment with either ranitidine 300 mg nocte or placebo. Dyspeptic symptoms were measured before starting treatment and over the course of 10 days after stopping treatment by means of a validated questionnaire., Results: Thirty-one subjects completed the study; 17 were randomized to ranitidine. The pretreatment median aggregate dyspepsia score of the placebo group was 0 (0-4), as was that of the ranitidine group (0-8) (N.S.). During the 10 days after completion of ranitidine, the median aggregate dyspepsia score was 1.4 (0-30), compared with 0 (0-6.3) after placebo (p < 0.01). Of those given ranitidine, 59% experienced dyspepsia after treatment, compared with only 14% who took placebo. In the subgroup that developed dyspepsia after active therapy, the median duration of symptoms was 2 days, symptom severity being maximal on the second day after completion of the tablets. On the days when dyspepsia was experienced, the median daily dyspepsia score was 5 (range, 2-10), which was similar to that of a control group with active duodenal ulcer disease (5; range, 0-11)., Conclusions: Withdrawal of a 2-month course of ranitidine 300 mg nocte results in the development of dyspeptic symptoms in a proportion of previously asymptomatic subjects. Patients receiving ranitidine should be warned about this rebound dyspepsia and advised not to immediately resume treatment, as rebound symptoms are likely to improve within a few days.

Previous studies evaluating short-term itraconazole and terbinafine therapy for onychomycosis have varied in protocol and size; this double-blind study enabled a large-scale, standardized, direct comparison. Patients with toenail onychomycosis were randomized to itraconazole 200 mg daily (n = 146) or terbinafine 250 mg daily (n = 146) for 12 weeks, with a 36-week follow-up. Mycological cure rates at the follow-up end-point were significantly equivalent (61% with itraconazole vs. 67% with terbinafine). A similar proportion of patients in each group experienced adverse events during treatment (itraconazole, 22%; terbinafine, 23%). More patients receiving terbinafine stopped treatment permanently because of treatment-related adverse events (8% vs. 1%).

Previous studies suggested that certain lipid-lowering drugs such as statins suppress ubiquinone, affect mitochondrial function, and may have deleterious effect on skeletal or cardiac muscles with potentially serious clinical consequences, especially in patients with established coronary heart disease and left ventricular dysfunction. In this double-blind study, we assessed the effects of 20 mg simvastatin (S, n = 32) or 200 mg micronized fenofibrate (F, n = 32, control group) on rest and exercise left ventricular function in hypercholesterolemic survivors of a previous Q-wave acute myocardial infarction. Left ventricular radionuclide imaging was performed at rest and during submaximal exercise and global and segmental (nine segment regional wall-motion score) ejection fractions were measured before treatment and 12 weeks later. Serum ubiquinone was reduced after treatment (p = 0.03) in the S but not the F group, whereas total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were significantly reduced in both groups. Before treatment, mean global ejection fraction was 52.1+/-12.2% and 49.3+/-11.8% at rest in F and S patients, respectively, and increased (56.0+/-13.7% in F and 52.1+/-12.9% in S) at peak exercise (no difference between groups). After treatment, the increase in ejection fraction tended to be lower in S (0) than in F (+3.8%) but not significantly. However, ejection fraction at rest increased after treatment in S (p = 0.009) but not in F. Subgroup analyses indicated that the improvement in rest ejection fraction in S was essentially observed in patients with ejection fraction <40% (n = 8, +6%), whereas it was stable in patients with ejection fraction >40% (+1.8%). Finally, the numbers of akinetic or hypokinetic segments at rest and during exercise were not different in the two groups before and after treatment. Mean maximal exercise load (113+/-23 watts in F vs. 104+/-27 W in S before treatment) was not modified by the treatment (111+/-21 and 104+/-27 W). Thus a 12-week lipid-lowering treatment with either S or F did not negatively alter left ventricular function during exercise in dyslipidemic patients with established coronary heart disease and did not affect their ability to exercise. The improvement in left ventricular function at rest after simvastatin in patients with left ventricular dysfunction warrants confirmation in further studies with large sample size.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are commonly used to reduce inflammation and pain associated with arthritis. However, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs induce gastrointestinal side-effects such as dyspeptic symptoms, duodenal or gastric ulcers and, in some cases, serious complications. The aim has been to compare the benefits with the drawbacks of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug treatment using a hypothetical population representing patients with arthritis. A problem description was made on the basis of a literature review, and a simple and hypothetical health economic model was constructed. Including direct and indirect costs, the annual total costs in Sweden for gastrointestinal side-effects per non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug user were estimated to be 3,420 SEK (438 US$), and the approximated costs of arthritis were 60,000 SEK (7,692 US$). The benefits of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug treatment were found to outweigh the drawbacks if the patient's arthritis symptoms, expressed as a difference in utility value between having and not having symptoms of arthritis, are improved by 6% or more. Costs for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal side-effects should be evaluated in relation to the benefits of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of inflammation and pain. A simple modelling approach indicated that treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may be highly cost-effective as both the clinical and economic benefits for patients responding to such treatment out-weighed possible drawbacks.

