throbber

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Medical Progress
`
`The New England Journal of Medicine
`
`Review Article
`
`G
`
` T
`OXICITY
`ASTROINTESTINAL
` N
`
`OF
`ONSTEROIDAL
` D
`NTIINFLAMMATORY
`RUGS
`
`A
`
`M. M
`ICHAEL
`
` R. L
`, M.D., D
` W
`ICHTENSTEIN
`AVID
`OLFE
` G
` S
`, M.D.
`URKIRPAL
`AND
`INGH
`
`, M.D.,
`
`O
`
`NE hundred years have passed since Felix
`Hoffman, working at Bayer Industries, re-
`ported the successful synthesis of acetylsali-
`cylic acid as the first nonsteroidal antiinflammatory
`drug (NSAID).
` At the suggestion of Hermann
`1,2
`Dreser, Bayer’s chief pharmacologist at the time,
` the
`3
`compound was called “aspirin” and was purported
`to represent a convenient mechanism for the delivery
`of salicylic acid in the treatment of rheumatic diseas-
`es, menstrual pain, and fever.
` Approximately 40 years
`2
`elapsed before Douthwaite and Lintott
` provided
`4
`endoscopic evidence that aspirin could cause gastric
`mucosal damage. Numerous reports have corrobo-
`rated this observation,
` and the introduction of more
`5-8
`potent agents with an even greater propensity for
`toxic effects has increased the awareness of NSAID-
`induced gastroduodenal ulcer and provided impetus
`for the development of effective NSAIDs with a more
`favorable safety profile.
`Starting in the early 1970s, numerous new NSAIDs
`were developed that were initially believed to be de-
`void of gastrointestinal toxicity, but few, if any, are
`entirely harmless. These agents constitute one of the
`most widely used classes of drugs, with more than
`70 million prescriptions and more than 30 billion
`over-the-counter tablets sold annually in the United
`States.
` Although NSAIDs are generally well tolerat-
`9
`ed, adverse gastrointestinal events occur in a small
`but important percentage of patients, resulting in
`substantial morbidity and mortality.
`
`From the Section of Gastroenterology, Boston University School of
`Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston (M.M.W., D.R.L.); and the
`Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Stanford University School
`of Medicine, Palo Alto, Calif. (G.S.). Address reprint requests to Dr. Wolfe
`at the Boston Medical Center, Section of Gastroenterology, 88 E. Newton
`St., Boston, MA 02118-2393, or at michael.wolfe@bmc.org.
`©1999, Massachusetts Medical Society.
`
`1888
`

`
`June 17, 1999
`
`EPIDEMIOLOGY OF GASTROINTESTINAL
`COMPLICATIONS
`Because of the broad and nonspecific definitions
`of gastrointestinal disorders caused by the use of
`NSAIDs, as well as differences in patient populations,
`drugs, dosages, and periods of use, estimates of the
`prevalence of adverse effects vary greatly. In general,
`at least 10 to 20 percent of patients have dyspepsia
`while taking an NSAID, although the prevalence
` Within a six-
`may range from 5 to 50 percent.
`10,11
`month period of treatment, 5 to 15 percent of pa-
`tients with rheumatoid arthritis can be expected to
`discontinue NSAID therapy because of dyspepsia.
`11
`According to prospective data from the Arthritis,
`Rheumatism, and Aging Medical Information Sys-
`tem (ARAMIS), 13 of every 1000 patients with
`rheumatoid arthritis who take NSAIDs for one year
`have a serious gastrointestinal complication. The risk
`in patients with osteoarthritis is somewhat lower
`(7.3 per 1000 patients per year).
`12
`The rate of NSAID-related serious gastrointestinal
`complications requiring hospitalization has decreased
`in recent years. The decrease may be due, at least in
`part, to extensive medical-education campaigns that
`have persuaded physicians to use newer, less toxic
`NSAIDs and non-NSAID analgesics in populations
`at high risk.
`12
`The mortality rate among patients who are hospi-
`talized for NSAID-induced upper gastrointestinal
` An analysis of
`bleeding is about 5 to 10 percent.
`13
`data from ARAMIS has shown that the mortality
`rate attributed to NSAID-related gastrointestinal tox-
`ic effects is 0.22 percent per year, with an annual
`relative risk of 4.21 as compared with the risk for
`persons not using NSAIDs.
