Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0000737 (abdominal pain)
 31,184 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

Pneumatic tourniquet and hone cement are often applied in orthopaedic surgery. In lower limb surgery, deep vein thrombosis may occur after release of tourniquet, causing embolism of lungs and vital organs. Paradoxical embolism may develop if the patients present extracardiac or intracardiac right to left shunt, such as atrial septum defect, etc. A 60-year-old female patient suffered from osteoarthritis of both knees was admitted for total knee replacement (TKR). Pneumatic tourniquet was inflated on the operated leg for the orthopaedic surgery which lasted for 2h. Dyspnea, sinus tachycardia and abdominal pain were noted after TKR. Blood gases analysis showed arterial hypoxemia and respiratory alkalosis. Chest X-ray revealed diffused bilateral pulmonary infiltration, pulmonary trunk engorgement, and decreased lung markings. Two days after TKR under the impression of peritonitis, she received exploratory laparotomy in which ischemic bowel and gall bladder were found. Pulmonary and paradoxical embolism were diagnosed, both of which were the well-known complications of TKR with tourniquet and bone cement application. The patient finally succumbed because of multiple organ failures.
 ...
PMID:[Pulmonary and paradoxical embolism after total knee replacement--a case report]. 908 31

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) exert their actions by inhibiting cyclooxygenase (COX). It has recently been postulated that NSAIDs' antiinflammatory efficacy arises from inhibition of the COX-2 isoform of cyclooxygenase, whereas inhibition of the COX-1 isoform produces the troublesome and sometimes serious gastric and renal side effects of NSAIDs. A relatively selective COX-2 inhibitor, such as meloxicam, may combine antiinflammatory efficacy with improved tolerability. In volunteers, indomethacin 75 mg, but not meloxicam 7.5 mg, inhibited renal prostaglandin E2 excretion and platelet aggregation (COX-1 mediated effects). Double-blind, randomized trials in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis patients have shown equivalent antiinflammatory efficacy among meloxicam 7.5 mg or 15 mg and diclofenac 100 mg, naproxen 750 mg, and piroxicam 20 mg. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, meloxicam (7.5 or 15 mg) caused less endoscopically detected gastrointestinal (GI) damage (Lanza scale) than piroxicam 20 mg. The MELISSA study, a double-blind, randomized, 28-day trial in over 9,000 patients showed that meloxicam 7.5 mg caused statistically less total GI toxicity, dyspepsia, abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, and diarrhea than diclofenac 100 mg, despite equivalent reductions in pain on movement for each treatment. A global safety analysis of clinical trials, representing over 5,600 patients and comprising 170 and 1,100 patient-years of exposure for meloxicam 7.5 mg and 15 mg, respectively, showed that meloxicam caused less GI toxicity and fewer peptic ulcers and GI bleeds than naproxen, diclofenac, or piroxicam. The renal safety profile and incidence of liver function abnormalities with meloxicam is equivalent to other NSAIDs available for clinical use. In conclusion, relatively selective COX-2 inhibition exemplified by meloxicam may offer effective symptom relief with an improved GI tolerability profile.
 ...
PMID:Meloxicam: selective COX-2 inhibition in clinical practice. 921 16

