Review article: current treatment options and management of functional dyspepsia.

BACKGROUND: Functional dyspepsia (FD), a common functional gastrointestinal disorder, is defined by the Rome III criteria as symptoms of epigastric pain or discomfort (prevalence in FD of 89-90%), postprandial fullness (75-88%), and early satiety (50-82%) within the last 3 months with symptom onset at least 6 months earlier. Patients cannot have any evidence of structural disease to explain symptoms and predominant symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux are exclusionary. Symptoms of FD are non-specific and the pathophysiology is diverse, which explains in part why a universally effective treatment for FD remains elusive. AIM: To present current management options for the treatment of FD (therapeutic gain/response rate noted when available). RESULTS: The utility of Helicobacter pylori eradication for the treatment of FD is modest (6-14% therapeutic gain), while the therapeutic efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) (7-10% therapeutic gain), histamine-type-2-receptor antagonists (8-35% therapeutic gain), prokinetic agents (18-45%), tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) (response rates of 64-70%), serotonin reuptake inhibitors (no better than placebo) is limited and hampered by inadequate data. This review discusses dietary interventions and analyses studies involving complementary and alternative medications, and psychological therapies. CONCLUSIONS: A reasonable treatment approach based on current evidence is to initiate therapy with a daily PPI in H. pylori-negative FD patients. If symptoms persist, a therapeutic trial with a tricyclic antidepressant may be initiated. If symptoms continue, the clinician can possibly initiate therapy with an anti-nociceptive agent, a prokinetic agent, or some form of complementary and alternative medications, although evidence from prospective studies to support this approach is limited.

Systematic reviews of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in the prevention and treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal (UGI) haemorrhage, as well as to compare this with H2-receptor antagonist (H2RA), Helicobacter pylori eradication (in infected patients) or no therapy, for the prevention of first and/or subsequent bleeds among patients who continue to use non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Also to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of PPI therapy, compared with other treatments, for the prevention of subsequent bleeds in patients who had previously experienced peptic ulcer (PU) bleeding. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and major conference proceedings were searched up to February 2006. REVIEW METHODS: Data were collected from the systematic reviews addressing each research objective. These were then entered into an economic model to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life-days of alternative management strategies over a 28-day period for patients who have had UGI bleeding. A Markov model with a Monte Carlo simulation used data from the systematic reviews to identify the most cost-effective treatment strategy for the prevention of UGI bleeding (first and subsequent) among NSAID users using an outcome of costs per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a lifetime from age 50 years. RESULTS: PPI treatment initiated after endoscopic diagnosis of PU bleeding significantly reduced re-bleeding and surgery compared with placebo or H2RA. Although there was no evidence of an overall effect of PPI treatment on all-cause mortality, PPIs significantly reduced mortality in subgroups when studies conducted in Asia were examined in isolation or when the analysis was confined to patients with high-risk endoscopic findings. PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in UGI bleeding significantly reduced the proportion of patients with stigmata of recent haemorrhage (SRH) at index endoscopy compared with placebo or H2RA, but there was no evidence that PPI treatment affected clinically important outcomes. Giving oral PPI both before and after endoscopy, with endoscopic haemostatic therapy (EHT) for those with major SRH, is preferred to all others on cost-effectiveness grounds at any threshold over 25,000 pounds per QALY, even if only short-term effects are taken into account, and at any threshold over 200 pounds per life-year gained if long-term effects are included. The risk of NSAID-induced endoscopic gastric and duodenal ulcers was reduced by standard doses of PPI and misoprostol, and double doses of H2RAs. Standard doses of H2RAs reduced the risk of endoscopic duodenal ulcers. PPIs reduced NSAID-induced dyspepsia. PPIs were superior to misoprostol in preventing recurrence of NSAID-induced endoscopic duodenal ulcers, but PPIs were comparable to misoprostol in preventing the recurrence of NSAID-induced endoscopic gastric ulcers. Full-dose misoprostol reduced bleeding, perforation or gastric outlet obstruction due to NSAID-induced ulcers, but misoprostol was poorly tolerated and associated with frequent adverse effects. H. pylori eradication treatment was equally effective with PPI treatment for the primary or secondary prevention of endoscopic ulcers in NSAID users. H. pylori eradication treatment was more effective than placebo for the primary prevention of endoscopic PU and for the prevention of re-bleeding from PU in NSAID users. With regard to primary and secondary prevention of bleeding PU in NSAID users, the two most cost-effective strategies are H. pylori eradication alone, and H. pylori eradication followed by misoprostol (substituted by a PPI, if misoprostol is not tolerated) at an additional 4810 pounds per QALY. In patients who had previously experienced a bleed from a PU, re-bleeding was less frequent after H. pylori eradication therapy than after non-eradication antisecretory therapy, whether or not the latter was combined with long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy. CONCLUSIONS: PPI treatment compared with placebo or H2RA reduces mortality following PU bleeding among patients with high-risk endoscopic findings, and reduces re-bleeding rates and surgical intervention. PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in UGI bleeding significantly reduces the proportion of patients with SRH at index endoscopy but does not reduce mortality, re-bleeding or the need for surgery. The strategy of giving oral PPI before and after endoscopy, with EHT for those with major SRH, is likely to be the most cost-effective. Treatment of H. pylori infection was found to be more effective than antisecretory therapy in preventing recurrent bleeding from PU. H. pylori eradication alone or eradication followed by misoprostol (with switch to PPI, if misoprostol is not tolerated) are the two most cost-effective strategies for preventing bleeding ulcers among H. pylori-infected NSAID users, although the data cannot exclude PPIs also being cost-effective. Further large randomised controlled trials are needed to address areas such as PPI administration prior to endoscopic diagnosis, different doses and administration of PPIs, as well as the primary and secondary prevention of UGI bleeding.