` Although the annual
`12
`mortality rate is low, it must be emphasized that be-
`cause a large number of patients are exposed to
`NSAIDs, often for extended periods of time, the risk
`over a lifetime is substantial. In the United States,
`for instance, it is estimated that NSAIDs are used
`regularly by at least 13 million people with various
`arthritides. On the basis of these conservative figures
`and ARAMIS data, the annual number of hospital-
`izations in the United States for serious gastrointes-
`tinal complications is estimated to be at least 103,000.
`At an estimated cost of $15,000 to $20,000 per hos-
`pitalization, the annual direct costs of such compli-
`cations exceed $2 billion.
`14
`It has been estimated conservatively that 16,500
`NSAID-related deaths occur among patients with
`rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis every year in
`the United States. This figure is similar to the num-
`ber of deaths from the acquired immunodeficiency
`
`Downloaded from www.nejm.org at Stanford University on May 23, 2003.
`For personal or educational use only. No other uses without permission. All rights reserved.
`
`Page 1 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2042
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDICAL PROGRESS
`
`10,503
`
`5338
`
`4441
`
`1437
`
`20,197
`
`16,685 16,500
`
`25,000
`
`20,000
`
`15,000
`
`10,000
`
`5,000
`
`No. of Deaths
`
`0
`
`Leuke mia
`
`AID S
`
`M ultiple m yelo m a
`N S AID toxicity
`
`Hodgkin’s disease
`Asth m a
`Cervical cancer
`
`Cause of Death
`
`Figure 1.
` U.S. Mortality Data for Seven Selected Disorders in 1997.
`A total of 16,500 patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteo-
`arthritis died from the gastrointestinal toxic effects of NSAIDs.
`Data are from the National Center for Health Statistics and the
`Arthritis, Rheumatism, and Aging Medical Information System.
`12
`
`D
`
` 1.
`T
`
`
` F
` R
`ABLE
`THE
`FOR
`ACTORS
`ISK
`
` NSAID-A
`SSOCIATED
`EVELOPMENT
`OF
`G
` U
`.*
`ASTRODUODENAL
`LCERS
`
`
`
`Established risk factors
`Advanced age (linear increase in risk)
`History of ulcer
`Concomitant use of corticosteroids
`Higher doses of NSAIDs, including the use of more
`than one NSAID
`Concomitant administration of anticoagulants
`Serious systemic disorder
`Possible risk factors
`Concomitant infection with
`Cigarette smoking
`Consumption of alcohol
`
`Helicobacter pylori
`
`*Information on risk factors is from Singh and
`Triadafilopoulus,
` Bjorkman,
` Longstreth,
` Greene
`12
`16
`17
` Gabriel et al.,
` Griffin et al.,
` Lang-
`and Winickoff,
`18
`19
`20
`man et al.,
` Garcia Rodriguez and Jick,
`Hallas
`21
`22
`et al.,
` Silverstein et al.,
` Hochain et al.,
` Piper
`23
`24
`et al.,
` Shorr et al.,
` and Barkin.
`26
`27
`28
`
`25
`
`on univariate analysis and do not consider the inter-
`actions among multiple factors and coexisting con-
`ditions.
`Helicobacter pylori infection
`
`The identification of
`as a factor in the development of peptic ulcer has
`raised the question of a possible synergistic relation
`between the presence of
`infection and
`H. pylori
` have found
`NSAID use. Although several studies
`29-32
`these two factors to be independent, two prospec-
`tive studies have suggested a synergistic relation. Bi-
`anchi Porro et al.
` used the combination of amox-
`33
`icillin and omeprazole to treat NSAID users infected
`
`syndrome and considerably greater than the number
`of deaths from multiple myeloma, asthma, cervical
`cancer, or Hodgkin’s disease (Fig. 1).
` If deaths
`12,15
`from gastrointestinal toxic effects of NSAIDs were
`tabulated separately in the National Vital Statistics
`reports, these effects would constitute the 15th most
`common cause of death in the United States. Yet
`these toxic effects remain largely a “silent epidemic,”
`with many physicians and most patients unaware of
`the magnitude of the problem.