Although widely used, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with a high incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) side-effects. Inhibition of the cyclooxygenase (COX) enzyme is the basis for both the efficacy and toxicity of NSAIDs. The discovery of two COX isoforms, constitutive COX-1 and inducible COX-2, has led to the hypothesis that selective inhibition of COX-2 will minimize the potential for GI toxicity without compromising efficacy. The Meloxicam Large-scale International Study Safety Assessment (MELISSA) trial reported here was therefore set up to investigate the tolerability of meloxicam, a preferential inhibitor of COX-2, compared to diclofenac. MELISSA was a large-scale, double-blind, randomized, international, prospective trial, conducted over 28 days in patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis. Patients received either meloxicam 7.5 mg or diclofenac 100 mg slow release, the recommended doses for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Evaluation of the profile of adverse events was the main aim of the trial, together with assessment of efficacy. A total of 9323 patients received treatment (4635 and 4688 in the meloxicam and diclofenac groups, respectively). Significantly fewer adverse events were reported by patients receiving meloxicam. This was attributable to fewer GI adverse events (13%) compared to diclofenac (19%; P < 0.001). Of the most common GI adverse events, there was significantly less dyspepsia (P < 0.001), nausea and vomiting (P < 0.05), abdominal pain (P < 0.001) and diarrhoea (P < 0.001) with meloxicam compared to diclofenac. Five patients on meloxicam experienced a perforation, ulcer or bleed vs seven on diclofenac (not significant). No endoscopically verified ulcer complication was detected in the meloxicam group compared to four with diclofenac. There were five patient days of hospitalization in patients on meloxicam compared to 121 with diclofenac. Adverse events caused withdrawal from the study in 254 patients receiving meloxicam (5.48%) compared to 373 (7.96%) on diclofenac (P < 0.001). These differences were attributable to differences in reported GI adverse events (3.02% on meloxicam vs 6.14% on diclofenac; P < 0.001). Differences in efficacy, as assessed by visual analogue scales, consistently favoured diclofenac. In all instances, 95% confidence intervals did not cross zero, suggesting a statistically significant effect. However, differences were small (4.5-9.01% difference) and did not reach pre-determined levels of clinical significance. Nevertheless, significantly more patients discontinued meloxicam because of lack of efficacy (80 out of 4635 vs 49 out of 4688; P < 0.01). The MELISSA trial confirms earlier studies suggesting that meloxicam has a significantly improved GI tolerability profile in comparison with other NSAIDs, including diclofenac. These results may in part reflect the preferential COX-2 selectivity of meloxicam, although the dose and other aspects of tolerability may be important. These results may provide support for the hypothesis that selective inhibition of COX-2 relative to COX-1 might be an effective approach towards improved NSAID therapy.
 ...
PMID:Gastrointestinal tolerability of meloxicam compared to diclofenac in osteoarthritis patients. International MELISSA Study Group. Meloxicam Large-scale International Study Safety Assessment. 1050 39

SELECT is a large-scale, prospective, international, multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group trial. Patients with exacerbation of osteoarthritis were treated with the recommended dose of meloxicam (7.5 mg) or piroxicam (20 mg) once daily for 28 days; 4320 patients were administered meloxicam and 4336 piroxicam. The incidence of adverse events was significantly lower in the meloxicam group (22.5%) compared with the piroxicam group (27.9%; P < 0.001), mainly due to the significantly lower incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events in the meloxicam than in the piroxicam group (10.3% vs 15.4%,; P < 0.001), while the efficacy of both drugs was equivalent. Individual GI events occurred significantly less often with meloxicam than piroxicam: dyspepsia (3.4% vs 5.8%; P < 0.001), nausea/vomiting (2.5% vs 3.4%; P < 0.05) and abdominal pain (2.1% vs 3.6%; P < 0.001). There were 16 patients with perforations, ulcerations or bleeding (PUBs) of the upper GI tract in the piroxicam group compared with seven in the meloxicam group (relative risk piroxicam:meloxicam = 1.4). Four PUBs were complicated (perforations or bleedings); none of these occurred in the meloxicam group (relative risk piroxicam:meloxicam = 1.9). The outcome of SELECT is consistent with that of the large-scale clinical trial of similar design and size which compared 7.5 mg meloxicam with 100 mg diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis, and with a previous global analysis of the safety of meloxicam. It adds further data to the proposed relationship between selective inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 and improved GI tolerability of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
 ...
PMID:Improvement in gastrointestinal tolerability of the selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor, meloxicam, compared with piroxicam: results of the Safety and Efficacy Large-scale Evaluation of COX-inhibiting Therapies (SELECT) trial in osteoarthritis. 978 58

The efficacy and tolerability of amtolmetin guacyl (AMG), a new non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, were compared with piroxicam, in patients with osteoarthritis. In a randomized double-blind study patients with arthritis (n = 99) received either 600 mg AMG on an empty stomach or 20 mg of piroxicam on a full stomach, once daily for 30 days. All clinical parameters improved significantly with both drugs; there were no significant differences between the two treatments. Tolerability, assessed by the patients, was significantly better in the AMG group. In the piroxicam group nine of 50 patients withdrew because of side-effects (gastrointestinal) compared with two of 49 (nausea and headache) in the AMG group. There were three cases of perforation, ulcer and bleeding in the piroxicam group but no serious side-effects with AMG. Total numbers of side-effects were similar in the two groups, but epigastric and abdominal pain were more frequent and more intense with piroxicam. AMG was as effective as piroxicam in controlling the symptoms of osteoarthritis, but showed better gastrointestinal tolerability.
 ...
PMID:Amtolmetin guacyl versus piroxicam in patients with osteoarthritis. 1089 21