Dose-response evaluation of the antisecretory effect of continuous infusion intravenous lansoprazole regimens over 48 h.

BACKGROUND: Attainment of intragastric pH < 6.0 may require high-dose continuously infused proton pump therapy. AIM: To assess the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic dose-responses of continuous infusion regimens of lansoprazole. METHODS: Healthy adult subjects were assigned to lansoprazole 60-mg intravenous bolus, followed by 6-mg/h continuous infusion; a 90-mg intravenous bolus followed by 6-, 7.5-, or 9-mg/h continuous infusion; or placebo. RESULTS: Mean intragastric pH values for lansoprazole regimens ranged from 4.8 to 5.2 (0-24 h), 5.5 to 6.0 (>24 to 48 h) and 5.2 to 5.6 (0-48 h). Within these three intervals, the percentages of time intragastric pH exceeded 4, 5 and 6 ranged from 65% to 96%, 54% to 88% and 30% to 61% respectively. Pharmacokinetic parameters were dose-independent with steady-state plasma concentrations achieved within 6-12 h postdose and maintained over 48 h. The mean systemic clearance of lansoprazole was lower in CYP2C19 heterozygous metabolizers than in homozygous extensive metabolizers (9.2 vs. 16.5 L/h), with substantial variability resulting in overlapping ranges of clearance values for both subpopulations. All lansoprazole regimens were well-tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Lansoprazole administered as a 60-mg intravenous bolus followed by 6-mg/h continuous infusion produced intragastric pH effects comparable with those of higher dosage regimens.

Randomized, controlled comparison of two forms of preparation for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of data regarding the optimal form of bowel preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy. Most endoscopists recommend enemas. A simpler preparation that is easy, acceptable, and that reduces patient encounter time would be desirable, and might be cost-effective. Our objective in this study was to evaluate a simple oral form of preparation for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. METHODS: In this randomized, single-blind, controlled trial, we compared two forms of preparation in consecutive male patients referred for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. The oral preparation consisted of one bottle of magnesium citrate and two "Dulcolax" tablets on the evening before flexible sigmoidoscopy. This was compared with the standard form of preparation, namely, two Fleet's enemas given on arrival at the endoscopy suite. Thirty-seven patients received the oral preparation [mean age, 62.8 +/- 8.9 (SD) yr]; 33 received enemas (mean age, 65.2 +/- 7.3 yr). Endoscopists were blinded to the preparation. RESULTS: Mean time between arrival and starting flexible sigmoidoscopy was 36 +/- 22 (SD) min for patients on oral preparation, and 62 +/- 25 min for patients receiving enemas (p < 0.0001). Mean times performing flexible sigmoidoscopy were 10 +/- 3 min and 13 +/- 4 min, respectively (p = 0.004). Mean patient satisfaction score (range 0-13) was higher for patients given the oral preparation (11.4 +/- 1.8) than for patients receiving enemas (9.6 +/- 2.4) (p = 0.001). Fifteen patients randomized to receive the oral preparation had previous flexible sigmoidoscopy with an enema preparation; all preferred the oral form. Mean technical difficulty (range 1-10) was 3 +/- 2.2 for patients given the oral preparation and 4.9 +/- 3.1 for patients receiving the enema preparation (p = 0.01). Polyps were identified in 10/37 patients who received the oral preparation and in 3/33 patients who received enemas (p = 0.05). Quality of colon preparation was judged "good" in 29, "fair" in four, and "poor" in four, among the 37 patients given the oral form; corresponding values for 33 patients given enemas were 16, 10, and 7 (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Patient acceptance, encounter time, technical ease, and quality of colon preparation were significantly better with the oral form of colon preparation than with the standard Fleet enema preparation.

