RESEARCH ARTICLE | VOLUME 4, ISSUE 3 | OPEN ACCESS DOI: 10.23937/2469-584X/1510062

Knowledge and Attitudes of Internal Medicine Trainees' Co-Prescribing Patterns of Gastroprotective Agents in Patients Taking Long-Term Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs)

Nikki Duong1, Alice Lee1 and James H Lewis2*

1Department of Internal Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Medical Center, USA

2Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology Section, MedStar Georgetown University Medical Center, USA

*Corresponding author: James H Lewis, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology Section, MedStar Georgetown University Medical Center, GUMC, 3800 Reservoir Rd, NW, Room M 2408, USA, Tel: 202-444-8571, Fax: 202-444-4211.

Accepted: July 11, 2018 | Published: July 13, 2018

Citation: Duong N, Lee A, Lewis JH (2018) Knowledge and Attitudes of Internal Medicine Trainees' Co-Prescribing Patterns of Gastroprotective Agents in Patients Taking Long-Term Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs). J Clin Gastroenterol Treat 4:062.

Copyright: © 2018 Duong N, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.



The side effect profile of NSAIDs is well-established. For prevention of NSAID-related ulcers, the evidence suggests that misoprostol and PPIs (proton pump inhibitors) are superior to H2RAs (histamine-2-receptor-antagonists). Current guidelines recommend use of the lowest possible NSAID dose, as well as consideration of the patients' gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risk profile.


We assessed the knowledge and prescribing preferences of Internal Medicine (IM) residents with respect to administering gastroprotective agents in patients taking NSAIDs.


A 10-question web-based survey was distributed to several major teaching hospitals in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia area. An online survey software was used to collect and analyze results. Means (with standard deviations) are presented for continuous variables and counts (percentages) are presented for categorical variables. We also performed two univariate logistic regression models to the results. Descriptive statistics for the dataset were stratified according to level of training.


Seven major academic institutions received the survey, with a total of 123 IM trainees responding. Regardless of their level of training, 98 residents (80%) reported that they do routinely assess GI risk factors in those in whom they have prescribed NSAIDs. 85 residents (69%) selected a PPI as the protective agent of choice for at-risk patients. 114 (93%) residents surveyed said they counsel their patients to use acetaminophen products as an alternative to NSAIDs. Senior residents (PGY-3 and PGY-4) answered less likely to assess for GI complications as compared to PGY-1s (OR = 0.87; 95% confidence interval = 1.10 to 5.16, p-value = 0.03).


Despite guidelines regarding the use of gastroprotective agents in patients on NSAID therapy, this practice is still underutilized clinically. Our results demonstrate that the foundation of knowledge is present, yet this is not always carried out in practice. Increased education and continued awareness concerning NSAID-related GI complications should continue throughout training.

Study Highlight Section:

• The side effect profile of NSAIDs is well known. Case-controlled studies and meta-analyses have determined that use of NSAIDs increases the risk for developing peptic ulcers.

• Various strategies exist to decrease the risk of ulcer development including co-prescription of a proton pump inhibitor, H2-receptor antagonist, misoprostol or use of a COX-2 inhibitor.

• To our knowledge, there have been no studies to date that have explored the knowledge base and prescribing practices of Internal Medicine trainees regarding this topic.

• This survey functions as a needs assessment for future interventions to change resident behaviors. It also serves as a needs assessment to further evaluate current opinions and behaviors.