To evaluate the gastrointestinal tolerability of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in osteoarthritis patients in Japan, a systematic review of Japanese randomized controlled trials was performed. This study consisted of double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trials with 4-week NSAID treatment of osteoarthritis patients in Japan. The analysis included 4725 patients from 25 trials. On average the cumulative incidences of patients who had experienced any adverse reaction and any adverse digestive reaction were 14.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.3%-15.3%] and 10.4% (95% CI 9.4%-11.4%), respectively. The cumulative incidence for the upper gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms such as abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, and dyspepsia was estimated to be approximately 10.9%. When the risk of upper GI symptoms was compared between males and females, the summary odds ratio was 1.71 (95% CI 1.11-2.65). Comparing the risk of upper GI symptoms between patients 59 years of age and younger and those 60+ years old, the summary odds ratio was 1.07 (95% CI 0.75-1.52). Despite the incidence of adverse reactions varying across the drugs being used, there was an obvious increased risk of GI symptoms.
 ...
PMID:Systematic review for evaluation of tolerability of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in osteoarthritis patients in Japan. 1276 66

Nabumetone is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory prodrug, which exerts its pharmacological effects via the metabolite 6-methoxy-2-naphthylacetic acid (6-MNA). Nabumetone itself is non-acidic and, following absorption, it undergoes extensive first-pass metabolism to form the main circulating active metabolite (6-MNA) which is a much more potent inhibitor of preferentially cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2. The three major metabolic pathways of nabumetone are O-demethylation, reduction of the ketone to an alcohol, and an oxidative cleavage of the side-chain occurs to yield acetic acid derivatives. Essentially no unchanged nabumetone and < 1% of the major 6-MNA metabolite are excreted unchanged in the urine from which 80% of the dose can be recovered and another 10% in faeces. Nabumetone is clinically used mainly for the management of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to reduce pain and inflammation. The clinical efficacy of nabumetone has also been evaluated in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, soft tissue injuries and juvenile RA. The optimum oral dosage of nabumetone for OA patients is 1 g once daily, which is well tolerated. The therapeutic response is superior to placebo and similar to nonselective COX inhibitors. In RA patients, nabumetone 1 g at bedtime is optimal, but an additional 0.5-1 g can be administered in the morning for patients with persistent symptoms. In RA, nabumetone has shown a comparable clinical efficacy to aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), diclofenac, piroxicam, ibuprofen and naproxen. Clinical trials and a decade of worldwide safety data and long-term postmarketing surveillance studies show that nabumetone is generally well tolerated. The most frequent adverse effects are those commonly seen with COX inhibitors, which include diarrhoea, dyspepsia, headache, abdominal pain and nausea. In common with other COX inhibitors, nabumetone may increase the risk of GI perforations, ulcerations and bleedings (PUBs). However, several studies show a low incidence of PUBs, and on a par with the numbers reported from studies with COX-2 selective inhibitors and considerably lower than for nonselective COX inhibitors. This has been attributed mainly to the non-acidic chemical properties of nabumetone but also to its COX-1/COX-2 inhibitor profile. Through its metabolite 6-MNA, nabumetone has a dose-related effect on platelet aggregation, but no effect on bleeding time in clinical studies. Furthermore, several short-term studies have shown little to no effect on renal function. Compared with COX-2 selective inhibitors, nabumetone exhibits similar anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties in patients with arthritis and there is no evidence of excess GI or other forms of complications to date.
 ...
PMID:Nabumetone: therapeutic use and safety profile in the management of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. 1545 29

