No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Magen-Darm-Mittel und Lebertherapeutika
Abstract
Bedeutsamste Gruppe der Magen-Darm-Mittel sind, wie in den vergangenen Jahren, mit großem Abstand vor allen anderen Präparategruppen und weiter steigenden Verordnungen die Protonenpumpeninhibitoren (PPI). H2-Rezeptorenblocker werden immer noch, aber mit weiter fallender Tendenz, eingesetzt. Die Verordnung der meisten anderen Magen-Darm-Mittel, bis auf Medikamente zur Behandlung der Hepatitis B- und -C, blieb im Wesentlichen unverändert. Bei Medikamenten gegen chronischentzündliche Darmkrankheiten und bei Pankreatinpräparaten ist ein leichter Anstieg zu verzeichnen. Kleinere Verordnungsvolumina entfallen auf Prokinetika, Spasmolytika, Antidiarrhoika und Laxantien.
Protonenpumpeninhibitoren (PPIs) gehören zu den am häufigsten eingenommenen Medikamenten weltweit. Allergien auf diese Substanzgruppe sind selten, können aber zu schweren Soforttypreaktionen führen. Insbesondere treten auch Kreuzreaktionen zwischen den verschiedenen PPIs auf. In dieser Fallserie werden 4 Patienten mit Soforttypreaktionen auf die Protonenpumpenhemmer Pantoprazol und/oder Omeprazol beschrieben.
Objectives: Currently available pancreatic enzyme products are crude porcine products with few data available regarding their efficacy, safety, and manufacture. We conducted a phase 1 study of a novel pancreatic enzyme product, TheraCLEC-Total (TCT), a proprietary formulation of microbial-derived lipase, protease, and amylase, to determine its safety and preliminary efficacy in cystic fibrosis.
Methods: We conducted an open-label, dose-ranging study in 23 subjects diagnosed with pancreatic insufficiency with cystic fibrosis. The subjects received TCT containing lipase dose of 100, 500, 1000, 2500, or 5000 USP U/kg per meal with each meal or snack for 3 days. The clinical and laboratory parameters and adverse events (AEs) were monitored.
Results: There were no serious AEs. Most AEs were mild, although gastrointestinal complaints were common. TCT increased the coefficient of fat and nitrogen absorption in all groups except in the low-dose group. At the other dosing levels, the mean coefficient of fat and nitrogen absorption increases were 19.1% ± 24.9% and 17.8% ± 13.6%, respectively, whereas the mean stool weight decreased by 517 ± 362 g.
Conclusions: TCT was well tolerated in this short-term exposure study. The preliminary efficacy data demonstrate lipase and protease activity with little difference seen with lipase doses greater than 500 USP U/kg per meal. These data support a larger randomized phase 2 trial.
Chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction is a disabling condition for which there are no established drug therapies. The condition is caused by a diverse range of intestinal myopathies and neuropathies.
To assess the therapeutic efficacy of prucalopride, a selective high-affinity 5-HT(4) receptor agonist, we employed a multiple n = 1 study design. Each patient acted as his/her own control, each day counting as one treatment episode, allowing comparison of 168 days on each of active drug and placebo.
Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial of four 12-week treatment periods, with 2-4 mg prucalopride or placebo daily. In each of the first and second 6 months there was a prucalopride and a placebo treatment. Patients with proven chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction, including dilated gut, were included. Evaluation was by patient diary and global evaluation.
Seven patients participated (mean 42 years, five female, median symptom duration 11 years). Three discontinued, two due to study length, and one on prucalopride due to unrelated malnutrition and bronchopneumonia. Four patients (three visceral myopathy and one visceral neuropathy) completed the study; prucalopride significantly improved pain in three of four patients, nausea in two, vomiting in one, bloating in four and analgesic intake. Bowel function was not changed substantially.
n = 1 studies in rare conditions allow drug efficacy assessment. Prucalopride relieves symptoms in selected patients with chronic pseudo-obstruction.