Physician prescribing patterns, NSAIDs, Gastroprotective agents, Proton pump inhibitors (PPI), Misoprostol, Residency training, Medical education, Survey



Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), are among the most common drugs causing gastrointestinal adverse events [1,2]. Annually, it has been estimated that 25% of chronic NSAID users for arthritis may develop endoscopic evidence of ulcers [3-5]. Data from case-controlled studies and a meta-analysis concluded that people who use NSAIDs are four times more likely to develop even an uncomplicated peptic ulcer as compared to nonusers of NSAIDs [6-8]. While fewer than 5% of these ulcers bleed or perforate, gastrointestinal bleeding accounts for 200,000-400,000 admissions in the U.S. per year [9]. Over 100,000 admissions are a direct result of bleeding ulcers due to NSAID use [10,11]. It has been estimated that the cost of hospitalization is high, and that 16,500 people die every year from NSAID-related gastrointestinal complications [12]. The socioeconomic impact is therefore substantial. Physicians must weigh the risks and benefits of NSAID therapy carefully.

Practitioners should consider high risk features (a history of a gastrointestinal event, age above 65 years, history of cardiovascular disease, or simultaneous use of an anticoagulant, corticosteroid, aspirin, or a high-dose NSAID) in patients prior to prescribing NSAIDs or gastroprotective agents [3] (Table 1). Furthermore, active Helicobacter pylori infection is an independent risk factor [3]. PPIs, high-dose H2RAs, and full-dose misoprostol (800 mcg/day) are effective options in reducing the risk of ulcer formation [13-29].

Table 1: Risk factors for development of NSAID-related ulcers, per ACG guidelines [3]. View Table 1

Alternatively, the use of COX-2 selective inhibitors, when compared to non-selective NSAIDs, result in fewer ulcers; however, their use is limited by the associated increased risk of poor cardiovascular outcomes [9,10,30-35].

While there have been studies looking at patients' adherence to PPIs while on NSAIDs or prescriber adherence using prescription registry data, we found relatively few studies to date that have assessed provider attitudes or knowledge with regard to prescribing gastroprotective agents with NSAIDs [36-41]. None of these studies were conducted in trainees and they concluded that only a minority of patients are receiving prophylaxis [36-41]. Based on the finding that there is a clear underutilization of this practice, we sought to survey trainees' knowledge and prescribing attitudes on this important topic.


A 10-question web-based survey was designed and distributed via email to internal medicine residents in PGY-1 to PGY-4 at several major teaching hospitals in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia area. These included MedStar Georgetown Hospital, George Washington University Hospital, Walter Reed National Medical Center, Howard University Medical Center, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, INOVA Fairfax Hospital and Sinai Hospital of Baltimore (Table 2). The survey sought to determine the knowledge base of internal medicine residents regarding their use of gastroprotective agents in patients taking long-term NSAIDs. It also sought to assess their knowledge and opinions as to which NSAIDs were the most and least likely to be associated with GI-related complications and sought to understand what counseling is provided by physicians in training with respect to how patients should take NSAIDs and what alternatives exist.

Table 2: Survey to assess the knowledge of Internal Medicine trainees (by year of training) of the gastrointestinal complications in patients who take chronic NSAIDs. View Table 2

During 2017, the survey was sent on three separate occasions to maximize responses and all results were handled in a confidential manner. An online survey software (Survey Monkey) was used to collect and analyze results. The study was submitted to and approved by the Georgetown Institutional Review Board prior to distribution of the online survey. Means (with standard deviations) are presented for continuous variables and counts (percentages) are presented for categorical variables. We also performed two univariate logistic regression models to the results. Descriptive statistics for the dataset were stratified according to level of training.


The survey was sent to 387 trainees in internal medicine from 7 major teaching hospitals from PGY-1 through 4. A total of 123 responses were collected, (61 PGY-1, 26 PGY-2, 31 PGY-3, 5 PGY-4) for an overall response rate of 32%. PGY-1 (Post-Graduate Year 1) is treated as the reference group for all models presented.

Collectively, 98 residents (80%) reported that they routinely assess for GI risk factors in those in whom they have prescribed NSAIDs. Furthermore, 114 residents (93%) surveyed said they counsel their patients to use acetaminophen products as an alternative to NSAIDs (Table 2).