The objective was to improve understanding of adverse events occurring with celecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Data were extracted from company clinical trial reports of randomised trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis lasting 2 weeks or more. Outcomes were discontinuations (all cause, lack of efficacy, adverse event, gastrointestinal adverse event), endoscopically detected ulcers, gastrointestinal or cardio-renal events, and major changes in haematological parameters. The main comparisons were celecoxib (all doses) versus placebo, paracetamol (acetaminophen) 4,000 mg daily, rofecoxib 25 mg daily, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (naproxen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and loxoprofen). For NSAIDs, celecoxib was compared both at all doses and at licensed doses (200 to 400 mg daily). Thirty-one trials included 39,605 randomised patients. Most patients had osteoarthritis and were women of average age 60 years or above. Most trials lasted 12 weeks or more. Doses of celecoxib were 50 to 800 mg/day. Compared with placebo, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause or for lack of efficacy, fewer serious adverse events, and less nausea. It had more patients with dyspepsia, diarrhoea, oedema, more adverse events that were gastrointestinal or treatment related, and more patients experiencing an adverse event. There were no differences for hypertension, gastrointestinal tolerability, or discontinuations for adverse events. Compared with paracetamol, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause, for lack of efficacy, or diarrhoea, but no other differences. Compared with rofecoxib, celecoxib had fewer patients with abdominal pain and oedema, but no other differences. Compared with NSAIDs, celecoxib had fewer symptomatic ulcers and bleeds, endoscopically detected ulcers, and discontinuations for adverse events or gastrointestinal adverse events. Fewer patients had any, or a gastrointestinal, or a treatment-related adverse event, or vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, or reduced haemoglobin or haematocrit. Discontinuations for lack of efficacy were higher. No differences were found for all-cause discontinuations, serious adverse events, hypertension, diarrhoea, nausea, oedema, myocardial infarction, cardiac failure, or raised creatinine. Company clinical trial reports present much more information than published papers. Adverse event information is clearly presented in company clinical trial reports, which are an ideal source of information for systematic review and meta-analysis.
 ...
PMID:Tolerability and adverse events in clinical trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of information from company clinical trial reports. 1589 51

Although effective in the treatment of pain associated with rheumatic conditions such as osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, long-term use of NSAIDs is primarily limited by their association with upper gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Adverse effects range from dyspepsia and abdominal pain to ulceration and bleeding. GI damage elicited by NSAIDs arises as the result of biochemically induced topical irritant effects and by topical and systemic pharmacological suppression of gastroprotective prostaglandins. Variation in the physicochemical properties and pharmacological profiles among the individual NSAIDs translate into inter-agent differences regarding propensity to cause adverse GI effects. Nabumetone is a nonselective NSAID that offers distinct advantages over other agents in this class with regard to GI tolerability. Its non-acidic nature and pro-drug formulation, together with the lack of biliary secretion of its active metabolite, 6-methoxy-2-naphthylacetic acid, are thought to contribute to the improved GI tolerability of this drug. In head-to-head trials with other NSAIDs, nabumetone has demonstrated significant benefits regarding the incidence of GI events and more serious perforations, ulcers and bleeds (PUBs). Pooled data from eight postmarketing, randomized, controlled trials demonstrated a lower cumulative frequency of PUBs with nabumetone (0.03%; 95% CI 0.0, 0.08) versus comparator NSAIDs (1.4%; 95% CI 0.5, 2.4). Large-scale database studies also indicate that risk of serious GI complications is lower with nabumetone than comparator NSAIDs. Limited comparative data suggest that nabumetone offers a GI tolerability profile similar to that of cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective NSAIDs (coxibs). Although adverse cardiovascular outcomes appear to be a class effect of the coxibs, conventional NSAIDs may also have the potential for causing atherothrombotic complications. However, based on available data, nabumetone does not appear to be associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Finally, there is no particular concern about the nephrotoxic and hepatotoxic potential of nabumetone. Nonetheless, the potential for adverse drug reactions remains, and hence nabumetone, as with any NSAID, should be used at the lowest dose, which is effective for each patient, and for the shortest time necessary to control symptoms.
 ...
PMID:Safety of the nonselective NSAID nabumetone : focus on gastrointestinal tolerability. 1848 83

The presentation of haemochromatosis is typified by abdominal pain, arthralgia and fatigue or weakness. Arthropathy may be the major presenting feature. The detection of an osteoarthritis-like process involving the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) and wrist joints in middle aged men should signal the possibility of under lying haemochromatosis. Other joints such as the shoulder, hip,knee or ankle may be affected. However, the preferential involvement of the second and third MCP joints is striking and may provide the opportunity for early identification of iron overload disease. The "iron salut" can be an efficient screening tool for this MCP joint arthropathy but it is not well known by clinicians.
 ...
PMID:The 'iron salute' in haemochromatosis. 1928 50


<< Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >>