Less Small-Bowel Injury With Lumiracoxib Compared With Naproxen Plus Omeprazole

Citations of this article
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.


Background & Aims: The selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor lumiracoxib has been shown to reduce endoscopically detected ulcers and ulcer complications in the upper gastrointestinal tract compared with nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. We investigated whether lumiracoxib would reduce small-bowel injury compared with naproxen plus omeprazole. Methods: Healthy volunteers were randomized to receive lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily, naproxen 500 mg twice daily plus omeprazole 20 mg once daily, or placebo in a 16-day double-blind, parallel-group study. Small-bowel mucosal injury and inflammation were assessed by video capsule endoscopy, the lactulose:L-rhamnose permeability assessment, and the fecal calprotectin test. Results: Of 152 randomized subjects, 139 completed the study with valid video capsule endoscopies (lumiracoxib, n = 47; naproxen plus omeprazole, n = 45; placebo, n = 47). Compared with placebo, an increased number of subjects on naproxen plus omeprazole had small-bowel mucosal breaks (77.8% vs 40.4%, P < .001), with increased permeability (P = .023) and increased fecal calprotectin (increase, 96.8 vs 14.5 mg/kg for placebo; P < .001). With lumiracoxib, 27.7% of subjects had small-bowel mucosal breaks (P = .196 vs placebo; P < .001 vs naproxen), there was no increase in permeability (P = .157 vs placebo; P = .364 vs naproxen), and no increase in fecal calprotectin (-5.7 mg/kg; P = .377 vs placebo; P < .001 vs naproxen). Conclusions: As assessed by 3 different measures, acute small-bowel injury on lumiracoxib treatment is less frequent than with naproxen plus omeprazole and similar to placebo. © 2008 AGA Institute.




Hawkey, C. J., Ell, C., Simon, B., Albert, J., Keuchel, M., McAlindon, M., … Toth, E. (2008). Less Small-Bowel Injury With Lumiracoxib Compared With Naproxen Plus Omeprazole. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 6(5), 536–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2007.12.023

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free