The majority of residents, 59 (50%) believed that patients are at the highest risk for developing ulcers after 4 or more weeks of daily NSAID consumption. A total of 85 (69%) chose proton pump inhibitors as the gastroprotective agent of choice to prescribe if their patients are deemed to be high-risk. When stratified by level of training, 68% (42 PGY-1), 57% (16 PGY-2), and 78% (28 PGY-3 and PGY-4) of residents in each respective year chose PPI as the medication of choice for gastroprotection (Table 2).

In terms of patient education, when asked how internal medicine residents counsel their patients about taking NSAIDs, the top two responses were: 1) take an NSAID on a full stomach (77.3%), and 2) take a PPI concomitantly as needed (26.8%).

When given a list of the top 10 most commonly prescribed NSAIDs, the residents chose diclofenac, celecoxib, and ketorolac as the three they thought were the least likely to cause ulcers, and ibuprofen, ketorolac, and naproxen as the three most likely. When compared by level of training, they all selected celecoxib as the one they thought was the least harmful. PGY-1 and PGY-2 residents both chose ketorolac as the most harmful, and senior residents (PGY-3 and 4) selected ibuprofen as their choice as the most harmful.

Regarding the top 5 risk factors for developing GI complications, trainees selected the following: a history of ulcers, a history of a bleeding ulcer, high dose NSAID use, use of anti-coagulants or anti-platelets agents, and age over 65. Compared by year of training, PGY-1, PGY-2, and PGY-3 and 4 residents all believed that a history of gastric/duodenal ulcer, a history of a bleeding ulcer, and high dose NSAID use, respectively, were the leading risk factors for NSAID-related GI complications.

For the regression models, we found that senior residents (PGY-3 and 4) were less likely to assess for GI complications as compared to PGY-1s, and this was statistically significant (OR = 0.87; 95% confidence interval = 1.10 to 5.16, p-value = 0.03). In contrast, PGY-2 residents were less likely, and PGY-3 and 4 residents were more likely, as compared to PGY-1 residents to suggest to patients the use of acetaminophen as an alternative to NSAIDs, although this relationship was not significant (p-value = 0.73, and 0.30, respectively).


We attempted to assess the knowledge, clinical perspectives as well as prescribing practices of internal medicine trainees with regard to the use of gastroprotective agents in patients taking NSAIDs chronically. Of the risk factors that the American College of Gastroenterology deem most important in terms of NSAID-related GI complications, all internal medicine residents surveyed, irrespective of their level of training, were able to accurately identify them. They corrected selected a history of an ulcer, a history of a bleeding ulcer, and use of a high dose NSAID as the most important risk factors. Furthermore, all residents irrespective of level of training, were able to accurately identify the time frame when patients are most at risk for ulcer development, which is greater than four weeks after initiation of NSAID therapy. Thus, the results of this survey indicate that the internal medicine trainees surveyed have a solid foundation of knowledge throughout their training. The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) published guidelines in 2009 to assist physicians in selecting the appropriate treatment while taking into account the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks [3]. We created an algorithm for selection of NSAID and co-therapy, adapted from these guidelines (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Algorithm for selection of NSAID and co-therapy, adapted from ACG guidelines GI risk: low risk (no risk factors); moderate risk (one or two risk factors); high risk (three of more risk factors, or previous ulcer complications or use of steroids or anticoagulants). Risk factors include: age > 65 years, high dose NSAID therapy, previous complicated ulcer, use of aspirin, steroids, anticoagulants CV risk: high (requiring low dose aspirin). View Figure 1

Our study showed that there is variability amongst the residents in terms of their knowledge of the gastrointestinal risk of particular NSAIDs and their association with ulcer development. When presented with a list of commonly prescribed NSAIDs, internal medicine residents, when pooled together, chose diclofenac (35.8%), ketorolac (35.8%), and celecoxib (75.6%) as the medications they thought were the least likely to cause GI complications. Ibuprofen (49.6%), ketorolac (52.0%), and naproxen (51.2%) were chosen as the most likely to cause side effects. It is interesting to see that ketorolac appears in the list of the top three most and least harmful medications. The majority of residents selected celecoxib as the safest NSAID, although there was no clear consensus as to which was the most harmful.

The trainees' responses differed from those in a meta-analysis of case-control studies which found that the highest risk NSAIDs were piroxicam and ketoprofen followed by indomethacin, naproxen, diflunisal, sulindac, diclofenac, and ibuprofen, ranked from highest to lowest risk [42] (Table 3). Another review of observational studies found that when using upper GI bleed or perforation as the endpoint, the highest to lowest risk NSAIDs were ketorolac, piroxicam, naproxen, ketoprofen, indomethacin, meloxicam, diclofenac and ibuprofen [43] (Table 3). The results from this survey are mixed in terms of concordance with prior studies, as our residents chose ketorolac and naproxen as having the most harmful GI side effects, and diclofenac and celecoxib as being the most benign. It should be noted that the observational study and meta-analysis cited above did not include COX-2 inhibitors in their analysis. Coté, et al. found that structured, formal patient education in conjunction with computer alerts to remind patients to take their medications, could improve overall long-term gastroprotection in at risk NSAID users [44].

Table 3: Ranking of gastrointestinal-related toxicity of commonly prescribed NSAIDs. View Table 3

The most commonly chosen response when asked about patient counseling in our survey was to advise patients to take NSAIDs on a full stomach. However, the responses with regard to when to take the NSAID or if a PPI should be taken concomitantly were more variable. When asked about what agent they would prescribe, the majority of internal medicine residents in every group chose a PPI over misoprostol or an H2RA. Although our study is the first, to our knowledge, to assess trainee perspectives, a study in Japan of gastroenterologists and orthopedists, found that for their high-risk patients, the majority of these clinicians also chose to prescribe a PPI over an H2RA [38]. Misoprostol can decrease the risk of GI complications by 40% but is limited by its own adverse effect profile of diarrhea, cramping, and the risk as an abortifacient [45]. PPIs are very well-studied and have been associated with decreased risk of bleeding ulcers in patients taking celecoxib, in those with H. pylori, and for NSAID-related ulcers based on epidemiological data [36].

In another Japanese study, investigators created three simulation cases and surveyed 79 gastroenterologists and 234 orthopedists. For high-risk patients, only 67% of gastroenterologists and 43% of orthopedists indicated that they would prescribe a PPI along with an NSAID; and 25% of both groups indicated that they would prescribe a Histamine-2-receptor antagonist [37]. A third Japanese survey of 208 orthopedists found that only 10.8% of these practitioners chose to co-prescribe a gastroprotective agent, but their agent of choice was a PPI [38]. In 2003, a survey by Chey, et al. of 1000 US primary care physicians found that for patients at high risk for GI toxicity, they would recommend a PPI and COX-2 inhibitor 50% of the time [39]. The same investigators re-surveyed these primary care physicians in 2008. After this 5-year interval, 31% of physicians reported prescribing an NSAID more frequently but this group was 52% more likely to give a gastroprotective agent with an NSAID than in 2003. However, they were less likely to give a COX-2 inhibitor in 2008 than in 2003, largely based on the fact that 41% believed that Rofecoxib would increase cardiovascular risk [40]. Finally, a survey in 2004 of general practitioners in France concluded that 4.8% of patients prescribed rofecoxib, versus 2.1% of patients prescribed a non-selective NSAID, had a history of ulcer disease or gastrointestinal bleeding, thus practitioners were more likely to prescribe rofecoxib to those at high risk for NSAID complications [41].

The FDA has approved the use of PPIs for prevention of NSAID-related ulcers along with other indications [46]. Recently, some observational studies have implicated long term use of PPIs to a variety of comorbidities, including dementia, bone fractures, heart disease, clostridium difficile infection, pneumonia, anemia, and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth [46,47-55]. A review of the adverse effect data of PPIs by Vaezi and colleagues concluded that only moderate strength evidence existed for the association between PPI use and bacterial infections [46]. Other risks were based on weak evidence and confounded by problems related to study design [46]. Nevertheless, it is recognized that many patients are taking PPIs for what may be an inappropriate indication [51]. Patients who qualify for long term PPI use, including the prevention of NSAID-related GI complications and erosive esophagitis should always have a discussion about benefits and harms [51,55].

Standard dosing of H2RAs can reduce the risk of duodenal ulcers, but higher dosages are needed to decrease the risk of both gastric and duodenal ulcers [13]. A seminal case-controlled study by Targownik, et al., compared all possible combinations of protection (NSAID and PPI, NSAID and misoprostol, COX-2 selective inhibitor, COX-2 selective inhibitor and PPI) and found that all four groups were associated with statistically significant reductions in the risk of upper GI complications including ulcer formation, with the greatest risk reduction being from the co-administration of a PPI along with a COX-2 selective inhibitor [19]. From this study, we can extrapolate that there are multiple approaches to selection of the safest regimen. As no two patients are alike, a tailored regimen should be created based on the individual's risk profile. However, this study highlights the fact that a PPI co-administered with a COX-2 selective inhibitor may actually provide the highest benefit in terms of risk reduction for development of ulcers.

Not all clinical trials have shown a clear-cut benefit to the use of PPIs co-prescribed with an NASID. For example, the CLASS study, compared patients with arthritis who took celecoxib at two-to-four times the recommended maximal daily dose to those taking ibuprofen or diclofenac (both of which are non-selective NSAIDs) [9]. They found that the latter two were associated with non-significant higher rates of ulcer and ulcer complication development including gastrointestinal bleeding, perforation, or gastric outlet obstruction [9] (Table 4). However, the annual incidence of UGI ulcer complications plus symptomatic ulcers was higher in the non-selective NSAID group compared to celecoxib, and this was statistically significant [9]. Aspirin when added to celecoxib resulted in a higher relative risk of ulcer complications as compared to celecoxib alone [9].

Table 4: Summary of relevant trials studying the GI complications of NSAID therapy. View Table 4

Similarly, the VIGOR study compared rofecoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor, against naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis [10]. While excluding patients taking aspirin similar to the CLASS study, these investigators found that those taking rofecoxib had a 60% reduction in GI perforations, obstruction and bleeding [10]. In contrast, a study by Ashcroft, et al., patients with arthritis whom were treated with celecoxib, were surprisingly found to have gastric or duodenal ulcers, at a wide range of doses, from 100 to 800 mg per day [56]. This was a systematic review of five randomized controlled trials of endoscopically identified gastric and duodenal ulcers in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis in people taking celecoxib versus diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, or placebo [57]. At 12 weeks, compared to placebo, the pooled rate ratio of endoscopic ulcers for celecoxib at 100 mg twice a day was 1.96 (not statistically significant), and at 200 mg twice a day was 2.35 (statistically significant).

Based on their responses to this survey, trainees have an incomplete understanding of the risk of individual NSAIDs causing ulcers compared to studies in the literature. However, they are able to accurately identify the factors that place patients at risk for developing ulcers. Senior trainees were also more likely to counsel patients on alternatives to NSAIDs as compared to PGY-1s, although this was not statistically significant. Further education needs to begin in medical school and continue throughout residency training. Future studies should survey subspecialists who prescribe long-term NSAIDs.


Anagha Kumar, MA, MS for statistical analysis.

Conflicts of Interest


Financial Support

No financial disclosures.


  1. Cryer B, Feldman M (1992) Effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on endogenous gastrointestinal prostaglandins and therapeutic strategies for prevention and treatment of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced damage. Arch Intern Med 152: 1145-1155.

  2. Soll AH, Weinstein WM, Kurata J, McCarthy D (1991) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and peptic ulcer disease. Ann Intern Med 114: 307-319.