` Furthermore, the
`12
`mortality statistics do not include deaths ascribed to
`the use of over-the-counter NSAIDs.
`In a recent survey of 4799 Americans, 807 were
`identified who had taken NSAIDs (prescribed or
`over-the-counter drugs) at least twice in the past
`year for five or more consecutive days.
` Approxi-
`12
`mately 45 percent of the group took NSAIDs for
`five or more consecutive days at least once per month,
`and 40 percent took both over-the-counter and pre-
`scribed NSAIDs. Nearly 75 percent of those who
`used NSAIDs regularly were either unaware of or
`unconcerned about possible gastrointestinal compli-
`cations. In addition, almost two thirds of the regular
`users indicated that they would expect warning signs
`before the development of serious NSAID-induced
`complications. Only a minority of patients who have
`serious gastrointestinal complications report any an-
` In a study of patients with
`tecedent dyspepsia.
`11,13
`serious gastrointestinal complications, Singh et al.
`11
`found that although the proportion of patients with
`prior symptoms was only slightly higher than the
`proportion with no prior symptoms (2.7 percent vs.
`2.0 percent), 81 percent of the patients reported no
`antecedent dyspepsia.
`
`RISK FACTORS FOR GASTROINTESTINAL
`COMPLICATIONS
`Because dyspeptic symptoms are not a reliable warn-
`ing sign, it is important to identify factors that in-
`crease the risk of serious gastrointestinal complica-
`tions and to determine methods for reducing this
`risk. A number of studies have been designed to
`identify patients who are most likely to have adverse
`effects of NSAID therapy (Table 1).
`Advanced age has been consistently found to be a
`primary risk factor for adverse gastrointestinal events.
` Although
`The risk increases linearly with age.
`15-20
`previous reports suggested that the risk diminishes
`over time, a recent study indicates that the risk of
`NSAID-associated gastrointestinal hemorrhage re-
`mains constant over an extended period of observa-
`tion.
` Other risk factors that have been identified in
`12
`multiple studies are higher doses of NSAIDs (in-
`cluding the use of two or more NSAIDs), a history
`of gastroduodenal ulcer or gastrointestinal bleeding,
`concomitant use of corticosteroids, serious coexist-
`ing conditions, and concomitant use of anticoagu-
` However, many of these studies are based
`lants.
`20-27
`
`Volume 340 Number 24
`Downloaded from www.nejm.org at Stanford University on May 23, 2003.
`For personal or educational use only. No other uses without permission. All rights reserved.
`

`
`1889
`
`Page 2 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2042
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The New England Journal of Medicine
`
`H. pylori. They found that the eradication of
`
`with
`
`H. pylori did not affect the rate of ulcer healing.
`However, six months after the end of combination
`therapy, the cumulative rate of recurrent ulcers was
`31 percent among the patients in whom
`H. pylori
`had been eradicated and 46 percent among those
`who were still infected. This difference was not sta-
`tistically significant.
`Chan et al.
` found that the use of a regimen that
`34
`included bismuth subcitrate to eradicate
`H. pylori
`significantly decreased the rate of ulcer development
`associated with the use of naproxen. In this study,
`gastroduodenal ulcers developed in 26 percent of
`
`H. pylori–infected persons, but in only 7 percent of
`those in whom the organism had been eradicated.
`The inclusion of bismuth in the drug regimen, how-
`ever, makes the findings somewhat ambiguous, be-
`cause bismuth can accumulate in the gastric mucosa
`and stimulate prostaglandin synthesis.
` Most recent-
`28
`randomly assigned 285 patients
`ly, Hawkey et al.
`35
`with current ulcers or a history of ulcers who were
`using NSAIDs to combined treatment with omepra-
`zole, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin or to treatment
`with omeprazole alone. They found that the eradi-
`cation of
`
`H. pylori did not affect the rate of recur-
`rent ulcer; in addition, ulcer healing was impaired
`even in the patients who were successfully treated
`
`H. pylori infection. It thus ap-
`with antibiotics for
`
`H. pylori increases the risk
`pears that infection with
`of gastroduodenal mucosal injury associated with
`NSAID use only minimally, if at all.
`28
`Singh et al.