Hepatic encephalopathy is a chronically debilitating complication of hepatic cirrhosis. The efficacy of rifaximin, a minimally absorbed antibiotic, is well documented in the treatment of acute hepatic encephalopathy, but its efficacy for prevention of the disease has not been established.
In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 299 patients who were in remission from recurrent hepatic encephalopathy resulting from chronic liver disease to receive either rifaximin, at a dose of 550 mg twice daily (140 patients), or placebo (159 patients) for 6 months. The primary efficacy end point was the time to the first breakthrough episode of hepatic encephalopathy. The key secondary end point was the time to the first hospitalization involving hepatic encephalopathy.
Rifaximin significantly reduced the risk of an episode of hepatic encephalopathy, as compared with placebo, over a 6-month period (hazard ratio with rifaximin, 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 0.64; P<0.001). A breakthrough episode of hepatic encephalopathy occurred in 22.1% of patients in the rifaximin group, as compared with 45.9% of patients in the placebo group. A total of 13.6% of the patients in the rifaximin group had a hospitalization involving hepatic encephalopathy, as compared with 22.6% of patients in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.87; P=0.01). More than 90% of patients received concomitant lactulose therapy. The incidence of adverse events reported during the study was similar in the two groups, as was the incidence of serious adverse events.
Over a 6-month period, treatment with rifaximin maintained remission from hepatic encephalopathy more effectively than did placebo. Rifaximin treatment also significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization involving hepatic encephalopathy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00298038.)
Concurrent therapy with a proton-pump inhibitor is a standard treatment for patients receiving aspirin who are at risk for ulcer. Current U.S. guidelines also recommend clopidrogel for patients who have major gastrointestinal intolerance of aspirin. We compared clopidogrel with aspirin plus esomeprazole for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from ulcers in high-risk patients.
We studied patients who took aspirin to prevent vascular diseases and who presented with ulcer bleeding. After the ulcers had healed, we randomly assigned patients who were negative for Helicobacter pylori to receive either 75 mg of clopidogrel daily plus esomeprazole placebo twice daily or 80 mg of aspirin daily plus 20 mg of esomeprazole twice daily for 12 months. The end point was recurrent ulcer bleeding.
We enrolled 320 patients (161 patients assigned to receive clopidogrel and 159 to receive aspirin plus esomeprazole). Recurrent ulcer bleeding occurred in 13 patients receiving clopidogrel and 1 receiving aspirin plus esomeprazole. The cumulative incidence of recurrent bleeding during the 12-month period was 8.6 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 4.1 to 13.1 percent) among patients who received clopidogrel and 0.7 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 0 to 2.0 percent) among those who received aspirin plus esomeprazole (difference, 7.9 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval for the difference, 3.4 to 12.4; P=0.001).
Among patients with a history of aspirin-induced ulcer bleeding whose ulcers had healed before they received the study treatment, aspirin plus esomeprazole was superior to clopidogrel in the prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding. Our finding does not support the current recommendation that patients with major gastrointestinal intolerance of aspirin be given clopidogrel.
Background
The development of direct-acting antiviral agents (DAA) against the hepatitis C virus (HCV) has seen enormous progress in recent years. In 2011, the first protease inhibitors boceprevir (BOC) and telaprevir (TLV) were approved, which still need to be combined with pegylated interferon α (PEG-IFN α) and ribavirin (RBV) and are used only in patients with genotype 1. With sofosbuvir (SOF) and simeprevir (SMV), two new DAA are available. More DAA are in clinical development.
Objectives
Which changes in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection can be expected with the approval of the new DAA in 2014? Relevant phase IIb and phase III studies for the approval in 2014 were considered for drugs approved by the FDA or EMA at the editorial deadline.
Current data
For patients with genotype 1, the combination of SOF, SMV or faldaprevir with PEG-IFN α and RBV was successfully evaluated in phase III studies. In contrast to previous treatment with PEG-IFN α, RBV and telaprevir (TLV) or boceprevir (BOC), therapy can be shortened in most cases with a significantly improved side-effect profile. Cure rates above 80 % are possible. Data are also available for an interferon-free therapy with either SOF and RBV or SOF and SMV in GT-1 patients. SVR rates exceeding 60 % and up to 90 % are possible. However, treatment experience with these combinations is low and an unrestricted interferon-free therapy for genotype 1 should not be expected before 2015. For patients with genotypes 2 and 3, valid data for interferon-free therapies are available. The combination of SOF and RBV for 12 weeks in genotype 2 and 24 weeks for genotype 3 is effective and shows equal or superior cure rates with fewer side effects than the PEG-IFN α/RBV therapy.
Conclusion
For patients with genotype 1, the duration of therapy can be further reduced with better side effect profile. In certain situations, therapy without PEG-IFN α is possible and should be considered. For patients with genotypes 2 and 3, an interferon-free therapy will be standard of care in 2014.
Adalimumab is effective for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). We assessed whether adalimumab, in addition to standard UC therapy, reduced the risk for hospitalization (from all causes, from complications of UC, or from complications of UC or the drugs used to treat it) and colectomy in patients with moderate to severe UC compared with placebo.
Data were combined from patients that received induction therapy (a 160 mg dose followed by an 80 mg dose of adalimumab) or placebo in 2 trials (ULTRA 1 and ULTRA 2; n=963). The risks of hospitalization and colectomy were compared between groups using unadjusted rates over the 8-week induction period, and patient-y-adjusted rates over 52 weeks. Statistical differences between groups were determined using the χ(2) method and Z-score normal approximations. Numbers of hospitalizations were compared using Poisson regression with time offset.
Significant reductions in risk of all-cause, UC-related, and UC- or drug-related hospitalizations (by 40%, 50%, and 47%, respectively; P<.05 for all comparisons) were observed within the first 8 weeks of adalimumab therapy compared with placebo. Significantly lower incidence rates for all-cause (0.18 vs 0.26; P=.03), UC-related (0.12 vs 0.22; P=.002), and UC- or drug-related (0.14 vs 0.24; P=.005) hospitalizations were observed during 52 weeks of adalimumab therapy compared with placebo. Rates of colectomy did not differ significantly between patients given adalimumab vs placebo.
In patients with moderate to severe UC, the addition of adalimumab to standard of care treatment reduced the number of hospitalizations for any cause, as well as for UC-related and UC- or drug-related complications, compared with placebo. ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00385736 and NCT00408629.
To review the current evidence on the clinical significance of the drug-drug interactions between the available antiplatelet agents and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).
Gastrointestinal bleeding is associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality following a myocardial infarction. PPIs are commonly used to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding. PPIs can attenuate metabolism of clopidogrel to its active metabolite by inhibiting various hepatic CYP450 enzymes, mainly CYP2C19. Concomitant use of a PPI with clopidogrel reduces clopidogrel active metabolite generation and subsequent platelet inhibition. In observational studies, the clinical significance of this drug-drug interaction is mixed. Evidence from the only randomized trial studying the clinical implications of the PPI-clopidogrel interaction did not demonstrate any difference in cardiovascular outcomes but did show a reduction in gastrointestinal bleeding with use of a PPI.
The drug-drug interaction between antiplatelet agents and PPIs at the enzymatic level does not seem to result in worse clinical outcomes. The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with antiplatelet therapy is substantial. Clinicians should use PPIs in selected high-risk patients to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.
Drugs that inhibit gastric acid might increase the risk of hip fracture. However, little long-term exposure data exist and no large studies have been conducted in the United States.
We conducted a case-control study using data from an integrated health services organization. We evaluated 33,752 patients with incident diagnoses of hip/femur fractures (cases), 130,471 matched members without fractures (controls), prescription data for use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) (up to 10 years' cumulative duration), and confounders.
Patients with hip fractures were more likely than controls to have previously received a > or =2-year supply of PPIs (odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.39) or H2RAs (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08-1.29). The risk was reduced after discontinuation of medication (OR of 1.30 [95% CI, 1.21-1.41] for current PPI users vs OR of 1.09 [95% CI, 0.64-1.85] for patients who received their last prescription 2-2.9 years ago). Higher dosages (but not increasing cumulative durations) were associated with increased risk (eg, > or =1.5 pills/day: OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.64]; <0.74 pills/day: OR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.94-1.33]). Excess fracture risk for PPI use was only present among persons with at least one other fracture risk factor.
Use of drugs that inhibit gastric acid is associated with an increased risk of hip fracture; however, this association was only found among persons with at least one other risk factor for hip fracture. Acid inhibition might therefore be associated with fracture risk in persons already at risk for osteoporosis, although other confounding cannot be excluded.
Each year, clinical upper gastrointestinal events occur in 2 to 4 percent of patients who are taking nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We assessed whether rofecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclooxygenase-2, would be associated with a lower incidence of clinically important upper gastrointestinal events than is the nonselective NSAID naproxen among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
We randomly assigned 8076 patients who were at least 50 years of age (or at least 40 years of age and receiving long-term glucocorticoid therapy) and who had rheumatoid arthritis to receive either 50 mg of rofecoxib daily or 500 mg of naproxen twice daily. The primary end point was confirmed clinical upper gastrointestinal events (gastroduodenal perforation or obstruction, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcers).
Rofecoxib and naproxen had similar efficacy against rheumatoid arthritis. During a median follow-up of 9.0 months, 2.1 confirmed gastrointestinal events per 100 patient-years occurred with rofecoxib, as compared with 4.5 per 100 patient-years with naproxen (relative risk, 0.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.3 to 0.6; P<0.001). The respective rates of complicated confirmed events (perforation, obstruction, and severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding) were 0.6 per 100 patient-years and 1.4 per 100 patient-years (relative risk, 0.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.8; P=0.005). The incidence of myocardial infarction was lower among patients in the naproxen group than among those in the rofecoxib group (0.1 percent vs. 0.4 percent; relative risk, 0.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 0.7); the overall mortality rate and the rate of death from cardiovascular causes were similar in the two groups.
In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, treatment with rofecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclooxygenase-2, is associated with significantly fewer clinically important upper gastrointestinal events than treatment with naproxen, a nonselective inhibitor.
Current guidelines recommend that patients at risk for ulcer disease who require treatment for arthritis receive nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) that are selective for cyclooxygenase-2 or the combination of a nonselective NSAID with a proton-pump inhibitor. We assessed whether celecoxib would be similar to diclofenac plus omeprazole in reducing the risk of recurrent ulcer bleeding in patients at high risk for bleeding.
We studied patients who used NSAIDs for arthritis and who presented with ulcer bleeding. After their ulcers had healed, we randomly assigned patients who were negative for Helicobacter pylori to receive either 200 mg of celecoxib twice daily plus daily placebo or 75 mg of diclofenac twice daily plus 20 mg of omeprazole daily for six months. The end point was recurrent ulcer bleeding.
In the intention-to-treat analysis, which included 287 patients (144 receiving celecoxib and 143 receiving diclofenac plus omeprazole), recurrent ulcer bleeding occurred in 7 patients receiving celecoxib and 9 receiving diclofenac plus omeprazole. The probability of recurrent bleeding during the six-month period was 4.9 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 3.1 to 6.7) for patients who received celecoxib and 6.4 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 4.3 to 8.4) for patients who received diclofenac plus omeprazole (difference, -1.5 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -6.8 to 3.8). Renal adverse events, including hypertension, peripheral edema, and renal failure, occurred in 24.3 percent of the patients receiving celecoxib and 30.8 percent of those receiving diclofenac plus omeprazole.