  3. Lanza FL, Chan FK, Quigley EM; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology (2009) Guidelines for prevention of NSAID-related ulcer complications. Am J Gastroenterol 104: 728-738.

  4. Larkai EN, Smith JL, Lidsky MD, Graham DY (1987) Gastroduodenal mucosa and dyspeptic symptoms in arthritic patients during chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. Am J Gastroenterol 82: 1153-1158.

  5. Laine L (1996) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 6: 489-504.

  6. Gutthann SP, García Rodríguez LA, Raiford DS (1997) Individual nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other risk factors for upper gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation. Epidemiology 8: 18-24.

  7. Hernández-Díaz S, Rodríguez LA (2000) Association between nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding/perforation: an overview of epidemiologic studies published in the 1990s. Arch Intern Med 160: 2093-2099.

  8. Huang JQ, Sridhar S, Hunt RH (2002) Role of Helicobacter pylori infection and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in peptic-ulcer disease: a meta-analysis. Lancet 359: 14-22.

  9. Silverstein FE, Faich G, Goldstein JL, Simon LS, Pincus T, et al. (2000) Gastrointestinal toxicity with celecoxib vs nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: the CLASS study: A randomized controlled trial. Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study. JAMA 284: 1247-1255.

  10. Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, Shapiro D, Burgos-Vargas R, et al. (2000) Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, VIGOR study group. NEJM 343: 1520-1528.

  11. Singh G, Triadafilopoulos G (1999) Epidemiology of NSAID induced gastrointestinal complications. J Rheumatol Suppl 56: 18-24.

  12. Bidaut-Russell M, Gabriel SE (2001) Adverse gastrointestinal effects of NSAIDs: consequences and costs. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 15: 739-753.

  13. Rostom A, Dube C, Wells G, Tugwell P, Welch V, et al. (2002) Prevention of NSAID-induced gastroduodenal ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD002296.

  14. Leontiadis GI, Sreedharan A, Dorward S, Barton P, Delaney B, et al. (2007) Systematic reviews of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Health Technol Assess 11: 1-164.

  15. Yeomans ND, Tulassay Z, Juhász L, Rácz I, Howard JM, et al. (1996) A comparison of omeprazole with ranitidine for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Acid Suppression Trial: Ranitidine vs. Omeprazole for NSAID-associated Ulcer Treatment (ASTRONAUT) Study Group. NEJM 338: 719-726.

  16. Hawkey CJ, Karrasch JA, Szczepañski L, Walker DG, Barkun A, et al. (1998) Omeprazole compared with misoprostol for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Omeprazole vs. Misoprostol for NSAID-Induced Ulcer Management (OMNIUM) Study Group. NEJM 338: 727-734.

  17. Graham DY, Agrawal NM, Campbell DR, Haber MM, Collis C, et al. (2002) Ulcer prevention in long-term users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: results of a double-blind, randomized, multicenter, active-and placebo-controlled study of misoprostol vs. lansoprazole. Arch Intern Med 162: 160-175.

  18. Lanza FL, Fakouhi D, Rubin A, Davis RE, Rack MF, et al. (1989) A double-blind placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy and safety of 50, 100, and 200 micrograms of misoprostol q.i.d. in the prevention of ibuprofen-induced gastric and duodenal mucosal lesions and symptoms. Am J Gastroenterol 84: 633-636.

  19. Targownik LE, Metge CJ, Leung S, Chateau DG (2008) The relative efficacies of gastroprotective strategies in chronic users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Gastroenterology 134: 937-944.

  20. Lanza F (1986) A double-blind study of prophylactic effect of misoprostol on lesions of gastric and duodenal mucosa induced by oral administration of tolmetin in healthy subjects. Dig Dis Sci 31: 131-136.

  21. Aadland E, Fausa O, Vatn M, Cohen H, Quinlan D (1987) Protection by misoprostol against naproxen-induced gastric mucosal damage. Am J Med 83: 37-40.