` recently proposed a simple, point-
`36
`based algorithm that patients and their physicians
`can use to estimate the risk of an NSAID-related
`gastrointestinal complication. If confirmed by other
`investigators, this tool may help guide decisions about
`prescriptions for specific NSAIDs, the use of prophy-
`lactic agents, and the need for and frequency of pa-
`tient monitoring.
`36
`
`PATHOGENESIS OF NSAID-INDUCED
`GASTRODUODENAL MUCOSAL INJURY
`Gastroduodenal mucosal injury develops when the
`deleterious effect of gastric acid overwhelms the nor-
`mal defensive properties of the mucosa. Concepts
`about NSAID-induced gastroduodenal mucosal inju-
`ry have evolved from a simple notion of topical injury
`to theories involving multiple mechanisms with both
`local and systemic effects (Fig. 2). The systemic effects
`are largely the result of the inhibition of endogenous
`prostaglandin synthesis.
` Prostaglandin inhibition, in
`37
`turn, leads to decreases in epithelial mucus, secretion
`of bicarbonate, mucosal blood flow, epithelial prolif-
`eration, and mucosal resistance to injury.
` The im-
`38,39
`pairment in mucosal resistance permits injury by en-
`dogenous factors, including acid, pepsin, and bile
`salts, as well as by exogenous factors such as NSAIDs
`and possibly ethanol and other noxious agents.
`
`1890
`

`
`June 17, 1999
`
`Topical Injury
`Mucosal injury is initiated topically by the acidic
`properties of aspirin and many other NSAIDs. Be-
`cause of a low dissociation constant, which varies ac-
`cording to the particular agent, these weak acids
`remain in their nonionized lipophilic form in the high-
`ly acidic gastric lumen. Such conditions favor migra-
`tion through the gastric mucus across plasma mem-
`branes and into surface epithelial cells, where NSAIDs
`are dissociated into the ionized form, resulting in
`trapping of hydrogen ions.
` NSAIDs can also cause
`37
`topical mucosal damage by diminishing the hydro-
`phobicity of gastric mucus, thereby allowing endog-
`enous gastric acid and pepsin to injure the surface
`epithelium.
` In addition, topical mucosal injury may
`39
`occur as a result of indirect mechanisms, mediated
`through the biliary excretion and subsequent duode-
`nogastric reflux of active NSAID metabolites.
` For
`40,41
`example, although sulindac is administered as a non-
`toxic prodrug, its active metabolite, sulindac sulfide,
`is excreted into the bile. On entry into the duode-
`num, sulindac sulfide causes topical injury to the mu-
`cosa by virtue of its acidic properties.
`
`The Role of Prostaglandins
`Topical injury caused by NSAIDs contributes to
`the development of gastroduodenal mucosal injury.
`However, the systemic effects of these agents appear
` largely through
`to have the predominant role,
`37,42,43
`the decreased synthesis of mucosal prostaglandins.
`44
`The use of enteric-coated aspirin preparations
` and
`44
`parenteral
` or rectal
` administration of NSAIDs in
`45
`46
`order to prevent topical mucosal injury has also failed
`to prevent the development of ulcers. Moreover,
`doses of aspirin as low as 30 mg are sufficient to sup-
`press prostaglandin synthesis in the gastric mucosa.
`47
`Prostaglandins are derived from arachidonic acid,
`which originates from cell-membrane phospholipids
` (Fig. 3). The
`through the action of phospholipase A
`2
`metabolism of arachidonic acid to prostaglandins
`and leukotrienes is catalyzed by the cyclooxygenase
`pathway and the 5-lipoxygenase pathway, respective-
` Two related but unique isoforms of cyclooxy-
`ly.
`1,37
`genase, designated cyclooxygenase-1 and cyclooxy-
`genase-2, have been demonstrated in mammalian
` Despite their structural similarities, they are
`cells.
`48,49
`encoded by distinct genes and differ with regard to
`their distribution and expression in tissues.
` The
`50,51
`cyclooxygenase-1 gene contains a promoter region
`without a TATA sequence and is primarily expressed
`constitutively. In contrast, the cyclooxygenase-2 gene
`is thought to be the inducible form that is nearly un-
`detectable in most (but not all) tissues under normal
`physiologic conditions.