Objective: Few studies have examined the practice patterns of primary care physicians who treat patients with rheumatoid (RA) or osteoarthritis (OA), and the strategies used when nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) are ineffective or cause side effects. Our purpose was to study practice patterns of physicians who initiate treatment of RA and OA, and their management approaches when NSAID are ineffective or cause dyspepsia., Methods: Using a structured questionnaire simulating management of patients with RA or OA we surveyed treatment preferences of primary care physicians., Results: Responses from 176 physicians were analyzed. For RA 98% used NSAID as initial therapy. For those patients who did not respond, most (over 60%) would either change or increase the initial NSAID and try a mean of 2.2 different NSAID over a period of 3.3 months before initiating second-line therapy or referring to a rheumatologist. For OA 67% of physicians surveyed initially used NSAID to treat these patients, and changing or increasing the NSAID was the most common strategy used to manage patients not responding to initial therapy. For patients who developed dyspepsia taking NSAID there was wide divergence of management approaches in both diseases: stopping the NSAID and starting an analgesic (OA) or second-line agent (RA) were common choices, but continuing the NSAID and adding an "antidyspeptic" regimen was chosen by over half of physicians selecting a single regimen. Most initial management approaches did not differ significantly between RA and OA., Conclusion: NSAID are used frequently as initial therapy in patients with OA, and in RA the initiation of second-line therapy is often deferred for months and is only prescribed after patients have failed several NSAID. Opportunities exist to better standardize the approaches physicians use in the initial management of RA and OA, and to delineate what role NSAID should have in the management program of these disorders.

Background: Clarithromycin and amoxycillin are antibiotics commonly used in association for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Because this treatment, which lasts 1-2 weeks, is frequently associated with gastrointestinal symptoms, we investigated the effects of these antibiotics on gastrointestinal motility., Patients and Methods: Gastroduodenal motility was recorded in 14 patients with functional dyspepsia and H. pylori gastritis by means of a low-compliance manometric system with four recording ports in the stomach and four in the duodenum. Two tablets of clarithromycin 250 mg (seven patients, clarithromycin group) or one of amoxycillin 1 g (seven patients, amoxycillin group), ground and dissolved in 20 mL of water, were given randomly and in double-blind manner 30 min after the end of the first activity front (AF) of the migrating motor complex (MMC) or, in the absence of AFs, after at least 200 min of recording. Recording continued until an AF was observed during the subsequent 200 min., Results: Clarithromycin administration was followed by a typical gastroduodenal AF in a significantly higher number of patients than for amoxycillin administration. In addition, the time lag between clarithromycin administration and the appearance of AFs was 48 min +/- 8.5 (mean +/- s.d.), significantly shorter than after amoxycillin (121 min +/- 29). The clarithromycin-related duodenal AFs showed a duration of 6.6 min +/- 1.5, significantly longer than that of the spontaneous AFs (3.6 min +/- 1.2, P < 0.01), while the amoxycillin-related AFs were not significantly different from the spontaneous ones., Conclusion: Clarithromycin stimulated cyclic gastroduodenal motility, while amoxycillin was ineffective. It is likely that symptoms during the eradication treatment are due to this effect of clarithromycin.