  22. Graham DY, Agrawal NM, Roth SH (1988) Prevention of NSAID-induced gastric ulcer with misoprostol: multicenter, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2: 1277-1280.

  23. Graham DY, White RH, Moreland LW, Schubert TT, Katz R, et al. (1993) Duodenal and gastric ulcer prevention with misoprostol in arthritis patients taking NSAIDs. Misoprostol Study Group. Ann Intern Med 119: 257-262.

  24. Raskin JB, White RH, Jackson JE, Weaver AL, Tindall EA, et al. (1995) Misoprostol dosage in the prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastric and duodenal ulcers: a comparison of three regimens. Ann Intern Med 123: 344-350.

  25. Bardhan KD, Bjarnason I, Scott DL, Griffin WM, Fenn GC, et al. (1993) The prevention and healing of acute nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated gastroduodenal mucosal damage by misoprostol. Br J Rheumatol 32: 990-995.

  26. Elliott SL, Yeomans ND, Buchanan RR, Smallwood RA (1994) Efficacy of 12 months' misoprostol as prophylaxis against NSAID-induced gastric ulcers. A placebo-controlled trial. Scand J Rheumatol 23: 171-176.

  27. Raskin JB, White RH, Jaszewski R, Korsten MA, Schubert TT, et al. (1996) Misoprostol and ranitidine in the prevention of NSAID-induced ulcers: a prospective, double-blind, multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 91: 223-227.

  28. Koch M, Dezi A, Ferrario F, Capurso I (1996) Prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal mucosal injury: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Arch Intern Med 156: 2321-2332.

  29. Ibáñez L, Vidal X, Laporte JR (2008) Proton pump inhibitors and risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in NSAID users. Am J Gastroenterol 103: 2658-2659.

  30. Goldstein JL, Correa P, Zhao WW, Burr AM, Hubbard RC, et al. (2001) Reduced incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers with celecoxib, a novel cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, compared to naproxen in patients with arthritis. Am J Gastroenterol 96: 1019-1027.

  31. Goldstein JL, Kivitz AJ, Verburg KM, Recker DP, Palmer RC, et al. (2003) A comparison of the upper gastrointestinal mucosal effects of valdecoxib, naproxen and placebo in healthy elderly subjects. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 18: 125-132.

  32. Chan FK, Hung LC, Suen BY, Wong VW, Hui AJ, et al. (2004) Celecoxib vs. diclofenac plus omeprazole in high-risk arthritis patients: results of a randomized double-blind trial. Gastroenterology 127: 1038-1043.

  33. Chan FK, Wong VW, Suen BY, Wu JC, Ching JY, et al. (2007) Combination of a cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor and a proton pump inhibitor for prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding in patients at very high risk: a double-blind randomized trial. Lancet 369: 1621-1626.

  34. Laine L, Maller ES, Yu C, Quan H, Simon T (2004) Ulcer formation with low-dose enteric-coated aspirin and the effect of COX-2 selective inhibition: a double-blind trial. Gastroenterology 127: 395-402.

  35. Schnitzer TJ, Burmester GR, Mysler E, Hochberg MC, Doherty M, et al. (2004) Comparison of lumiracoxib with naproxen and ibuprofen in the Therapeutic Arthritis Research and Gastrointestinal Event Trial (TARGET), reduction in ulcer complications: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 364: 665-674.

  36. Lanas A, García-Rodríguez LA, Arroyo MT, Gomollón F, Feu F, et al. (2006) Risk of upper gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding associated with selective COX-2 inhibitors, traditional non-aspirin NSAIDs, aspirin, and combinations. Gut 1: 1-20.

  37. Okanobu H, Ito M, Tanaka S, Onogawa S, Akagi M, et al. (2012) Evaluation of individual risk in nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding patients with NSAID administration: a multicenter study in Japan. Digestion 86: 187-193.