`Cyclooxygenase-1 appears to function as a “house-
`keeping” enzyme in most tissues, including the gas-
`tric mucosa, the kidneys, and the platelets, whereas
`the expression of cyclooxygenase-2 can be induced
`
`Downloaded from www.nejm.org at Stanford University on May 23, 2003.
`For personal or educational use only. No other uses without permission. All rights reserved.
`
`Page 3 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2042
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDICAL PROGRESS
`
`NSAID
`
`Hepatic metabolism
`
`Systemic effect
`
`Active NSAID(cid:1)
`metabolite
`
`Decrease in gastric(cid:1)
`mucosal prostaglandins
`
`Figure 2.
` Mechanisms by Which NSAIDs Induce Gastroduodenal Mucosal Injury.
` NSAIDs have direct toxic effects on the gastroduodenal
`According to the dual-injury hypothesis of Schoen and Vender,
`37
`mucosa (solid arrows) and indirect effects through active hepatic metabolites and decreases in mucosal prostaglandins
`(broken arrows). Hepatic metabolites are excreted into the bile and subsequently into the duodenum, where they cause
`mucosal damage to the stomach by duodenogastric reflux and mucosal damage to the small intestine by antegrade pas-
`sage through the gastrointestinal tract. Adapted from Schoen and Vender.
`37
`
`Membrane Phospholipids
`
`Phospholipase A2
`
`Arachidonic Acid
`
`Lipoxygenase
`
`Cyclooxygenase-1
`Housekeeping gene(cid:1)
`(constitutive)
`

`

`
`Cyclooxygenase-2
`Inflammatory gene(cid:1)
`(inducible)
`

`Corticosteroids
`
`NSAIDs
`Gastrointestinal mucosal integrity(cid:1)
`Platelet aggregation(cid:1)
`Renal function
`
`Mitogenesis and growth(cid:1)
`Regulation of female reproduction(cid:1)
`Bone formation(cid:1)
`Renal function(cid:1)
`Other functions?
`
`Figure 3.
` Biosynthesis of Prostaglandins through the Cyclooxygenase Pathways.
`The immediate precursor of prostaglandins, arachidonic acid, is derived from membrane phospholip-
`ids and is catalyzed by the two cyclooxygenase isoenzymes (also designated as prostaglandin H syn-
`thase), cyclooxygenase-1 and cyclooxygenase-2. The gene for cyclooxygenase-1, the housekeeping en-
`zyme, is expressed constitutively and maintains the homeostasis of organs, including gastric mucosal
`integrity. In contrast, the gene for cyclooxygenase-2, the inflammatory enzyme, is inducible. Although
`both pathways can be variably inhibited by different NSAIDs, only the gene for cyclooxygenase-2 con-
`tains a corticosteroid-responsive repressor element in its promoter region. The broken arrows indicate
`the inhibitory effects of pharmacologic agents.
`
`Volume 340 Number 24
`Downloaded from www.nejm.org at Stanford University on May 23, 2003.
`For personal or educational use only. No other uses without permission. All rights reserved.
`

`
`1891
`
`Page 4 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2042
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`The New England Journal of Medicine
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by inflammatory stimuli and mitogens in many dif-
`ferent types of tissue, including macrophages and
`synovial cells.
` It has thus been suggested that the
`43
`antiinflammatory properties of NSAIDs are mediat-
`ed through the inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2, where-
`as adverse effects, such as gastroduodenal ulceration,
`occur as a result of effects on the constitutively ex-
`pressed cyclooxygenase-1.
` As discussed below, cur-
`43,49
`rent strategies for developing NSAIDs with an im-
`proved safety profile include the selective inhibition
`of cyclooxygenase-2, with the sparing of cyclooxy-
`genase-1.
`Although there is substantial evidence that the sup-
`pression of gastric prostaglandins is the fundamental
`mechanism responsible for the gastrointestinal toxici-
`ty of NSAIDs, some studies suggest that other mech-
`anisms may be involved. For example, ulcers do not
`develop spontaneously in mice with a disrupted cy-
`clooxygenase-1 gene,
` and Wallace et al.
` reported
`52
`53,54
`that NSAID-induced injury occurred in association
`with enhanced adherence of neutrophils to the gastric
`vascular endothelium, as the result of an increase in
`the expression of intercellular adhesion molecule 1 in
` Neutrophil adherence,
`the basal endothelium.
