Prevention of ulcers by esomeprazole in at-risk patients using non-selective NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors

Proton pump inhibitors reduce ulcer recurrence in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) users, but their impact in at-risk ulcer-free patients using the current spectrum of prescribed agents has not been clearly defined. We assessed esomeprazole for ulcer prevention in at-risk patients (≥60 yr and/or ulcer history) taking NSAIDs, including COX-2 inhibitors. Such studies are particularly relevant, given that concerns regarding adverse cardiovascular outcomes among COX-2 inhibitor users may prompt re-evaluation of their use. We conducted two similar double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter studies; VENUS (United States) and PLUTO (multinational). A total of 844 and 585 patients requiring daily NSAIDs, including COX-2 inhibitors were randomized to receive esomeprazole (20 or 40 mg) or placebo, daily for 6 months. In the VENUS study, the life table estimated proportion of patients who developed ulcers over 6 months (primary variable, intent-to-treat population) was 20.4% on placebo, 5.3% on esomeprazole 20 mg (p < 0.001), and 4.7% on esomeprazole 40 mg (p < 0.0001). In the PLUTO study, the values were 12.3% on placebo, 5.2% with esomeprazole 20 mg (p= 0.018), and 4.4% with esomeprazole 40 mg (p= 0.007). Significant reductions were observed for users of both non-selective NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors. Pooled ulcer rates for patients using COX-2 inhibitors (n = 400) were 16.5% on placebo, 0.9% on esomeprazole 20 mg (p < 0.001) and 4.1% on esomeprazole 40 mg (p= 0.002). Esomeprazole was well tolerated and associated with better symptom control than placebo. For at-risk patients, esomeprazole was effective in preventing ulcers in long-term users of NSAIDs, including COX-2 inhibitors

Cost of detecting malignant lesions by endoscopy in 2741 primary care dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Current guidelines recommend empirical, noninvasive approaches to manage dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms, but concerns about missed lesions persist; the cost savings afforded by noninvasive approaches must be weighed against treatment delays. We investigated the prevalence of malignancies and other serious abnormalities in patients with dyspepsia and the cost of detecting these by endoscopy. METHODS: We studied 2741 primary-care outpatients, 18-70 years in age, who met Rome II criteria for dyspepsia. Patients with alarm features (dysphagia, bleeding, weight loss, etc) were excluded. All patients underwent endoscopy. The cost and diagnostic yield of an early endoscopy strategy in all patients were compared with those of endoscopy limited to age-defined cohorts. Costs were calculated for a low, intermediate, and high cost environment. RESULTS: Endoscopies detected abnormalities in 635 patients (23%). The most common findings were reflux esophagitis with erosions (15%), gastric ulcers (2.7%), and duodenal ulcers (2.3%). The prevalence of upper gastrointestinal malignancy was 0.22%. If all dyspeptic patients 50 years or older underwent endoscopy, 1 esophageal cancer and no gastric cancers would have been missed. If the age threshold for endoscopy were set at 50 years, at a cost of $500/endoscopy, it would cost$82,900 (95% CI, $35,714-$250,000) to detect each case of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms rarely have serious underlying conditions at endoscopy. The costs associated with diagnosing an occult malignancy are large, but an age cut-off of 50 years for early endoscopy provides the best assurance that an occult malignancy will not be missed