  38. Tsumura H, Tamura I, Tanaka H, Chinzei R, Ishida T, et al. (2007) Prescription of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and co-prescribed drugs for mucosal protection: analysis of the present status based on questionnaires obtained from orthopedists in Japan. Internal Medicine 46: 927-931.

  39. Chey WD, Eswaren S, Howden CW, Inadomi JM, Fendrick AM, et al. (2006) Primary care physician perceptions of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and aspirin-associated toxicity: results of a national survey. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 23: 655-668.

  40. Elnachef N, Scheiman JM, Fendrick AM, Howden CW, Chey WD (2008) Changing perceptions and practices regarding aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and cyclooxygenase-2 selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs among US primary care providers. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 28: 1249-1258.

  41. Bannwarth B, Logeart I, Vergult G (2004) Prescribing patterns of rofecoxib in the primary care setting: results of a French survey. Rev Med Interne 25: 710-714.

  42. Henry D, Lim LL, Garcia Rodriguez LA, Perez Gutthann S, Carson JL, et al. (1996) Variability in risk of gastrointestinal complications with individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: results of a collaborative meta-analysis. BMJ 312: 1563-1566.

  43. van Soest EM, Valkhoff VE, Mazzaglia G, Schade R, Molokhia M, et al. (2011) Suboptimal gastroprotective coverage of NSAID use and the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and ulcers: an observational study using three European databases. Gut 60: 1650-1659.

  44. Coté GA, Rice JP, Bulsiewicz W, Norvell JP, Christensen K, et al. (2008) Use of physician education and computer alert to improve targeted use of gastroprotection among NSAID users. Am J Gastroenterol 103: 1097-1103.

  45. Silverstein FE, Graham DY, Senior JR, Davies HW, Struthers BJ, et al. (1995) Misoprostol reduces serious gastrointestinal complications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 123: 241-249.

  46. Vaezi MF, Yang YX, Howden CW (2017) Complications of Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy. Gastroenterology 153: 35-48.

  47. Khan M, Santana J, Donnellan C, Preston C, Moayyedi P (2007) Medical treatments in the short-term management of reflux esophagitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD003244.

  48. Leontiadis GI, Sharma VK, Howden CW (2010) Proton pump inhibitor treatment for acute peptic ulcer bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD002094.

  49. Yuan Y, Ford AC, Khan KJ, Gisbert JP, Forman D, et al. Optimum duration of regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD008337.

  50. Gyawali CP (2017) Proton Pump Inhibitors in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Friend or Foe. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 19: 46.

  51. Scarpignato C, Gatta L, Zullo A, Blandizzi C; SIF-AIGO-FIMMG Group, et al. (2016) Effective and safe proton pump inhibitor therapy in acid-related diseases - a position paper addressing benefits and potential harms of acid suppression. BMC Med 14: 179.

  52. Strand DS, Kim D, Peura DA (2017) 25 Years of Proton Pump Inhibitors: A Comprehensive Review. Gut Liver 11: 27-37.

  53. Yu LY, Sun LN, Zhang XH, Li YQ, Yu L, et al. (2017) A Review of the Novel Application and Potential Adverse Effects of Proton Pump Inhibitors. Adv Ther 34: 1070-1086.

  54. (2017) Safety of Long-Term PPI Use. JAMA 318: 1177-1178.

  55. Laine L, Nagar A (2016) Long-Term PPI Use: Balancing Potential Harms and Documented Benefits. Am J Gastroenterol 111: 913-915.

  56. Ashcroft DM, Chapman SR, Clark WK, Millson DS (2001) Upper gastroduodenal ulceration in arthritis patients treated with celecoxib. Ann Pharmacother 35: 829-834.

  57. Nissen SE, Yeomans ND, Solomon DH, Lüscher TF, Libby P, et al. (2016) Cardiovascular Safety of Celecoxib, Naproxen, or Ibuprofen for Arthritis. N Engl J Med 375: 2519-2529.