Background: The relationship between Helicobacter pylori infection and symptoms remains controversial. We aimed to determine if an association exists between unexplained dyspepsia (pain or discomfort centered in the upper part of the abdomen) and H pylori., Methods: A validated questionnaire was completed by 592 healthy blood donors. Helicobacter pylori serologic values (via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), blood group status, and Rh status were measured; 4.9% of subjects who had a history of peptic ulcer disease were excluded from the analyses., Results: The prevalence of dyspepsia and no ulcer history was 11% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.6%-13.8%); 15.4% of subjects with dyspepsia had H pylori while 14.6% of subjects without dyspepsia were infected (P=.90). The mean dyspepsia impact scores (combining frequency and severity) in those with and without H pylori were 4.7 and 5.4, respectively (P=.20). The median H pylori optical density values in dyspepsia vs no dyspepsia were not significantly different (P=.30). Independent risk factors for dyspepsia were the use of aspirin (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.7) and smoking (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.6) but not age, sex, marital status, educational level, income, or the use of alcohol, coffee, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Independent risk factors for H pylori were increasing age (OR, 1.8 per decade; 95% CI, 1.5-2.3), male sex (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), and net family income (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-3.3)., Conclusion: Dyspepsia in the community is linked to smoking and aspirin use, but not to H pylori infection.

The aim of this study was to determine whether edrophonium induces dyspeptic symptoms and/or gastric myoelectric changes in normal subjects and patients with functional dyspepsia. Eighteen normal controls and 28 patients with functional dyspepsia underwent electrogastrography (EGG) with edrophonium administration. After EGG recording with 1-hr fasting and 2-hr postprandial periods, subjects received an intravenous infusion of saline (placebo) followed by edrophonium 10 mg. After each injection, the EGG was recorded for 15 min and symptoms scored. Patients with functional dyspepsia had significantly more frequent gastrointestinal symptoms in response to edrophonium than normal controls. Edrophonium had no effect on EGG dominant frequency, but increased the power of the dominant frequency in both controls and dyspeptic patients. In the dyspeptic patients, reproduction of the patient's symptoms was associated with an increase in the power of the dominant frequency, whereas when no symptoms were produced, there was no change in power. Overall, 21 of 28 dyspeptic patients (75%) had either an abnormal baseline EGG (N=10) or a normal EGG and positive edrophonium test (N=11). In conclusion, edrophonium administration can reproduce symptoms in some dyspeptic patients. Symptoms after edrophonium administration may be related to either more vigorous gastric contractions and/or increased visceral perception of normal gastric contractions.

Sildenafil citrate has been shown to be effective in a wide range of patients with erectile dysfunction and has been approved in the United States for this indication. The overall clinical safety of oral sildenafil, a potent inhibitor of phosphodiesterase type 5, in the treatment of erectile dysfunction was evaluated in more than 3700 patients (with a total of 1631 years of exposure worldwide). Safety and tolerability data were analysed from a series of double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and from 10 open-label extension studies of sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. A total of 4274 patients (2722 sildenafil, 1552 placebo; age range 19-87 y) received double-blind treatment over a period of up to six months' duration, and 2199 received long-term, open-label sildenafil for up to 1 y. The most commonly reported adverse events (all causes) were headache (16% sildenafil, 4% placebo), flushing (10% sildenafil, 1% placebo), and dyspepsia (7% sildenafil, 2% placebo) and they were predominantly transient and mild or moderate in nature. These adverse events reflect the pharmacology of sildenafil as a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor. No cases of priapism were reported. The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (all causes) was comparable for patients treated with sildenafil (2.5%) and placebo (2.3%). In open-label extension studies, 90% of patients completed long-term sildenafil treatment, with only 2% withdrawing due to adverse events. Sildenafil is a well-tolerated oral treatment for erectile dysfunction.

Four large clinical studies have shown that omeprazole, 20 mg once daily, is effective in preventing the significant gastroduodenal consequences of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In the Scandinavian Collaborative Ulcer Recurrence (SCUR) study, patients were randomized (without initial endoscopy) to receive omeprazole or placebo for up to 3 months. Of the patients treated with omeprazole, 24.7% experienced treatment failure, compared with 50.0% of those on placebo. Fewer patients in the omeprazole group than in the placebo group developed a peptic ulcer (4.7% versus 16.7%, respectively) or dyspeptic symptoms (8.2% versus 20.0%, respectively). In the Omeprazole versus Placebo as Prophylaxis of Ulcers and Erosions from NSAID Treatment (OPPULENT) study, patients were also randomized to receive omeprazole or placebo. The estimated probability of remaining in remission for 6 months while receiving omeprazole was 0.78, compared with 0.53 for placebo. Fourteen (16.5%) patients on placebo developed peptic ulcer(s), compared with three (3.6%) patients on omeprazole. The Omeprazole versus Misoprostol for NSAID-Induced Ulcer Management (OMNIUM) study consisted of a healing and a prophylactic phase. Patients who successfully completed the healing phase were re-randomized to receive omeprazole, misoprostol, or placebo for up to 6 months. In patients receiving omeprazole, 36.5% experienced treatment failure, compared with 48.6% of those on misoprostol, and 67.7% of those on placebo. Omeprazole and misoprostol appeared to be equally effective in preventing gastric ulcer; by contrast, omeprazole was highly effective in preventing duodenal ulcer, when compared with misoprostol and placebo. The Acid Suppression Trial: Ranitidine versus Omeprazole for NSAID-Associated Ulcer Treatment (ASTRONAUT) study also consisted of a healing and a prophylactic phase. Patients who successfully completed the healing phase were re-randomized to receive omeprazole or ranitidine for up to 6 months. In patients receiving omeprazole, 26.2% experienced treatment failure, compared with 37.7% of those on ranitidine. The percentages of patients with a peptic ulcer relapse were 5.7% for omeprazole and 19.5% for ranitidine. The data show that omeprazole is an effective and well-tolerated agent for both primary and secondary (maintenance) prophylaxis in patients receiving NSAIDs.

Nonaspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most frequently used drugs in many countries. Use of the majority of NSAIDs increases with age, primarily for symptoms associated with osteoarthritis and other chronic musculoskeletal conditions. Population-based studies have shown that, on any given day, 10-20% of elderly people (> or = 65 years old) have a current or recent NSAID prescription. Over a 6-month period in Alberta, Canada, 27% of elderly people were prescribed NSAIDs. Furthermore, in Tennessee (USA), 40% of elderly people received at least one NSAID prescription annually, and 6% had NSAID prescriptions for > 75% of the year. NSAIDs cause a wide variety of side-effects. The most clinically important side-effects are upper gastrointestinal tract dyspepsia, peptic ulceration, hemorrhage, and perforation, leading to death in some patients. Gastrointestinal side-effects are common; the most common NSAID-associated side-effect is epigastric pain/indigestion. Gastrointestinal side-effects are also a frequent reason both for withdrawal of NSAIDs and for co-treatment with another drug. Indeed, in two population-based studies of people aged > or = 65 years, the use of agents to prevent peptic ulcers or relieve dyspepsia was nearly twice as common in regular NSAID users (20-26%) than in non-NSAID users (11%). In Alberta, Canada, it has been estimated that NSAID use accounts for 28% of all prescriptions for anti-ulcer drugs in people aged at least 65 years. Many studies have now shown that NSAIDs increase the risk of peptic ulcer complications by 3-5-fold, and in several different populations it has been estimated that 15-35% of all peptic ulcer complications are due to NSAIDs. In the United States alone, there are an estimated 41,000 hospitalizations and 3,300 deaths each year among the elderly that are associated with NSAIDs. Factors that increase the risk of serious peptic ulcer disease include older age, history of peptic ulcer disease, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, dyspepsia, and/or previous NSAID intolerance, as well as several measures of poor health.

In Singapore, there exists a local habit to routinely prescribe antacids with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) perhaps in the belief that gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and complications are common, and that antacids protect from them. We prospectively studied 140 adults in an orthopaedic clinic who were prescribed a short course of NSAIDs (1 to 4 weeks) without antacids to determine the frequency and severity of GI symptoms. Symptomatic patients were then given antacids to determine their effect on the GI symptoms and followed up by telephone interview. These patients had mild inflammation, soft tissue rheumatism, injury or degenerative disease. All were otherwise well with no known peptic ulcer disease or major illness and were not on ulcerogenic drugs. Only 13 (9.3%) had significant GI symptoms, of which 6 (4.2%) of the total took antacid and 5 (3.5%) had partial or total relief. In this study, GI symptoms were not common with short course NSAIDs in otherwise well patients. Antacids may afford symptomatic relief for GI symptoms. However, because antacids may offer no significant protection against NSAID-induced peptic ulcer, may dangerously mask symptoms of GI irritation, may be troublesome to take and costly on a large scale, we should stop routine prescription of antacids in patients requiring only short-term NSAIDs and not at risk for peptic ulcer disease.