Among patients with a recent history of ulcer bleeding, treatment with celecoxib was as effective as treatment with diclofenac plus omeprazole, with respect to the prevention of recurrent bleeding. Renal toxic effects are common in high-risk patients receiving celecoxib or diclofenac plus omeprazole.
Gastric motility disorders are relatively common, and treatment is often challenging. Various etiologies account for numerous clinical sequelae, with weight loss and severe protein-calorie malnutrition often seen in advanced stages of these disorders. In addition to gastrointestinal motor function, an appreciation of visceral sensation is essential to better understand the symptoms found in these patients, as well as possible therapeutic alternatives. This article provides an overview of gut motor and sensory function, techniques available for diagnosing motor disorders, and the principles of nutritional and medical management. Specific nutritional recommendations and a review of pharmacologic agents and novel treatment modalities are provided.
On-demand treatment may be an alternative in the long-term treatment of non-severe gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in patients with frequent symptomatic relapses.
To compare the efficacy of on-demand treatment with rabeprazole 10 mg versus continuous treatment in the long-term treatment of patients with frequent symptomatic relapses of mild to moderate gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.
This randomized, open-label study enrolled patients diagnosed with non-erosive reflux disease or oesophagitis grade 1 or 2 (Savary-Miller classification) reporting frequent symptomatic relapses (requiring > or =2 courses of antisecretory therapy during the previous year), whose intensity is rated at least moderate (>2 on a 5-point Likert scale). After a 4-week selection phase with rabeprazole 10 mg once daily, patients reporting symptom relief (Likert score < or =2) were randomized to receive either rabeprazole 10 mg continuous treatment or on-demand treatment for 6 months. The main evaluation criterion was the rate of symptom relief (scored on the Likert scale) after 6 months.
One hundred and seventy-six patients were enrolled in the 4-week selection phase (men, 53%; mean age, 49 years; non-erosive reflux disease, 36.4%; gastro-oesophageal reflux disease 1, 53.4%; gastro-oesophageal reflux disease 2, 10.2%). Rabeprazole relieved symptoms in 88.6% of patients. Of this group, 152 were randomized to the comparative phase to receive rabeprazole 10 mg continuous treatment (once daily) or on-demand treatment (continuous treatment, n = 81; on-demand treatment, n = 71). At month 6 (end point), the symptom relief rate was slightly higher for patients in the continuous treatment group compared with those in the on-demand treatment group: 86.4% versus 74.6%, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.065). For the overall quality of life score, there was no difference between the continuous treatment and on-demand treatment groups (86.25 and 84.94). Mean daily consumption of rabeprazole was significantly lower in the on-demand treatment group versus the continuous treatment group (0.31 tablets versus 0.96 tablets; P < 0.0001).
On-demand therapy with rabeprazole 10 mg provides an alternative to continuous therapy in patients with mild to moderate gastro-oesophageal reflux disease suffering from frequent symptomatic relapses.
Probiotics have preventive as well as curative effects on several types of diarrhea of different etiologies. Prevention and therapy (or alleviation) of diarrhea have been successfully investigated for numerous dietary probiotics to establish probiotic properties and to justify health claims (the medicinal use of probiotic food and the therapy of gastrointestinal diseases itself may not be advertised under current food laws). Other probiotic microorganisms (e.g., Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, L. reuteri, certain strains of L. casei, L. acidophilus, Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917, and certain bifidobacteria and enterococci (Enterococcus faecium SF68) as well as the probiotic yeast Saccharomyces boulardii have been investigated with regard to their medicinal use, either as single strains or in mixed-culture probiotics. However, the effects on humans have been assessed mainly in smaller (n<100) randomized, controlled clinical studies or in open label trials, but large intervention studies and epidemiological investigations of long-term probiotic effects are largely missing. Perhaps with the exception of nosocomial diarrhea or antibiotic-associated diarrhea, the results of these studies are not yet sufficient to give specific recommendations for the clinical use of probiotics in the treatment of diarrhea.
Infectious complications and associated mortality are a major concern in acute pancreatitis. Enteral administration of probiotics could prevent infectious complications, but convincing evidence is scarce. Our aim was to assess the effects of probiotic prophylaxis in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis.
In this multicentre randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 298 patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE II] score > or =8, Imrie score > or =3, or C-reactive protein >150 mg/L) were randomly assigned within 72 h of onset of symptoms to receive a multispecies probiotic preparation (n=153) or placebo (n=145), administered enterally twice daily for 28 days. The primary endpoint was the composite of infectious complications--ie, infected pancreatic necrosis, bacteraemia, pneumonia, urosepsis, or infected ascites--during admission and 90-day follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN38327949.
One person in each group was excluded from analyses because of incorrect diagnoses of pancreatitis; thus, 152 individuals in the probiotics group and 144 in the placebo group were analysed. Groups were much the same at baseline in terms of patients' characteristics and disease severity. Infectious complications occurred in 46 (30%) patients in the probiotics group and 41 (28%) of those in the placebo group (relative risk 1.06, 95% CI 0.75-1.51). 24 (16%) patients in the probiotics group died, compared with nine (6%) in the placebo group (relative risk 2.53, 95% CI 1.22-5.25). Nine patients in the probiotics group developed bowel ischaemia (eight with fatal outcome), compared with none in the placebo group (p=0.004).
In patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis, probiotic prophylaxis with this combination of probiotic strains did not reduce the risk of infectious complications and was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Probiotic prophylaxis should therefore not be administered in this category of patients.
In this 12-week trial, we aimed to determine the efficacy of prucalopride, a selective, high-affinity 5-hydroxytryptamine4 receptor agonist, in patients with severe chronic constipation.
In our multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial, patients with severe chronic constipation (< or =2 spontaneous, complete bowel movements per week) received placebo or 2 or 4 mg of prucalopride, once daily, for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients having three or more spontaneous, complete bowel movements per week, averaged over 12 weeks. Secondary efficacy end points were derived from daily diaries and validated questionnaires completed by patients. Adverse events, clinical laboratory values, and cardiovascular effects were monitored.
Efficacy was analyzed in 620 patients. The proportion of patients with three or more spontaneous, complete bowel movements per week was 30.9% of those receiving 2 mg of prucalopride and 28.4% of those receiving 4 mg of prucalopride, as compared with 12.0% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Over 12 weeks, 47.3% of patients receiving 2 mg of prucalopride and 46.6% of those receiving 4 mg of prucalopride had an increase in the number of spontaneous, complete bowel movements of one or more per week, on average, as compared with 25.8% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). All other secondary efficacy end points, including patients' satisfaction with their bowel function and treatment and their perception of the severity of their constipation symptoms, were significantly improved with the use of 2 or 4 mg of prucalopride as compared with placebo, at week 12. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were headache and abdominal pain. There were no significant cardiovascular effects of treatment.
Over 12 weeks, prucalopride significantly improved bowel function and reduced the severity of symptoms in patients with severe chronic constipation. Larger and longer trials are required to further assess the risks and benefits of the use of prucalopride for chronic constipation. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00483886 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).
Gastric motility disorders: management that optimizes nutrition-al status A placebo-controlled trial of prucalopride for severe chronic constipation
- Ep Bouras
- Scolapio Jscamilleri
- M Kerstens
- R Rykx
- A Vandeplassche
Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
- C Bombardier
- L Laine
- A Reicin
- D Shapiro
- R Burgos-Vargas
- B Davis
- R Day
- Mb Ferraz
- Cj Hawkey
- Mc Hochberg
- Tk Kvien
- Tj Schnitzer
Celecoxib versus diclofenac and omeprazole in reducing the risk of recurrent ulcer bleeding in patients with arthritis
- S C Chung
- J J Sung
- SC Chung