`55-58
`in turn, causes mucosal injury through the release of
`oxygen-derived free radicals and proteases.
`1
`
`CLINICAL SPECTRUM OF INJURY
`In the majority of patients, NSAID-induced gas-
`troduodenal mucosal injury is superficial and self-lim-
`ited. However, peptic ulcers develop in some patients,
`and they may lead to gastroduodenal hemorrhage, per-
`foration, and death. Serious complications of NSAID
`use that are less commonly recognized include pill
`esophagitis, small-bowel ulceration, small-bowel stric-
`tures, colonic strictures, diverticular disease, and ex-
`acerbations of inflammatory bowel disease.
`9
`The spectrum of NSAID-related gastroduodenal
`injury includes a combination of subepithelial hemor-
`rhages, erosions, and ulcerations that is often referred
`to as NSAID gastropathy. The distinction between
`erosions and ulcerations depends on pathological def-
`initions, with ulcers defined as lesions that penetrate
`to the level of the submucosa and erosions defined
`as lesions confined to the mucosa. For practical
`purposes, an endoscopic definition is used, which is
`based on a subjective assessment of the size, shape,
`and depth of the lesion. Erosions are likely to be
`small and superficial, whereas ulcers tend to be larg-
`er (more than 5 mm in diameter) and deeper.
`9
`After ingestion of an NSAID, ultrastructural dam-
`age to the gastric surface epithelium occurs within
`minutes, and gross, endoscopically detectable hem-
`orrhages and erosions in the gastroduodenal epithe-
`lium occur within several hours.59 However, mucosal
`adaptation appears to occur in response to long-term
`administration of aspirin in most persons.60,61 No
`area of the stomach is resistant to NSAID-induced
`
`1892
`

`
`June 17, 1999
`
`mucosal injury; the most frequently and severely
`affected site is the gastric antrum.59 Although the
`prevalence and severity of acute injury vary accord-
`ing to the drug formulation,62-64 the acute injury
`commonly observed during short-term administra-
`tion of NSAIDs is not closely correlated with the
`subsequent development of the more clinically rele-
`vant process of mucosal ulceration20,21,65,66 or with
`serious complications.10,67,68 Duodenal mucosal inju-
`ry occurs less commonly than gastric damage; how-
`ever, ulcer complications associated with NSAIDs oc-
`cur with nearly equal frequency in these two sites.51,66
`Prospective, cross-sectional endoscopic studies have
`shown that the combined prevalence of gastric and
`duodenal ulcers is 10 to 25 percent in patients with
`chronic arthritis treated with NSAIDs,10,67 which is
`5 to 15 times the expected prevalence in an age-
`matched healthy population.
`
`TREATMENT OF NSAID-RELATED
`DYSPEPSIA
`At least 10 to 20 percent of patients have dyspep-
`tic symptoms during NSAID therapy.10,11 However,
`such symptoms are poorly correlated with the endo-
`scopic appearance and severity of mucosal injury,
`since up to 40 percent of persons with endoscopic
`evidence of erosive gastritis are asymptomatic,10,68 and
`conversely, as many as 50 percent of patients with
`dyspepsia have normal-appearing mucosa.10
`
`Histamine H2–Receptor Antagonists
`Several studies using different methods have shown
`an improvement in dyspeptic symptoms when hista-
`mine H2–receptor antagonists are given to patients
`taking NSAIDs.69-73 A recent prospective, observa-
`tional cohort study by Singh et al.,11 however, found
`that asymptomatic patients with rheumatoid arthri-
`tis who were taking H2-receptor antagonists had a
`significantly higher risk of gastrointestinal complica-
`tions than those not taking these drugs. The expla-
`nation for this surprising observation is unknown,
`but it might be due to the masking of dyspeptic
`symptoms associated with mucosal injury. There-
`fore, although H2-receptor antagonists are effective
`in reducing NSAID-related dyspepsia, their routine
`use in asymptomatic patients taking NSAIDs cannot
`be recommended. Patients receiving H2-receptor an-
`tagonists for the treatment of dyspepsia must be
`monitored carefully for the development of serious
`complications. The initial dose should generally be
`low (e.g., 400 mg of cimetidine, 150 mg of raniti-
`dine or nizatidine, or 20 mg of famotidine, admin-
`istered twice daily in each case), and the dose should
`be tailored to the needs of each patient.