1. H. pylori gastritis appears to increase the likelihood of developing dyspeptic symptoms on NSAID therapy. 2. There is preliminary evidence that the histologic severity of H. pylori gastritis may be adversely affected by NSAID therapy, with a consequent increase in the risk of developing a peptic ulcer, possibly with complications. Whether this results from an effect on the inflammatory process or results from a quantitative increase in H. pylori colonization is unknown. In these respects, ASA may differ from other NSAIDs. 3. Ulcers are more likely to develop during the course of NSAID therapy in those infected with H. pylori; eradication of the infection reduces ulcer recurrence in the face of continued NSAID therapy, and it seems likely that this must reduce but not abolish the risk of GI bleeding in those using NSAIDs. Eradication also reduces the damage (and possibly risks) of low-dose aspirin therapy. 4. While H. pylori and NSAID use are independent risk factors for GI bleeding, whether or not they are interactive remains unresolved. 5. The effect of H. pylori infection on the risk of perforation during NSAID therapy, or conversely, the contribution of NSAID therapy to the risk of perforation in H. pylori-infected subjects, is also unclear at the present time. 6. Only large outcome studies of accurately diagnosed patients (with regard to H. pylori gastritis), and with much more specific detail as to the type of NSAID, dose and duration of therapy, employing only well-defined end-points, such as significant hemorrhage, perforation or death, and avoiding all surrogate markers short of these end points can hope to unravel this tangled web.

Aim: To investigate the efficacy of omeprazole 20 mg o.m. as primary prophylaxis against non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-associated ulcer disease or dyspeptic symptoms., Methods: A parallel group study compared patients randomized to receive omeprazole 20 mg o.m. or placebo as co-therapy with on-going NSAID treatment, over 6 months, in 19 specialist centres in Ireland, Hungary, France, the UK and the USA. One hundred and sixty-nine patients taking NSAIDs regularly, chronically and above defined minimum doses entered the trial. The main outcome measure was the development of gastric or duodenal ulcers detected endoscopically, the development of multiple erosions in the stomach or duodenum, or the onset of moderate or severe dyspeptic symptoms., Results: The estimated probability of remaining free of these end-points for 6 months for patients taking omeprazole was 0.78 compared to 0.53 for placebo (P = 0.004). Fourteen patients receiving placebo (16.5%) developed 15 ulcers, comprising nine gastric and six duodenal ulcers, compared to three patients (3.6%) receiving omeprazole (all gastric ulcers). Logistic regression analysis showed that older patients were less likely, whilst those with rheumatoid arthritis were more likely, to remain free of NSAID-associated problems., Conclusions: Omeprazole is an effective agent for gastroduodenal prophylaxis in patients taking NSAIDs. Its main effect is to reduce the rate of development of gastric and duodenal ulcers.

Background: Dietary calcium and antioxidants have been suggested as protective agents against colorectal cancer. This has been supported by animal experimental studies, case control and cohort studies., Materials and Methods: In a prospective intervention study of colorectal adenomas, and intermediary stage in colorectal carcinogenesis, 116 polyp-bearing patients received a placebo-controlled daily mixture of beta-carotene 15 mg, vitamin C 150 mg, vitamin E 75 mg, selenium 101 microg, and calcium (1.6 g daily) as carbonate for a period of 3 years with annual colonoscopic follow-up to test if the mixture was able to reduce polyp growth or recurrence. All polyps of < 10 mm at enrollment or follow-up were left unresected until the end of the study., Results: 87-91% of the patients attended the annual endoscopic follow-up investigations, and 19% of the patients dropped out of the medical intervention. The rest consumed 85% of the total amount of tablets over the 3 years. The fecal calcium concentration was 2.3-2.7 times higher in patients taking active medication compared to the placebo group. Diet registration showed that, when adding the intake of antioxidants and calcium from diet and intervention, there was a significant difference between the intake of these substances in the active and the placebo group. No difference was detected in the growth of adenomas between the active and the placebo group from year to year and for the total study period. Moreover, there was no effect on polyps of < 5 or 5-9 mm, or on polyps in the different colonic segments analyzed separately. A reduced growth of adenomas was found in patients <60 years of age taking active medication (n = 8) compared to those taking placebo (n = 6; mean difference 2.3 mm; 95% CI 0.26-4.36). There was a significantly lower number of patients free of new adenomas in the placebo group compared to those taking active medication as tested by logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis (log-rank test p value 0.035). Subgroup analysis showed that only the group of patients with no family history of colorectal cancer, those with only one adenoma at inclusion, and those <65 years benefitted from the intervention medication., Conclusion: The study did not find an overall effect on polyp growth. Our data, however, may support a protective role of calcium and antioxidants on new adenoma formation.

Objective: Most patients with severe upper dyspepsia are treated empirically with ulcer drugs. Drug-induced dyspepsia might therefore be reflected in the sequencing of ulcer drugs relative to other medications. Our aim was to screen a large population-base prescription database for evidence of drug-induced dyspepsia., Methods: Prescription data on 31,232 incident users of ulcer drugs were drawn from a research database, covering the county of Funen, Denmark. We identified all individuals who had started their first recorded therapies with an ulcer drug and another non-ulcer drug within a 100 day span. In this selected group, there would normally be an equal number starting either drug first, while a dyspepsia-provoking effect of the non-ulcer drug would manifest as an excess of individuals with the ulcer drug prescribed last. This screening method is robust to confounders that are stable over time., Results: Only non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (adjusted rate ratio (RR) 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6-2.0), calcium blockers (RR 1.4, CI 1.2-1.7), corticosteroids (RR 1.1, CI 1.0-1.3), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (RR 1.4, CI 1.1-1.7) and methylxanthines (RR 1.5, CI 1.1-2.2) showed a significant asymmetry suggesting a dyspepsia-provoking effect. An analysis of effect modifiers suggested that the signals for corticosteroids and for angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors were explained by concurrent use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and by underlying congestive heart failure. The signal for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may be explained by the known reputation of non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs for causing ulcers., Conclusion: There are hardly any important unknown drug effects that mimic acid related dyspepsia. Drug-induced dyspepsia contributes little to the overall use of ulcer drugs.

Objective: To observe the Sijunzi Decoction in rectifying the digestive disorder., Methods: Sijunzi decoction (SJZD) was chosen to treat digestive dysfunction in mice. The model was induced by Xiaochengqi decoction and semi-starvation. The effects on the absorptive function of the small intestine, body weight, autonomous activity levels, oxidative phosphorylation of hepatic mitochondrion, respiratory control rate (RCR) and cells energy charge were observed in vivo., Results: The group given Xiaochengqi decoction had lower absorption, decreased body weight, and lower autonomous activity levels, and their hepatic mitochondrion RCR and cell energy charge were also lower than those of the control group. The figures for the group given SJZD all showed improvement, especially the group given the larger dose of SJZD., Conclusion: SJZD could correct Deficiency of the Spleen and Stomach which to some extent is caused by digestive dysfunction. So it is considered that the Spleen's function of transportation and transformation includes two meanings: external transportation and transformation--the digestive and absorptive function of the small intestine, and internal transportation and transformation--the liver's conversion of nutrients and generate energy (ATP).

Adverse GI effects of NSAIDs include dyspepsia, occult bleeding, overt bleeding and ulcer disease. Consequences of NSAID-induced GI toxicity include anemia, hospitalization, and death. External factors, such as drugs and alcohol, can disrupt the gastric barrier that protects the GI tract from erosive substances. Pharmacists should counsel patients who frequently use non-prescription analgesics and determine whether further medical evaluation is needed. In contrast to NSAIDs, acetaminophen has not been associated with GI toxicity of increased risk of GI tract bleeding.

The efficacy of ranitidine in the treatment of NSAID-related dyspeptic symptoms with and without peptic ulcer disease (PUD) was investigated in 124 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA). The patients, who continued the use of NSAIDs were investigated by gastroduodenoscopy. Patients with PUD received open label ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. and the patients without PUD were randomly allocated to receive ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. or placebo for 4 weeks. PUD was found in 36 (26%) consecutive patients who presented with dyspeptic symptoms. Of these patients dyspeptic symptoms had disappeared in 8 (26%) of 31 evaluable patients and PUD was healed in 18 (56%) patients after 4 weeks of treatment. After 8 weeks of treatment PUD was healed in 27 (87%) patients. Of the remaining patients without PUD dyspeptic symptoms had disappeared in 24 (26%) of the ranitidine-treated patients which was significantly better (p < 0.02) than the 5 (6%) placebo-treated patients. The minor mucosal lesions found in this patient group improved to a similar extent in the ranitidine and placebo-treated patients although 1 placebo-treated patient deteriorated and 2 placebo-treated patients developed PUD during the 4 weeks of study. The results of this study show that oral ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. is effective in the treatment of both dyspeptic symptoms and mucosal lesions in RA and OA patient who continue the use of NSAIDs.

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.