Original Paper: Gastric Disorders
Efficacy and Tolerability of Pantoprazole Compared with Misoprostol for the Prevention of NSAID-Related Gastrointestinal Lesions and Symptoms in Rheumatic PatientsStupnicki T.a · Dietrich K.b · González-Carro P.c · Straszak A.d · Terjung A.e · Thomas K.B.e · Lühmann R.e · Fischer R.e
aGeneral Hospital Graz-West, Department of Gastroenterology, Graz, Austria; bBahnhofstrasse 56, Saarbrücken, Germany; cHospital General ‘La Mancha-Centro’, Alcázar de San Juan, Spain; dDepartment of Internal Medicine, City Hospital, Siemianowice Śląskie, Poland; eALTANA Pharma AG, Konstanz, Germany
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Aim: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of pantoprazole 20 mg once daily (o.d.) with misoprostol 200 µg twice daily (b.i.d.), administered for 6 months to rheumatic patients who required long-term therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and who were at increased risk of developing gastrointestinal lesions. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel group comparison study was performed with rheumatic patients (n = 515) who were likely to take NSAIDs continuously for at least 6 months. Patients were 55 years or older, at risk to develop gastrointestinal lesions, had less than five erosions/petechiae in the stomach and duodenum, no ulcers, no reflux esophagitis (endoscopy-proven), and gastrointestinal symptoms of at most moderate intensity. A minimum daily dose was defined for NSAIDs (COX-2 inhibitors were not available at the time). Patients were randomized to take either pantoprazole 20 mg o.d. (n = 257) or misoprostol 200 µg b.i.d. (n = 258) for 6 months while continuing NSAID therapy. Endoscopy was performed at baseline, 3, and 6 months. Results: Pantoprazole was superior to misoprostol (p < 0.001) with regard to ‘therapeutic failure’ (occurrence of a peptic ulcer, ten or more erosions/petechiae in the stomach/duodenum, reflux esophagitis, severe gastrointestinal symptoms, and/or ‘likely’ or ‘definitely’ related adverse event leading to study termination). Estimated remission rates at 3 and 6 months (Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis) were, respectively, 93 and 89% (pantoprazole) and 79 and 70% (misoprostol). Pantoprazole was superior to misoprostol (p = 0.005) with regard to ‘endoscopic failure’ (occurrence of a peptic ulcer, ten or more erosions/petechiae in the stomach/duodenum, or reflux esophagitis) after 6 months. Estimated remission rates at 3 and 6 months were, respectively, 98 and 95% (pantoprazole) and 95 and 86% (misoprostol). Patients discontinuing the study early due to adverse events ‘likely’ or ‘definitely’ related to the study drug accounted for 13/257 (5%) in the pantoprazole and 33/258 (13%) in the misoprostol treatment groups. Conclusion: Pantoprazole 20 mg o.d. is superior to misoprostol 200 µg b.i.d. in the prevention of NSAID-induced gastrointestinal lesions and symptoms in patients on continuous long-term treatment with NSAIDs due to rheumatic diseases and at risk to develop such lesions or symptoms.
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.