`
`Proton-Pump Inhibitors
`In two recent studies, the proton-pump inhibitor
`omeprazole was compared with ranitidine74 or mi-
`
`Downloaded from www.nejm.org at Stanford University on May 23, 2003.
`For personal or educational use only. No other uses without permission. All rights reserved.
`
`Page 5 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2042
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`MEDICAL PROGRESS
`
`soprostol,75 a prostaglandin E1 analogue, for the
`treatment and prevention of NSAID-related gastro-
`duodenal ulcers. A secondary goal in both of these
`multicenter trials was to assess the effects of therapy
`on dyspeptic symptoms. In both studies, although
`different methods were used to assess the clinical re-
`sponse, omeprazole provided greater symptomatic
`relief. After four weeks, only 6 percent of patients
`treated with omeprazole had moderate-to-severe
`symptoms, as compared with 52 percent at base line,
`whereas 12 percent of those treated with ranitidine
`had such symptoms, as compared with 50 percent at
`base line.74 A quality-of-life evaluation showed that
`the patients receiving omeprazole had significantly
`greater improvement in scores on the Gastrointesti-
`nal Symptom Rating Scale than the patients receiv-
`ing misoprostol.75 Because proton-pump inhibitors
`represent a suitable means of preventing the devel-
`opment of gastroduodenal ulcers associated with the
`use of NSAIDs,76 they appear to provide a safe and
`effective form of therapy for NSAID-associated dys-
`pepsia.
`
`MANAGEMENT OF NSAID-RELATED
`GASTRODUODENAL ULCERS
`The optimal treatment for patients with NSAID-
`induced gastroduodenal ulcers should include the
`elimination of any potentially aggravating factors.
`Nontoxic analgesics such as acetaminophen should
`be substituted for NSAIDs when possible, and in
`patients with inflammatory arthritides, disease-mod-
`ifying (or slow-acting) antirheumatic drugs have been
`recommended as first-line treatment. If NSAID ther-
`apy is discontinued, effective treatment aimed at heal-
`ing the acute ulcer can be instituted with one of sev-
`eral antisecretory agents or with sucralfate. If the use
`of NSAIDs must be continued, ulcer healing is en-
`tirely dependent on the specific agent chosen for ul-
`cer treatment.
`
`Mucosal Protective Agents
`Sucralfate, a basic aluminum salt of sucrose octa-
`sulfate, is effective in the treatment of both NSAID-
`related duodenal ulcers and those unrelated to
`NSAIDs, and the agent appears to be as effective
`as H2-receptor antagonists in the healing of non–
`NSAID-related gastric ulcers.77 However, sucralfate
`has no proven benefit in the treatment or prevention
`of NSAID-related gastric ulcers. Prostaglandins exert
`their therapeutic effects both by enhancing mucosal
`defensive properties and by inhibiting gastric-acid se-
`cretion.39 Although they are effective in preventing
`NSAID-induced gastroduodenal mucosal injury, their
`role in the treatment of NSAID-associated ulcers is
`unclear. Hawkey et al.75 recently compared the ca-
`pacity of misoprostol (200 µg given four times daily)
`and omeprazole (20 mg or 40 mg given once daily)
`to heal gastroduodenal ulcers in patients receiving on-
`
`going NSAID therapy. After eight weeks of therapy,
`89 percent of the patients with duodenal ulcers who
`received omeprazole at either dose had healing, as
`compared with only 77 percent of those with duo-
`denal ulcers who received misoprostol. Among the pa-
`tients with gastric ulcers, healing was detected in 80
`percent of those receiving 40 mg of omeprazole, in
`87 percent of those receiving 20 mg of omeprazole,
`and in 73 percent of those receiving misoprostol.75
`
`Antisecretory Drugs
`The efficacy of H2-receptor antagonists in the treat-
`ment of NSAID-related ulcers has not been assessed
`extensively. Both open, uncontrolled, nonrandom-
`ized studies78 and prospective, randomized studies79
`have suggested that treatment with conventional dos-
`es of H2-receptor antagonists for 6 to 12 weeks re-
`sults in the healing of approximately 75 percent of
`gastric ulcers (range, 50 to 88 percent) and 87 per-
`cent of duodenal ulcers (range, 67 to 100 percent),
`despite the continued use of NSAIDs. When the use
`of NSAIDs is continued, healing appears to be de-
`layed and is largely dependent on the initial size of
`the ulcer. O’Laughlin et al.80 reported a 90 percent
`healing rate for small gastric ulcers (less than 5 mm
`in diameter) after an eight-week course of treatment
`with cimetidine, whereas only 25 percent of larger
`ulcers healed.