The consequences of H2 receptor antagonist--piroxicam coadministration in patients with joint disorders.

A randomised crossover study was performed in subjects with rheumatoid arthritis (or other arthropathies) to investigate if any alteration in the steady pharmacokinetics of the NSAID piroxicam (a drug which is extensively metabolised via cytochrome P450) or its major metabolites occurred as a result of coadministering either cimetidine or nizatidine. Twelve females and 2 males with mean age, weight, and albumin concentrations of 58 years, 61 kg, and 40 g.L-1 respectively, completed the study. Comparisons were made between the following parameters: plasma piroxicam AUCs [AUC0-24(P)], plasma 5-hydroxypiroxicam AUCs [AUC0-24(5-OHP)], the ratio of these i.e. AUC0-24(5-OHP):AUC0-24(p), the % piroxicam daily dose excreted in urine as 5-hydroxypiroxicam (before and after glucuronidase incubation); and the mean of the steady state trough piroxicam, and 5-hydroxypiroxicam concentrations (obtained during each study phase in addition to the wash-out period). A statistically significant difference as a result of initiating either cimetidine or nizatidine was obtained only for the ratio AUC0-23(5-OHP):AUC0-24(P). This was indicative of a weak potential to inhibit piroxicam hydroxylation. No clinically significant alteration in the steady state pharmacokinetics of piroxicam occurred in these subjects as a result of cimetidine or nizatidine coadministration. Consequently it is unlikely that any adverse events would arise from these combinations.

Probable Crohn's colitis mimicking ischaemic colitis in a young adult.

The features on barium enema of ischaemic colitis is characteristic and the radiological sign of "thumb printing" thought to be almost pathognomonic of the condition. We report a case of inflammatory bowel disease, probably Crohn's disease mimicking these radiological features. This has not to our knowledge been previously documented.

Inhibition by omeprazole of adrenocortical response to ACTH: clinical studies and experiments on bovine adrenal cortex in vitro.

Omeprazole, a substituted benzimidazole, is a potent inhibitor of gastric acid secretion which is currently being evaluated in patients with peptic ulcer and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. Drugs which possess an imidazole nucleus have previously been shown to inhibit cortisol release from the adrenal cortex, secondary to inhibition of mitochondrial cytochrome P-450 dependent hydroxylation reactions. In a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study in healthy male volunteers, omeprazole (60 mg daily for 7 days) did not alter basal cortisol levels. The peak cortisol response to ACTH stimulation was significantly reduced. Cortisol levels 60 min after ACTH were 824 +/- 27 nmol/l on omeprazole (mean +/- SEM), and 929 +/- 35 on placebo (P less than 0.005). In vitro, omeprazole caused a concentration-dependent inhibition of ACTH-stimulated cortisol release from isolated bovine adrenal cells (ED50 = 20 micrograms/ml). This was associated with a decrease in deoxycortisol synthesis. Therefore, unlike some other imidazole-containing drugs, the inhibitory effects of omeprazole are not entirely due to steroid 11 beta-hydroxylase inhibition. Substantial inhibition occurred at omeprazole concentrations which are higher than plasma levels normally achieved in clinical use. However, impairment of adrenocortical function may occur in patients on long-term high dose omeprazole treatment for Zollinger-Ellison syndrome.