`In a multicenter trial that included a small sub-
`group of patients with NSAID-related gastric ulcers,
`Walan et al.81 reported that among the patients who
`continued to receive NSAIDs, the healing rate was
`higher for those treated with omeprazole than for
`those treated with ranitidine. A more recent multi-
`center trial by Yeomans et al.74 also demonstrated
`the superiority of omeprazole over ranitidine in the
`treatment of NSAID-related gastroduodenal ulcers.
`In this study, the rates of ulcer healing at eight weeks
`were 79, 80, and 63 percent in the groups receiving
`40 mg of omeprazole, 20 mg of omeprazole, and
`150 mg of ranitidine twice a day, respectively. A study
`by Agrawal et al.82 compared the efficacy of lanso-
`prazole with that of ranitidine in the healing of gas-
`tric ulcers during continued NSAID therapy. After
`eight weeks, ulcers were healed in 57 percent of the
`patients receiving 150 mg of ranitidine twice daily,
`whereas ulcers were healed in 73 percent of those re-
`ceiving 15 mg of lansoprazole once daily and 75 per-
`cent of those receiving 30 mg of lansoprazole once
`daily. These observations suggest that proton-pump
`inhibitors can heal gastroduodenal ulcers more effec-
`tively than H2-receptor antagonists, whether or not
`NSAIDs are continued.
`
`PREVENTION OF NSAID-ASSOCIATED
`GASTRODUODENAL ULCERS
`Because of the prevalence and severity of NSAID-
`related gastrointestinal complications, recent efforts
`
`Volume 340 Number 24
`Downloaded from www.nejm.org at Stanford University on May 23, 2003.
`For personal or educational use only. No other uses without permission. All rights reserved.
`
`· 1893
`
`Page 6 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2042
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`The New England Journal of Medicine
`
`have been directed at the prevention of mucosal in-
`jury induced by NSAIDs. As discussed above, the
`best way to prevent mucosal injury is to avoid the
`use of NSAIDs and to substitute an agent less toxic
`to the gastroduodenal mucosa, such as acetamino-
`phen, salsalate, or magnesium salicylate. Neverthe-
`less, a potent NSAID is commonly preferred, and two
`strategies have been used to improve their safety: the
`administration of concomitant medication to protect
`the gastroduodenal mucosa from injury and the de-
`velopment of safer antiinflammatory agents.
`
`Concomitant Therapy
`
`Sucralfate
`Early, small studies suggested that sucralfate might
`reduce gastroduodenal mucosal injury associated with
`the use of NSAIDs.83 However, a large, controlled,
`randomized trial conducted by Agrawal et al.84 showed
`no significant benefit of sucralfate in preventing gas-
`tric ulcers in patients with osteoarthritis who were
`receiving NSAID therapy.
`
`H2-Receptor Antagonists
`Two large, placebo-controlled, prospective trials in-
`vestigated the protective effect of ranitidine in pa-
`tients with arthritis who were receiving NSAID ther-
`apy.85,86 Ranitidine (150 mg given twice a day) was
`effective in preventing duodenal ulcers, which devel-
`oped in 0 percent and 1.5 percent of the ranitidine-
`treated patients in the two studies, as compared with
`8 percent of the placebo-treated patients in both
`studies. In contrast, the same dose of ranitidine was
`ineffective in preventing gastric ulcers in both studies.
`Taha et al.73 recently reported a benefit of high-dose
`famotidine (40 mg given twice a day), as compared
`with placebo, in preventing both gastric and duode-
`nal ulcers in patients with arthritis who received
`NSAIDs for 24 weeks. Symptomatic relief was also
`observed in the group randomly assigned to famoti-
`dine, but the benefit, although statistically si

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket