This is an external link. Click “OK” to continue.
As a key feature of human physiology, pain typically serves as a signal that a body part has sustained damage. Often termed “nociceptive pain”, it is triggered at the site of injury primarily by prostaglandin production, and is regulated by cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes, comprising two subtypes: COX-1 and COX-2 (NSAIDs function by inhibiting COX enzymes). The biological purpose of inflammation is to enable efficient and rapid cellular repair. However, many types of inflammation—especially when arising from long-term conditions like osteoarthritis—can cascade into a medical problem in themselves, leading to further tissue damage, fever and chronic pain.
The NSAID category includes aspirin and well-known consumer brands like Advil (ibuprofen) and Aleve (naproxen), as well as prescription-only medicines like ketoprofen, ketorolac and indomethacin. Given their ability to reduce both pain and inflammation, NSAIDs’ non-addictive nature and well-established efficacy have made them drugs of choice for physicians and consumers alike.
However, NSAIDs also cause clinically significant gastrointestinal ulcers and bleeding in approximately 25% of users, a problem that has resisted solution since aspirin was introduced more than 100 years ago. As first documented by Dr John L. Wallace and his colleagues in 1990, the root of this problem is that NSAIDs impair the body’s ability to maintain the mucosal layer that ordinarily protects the lining of the digestive organs. This issue is highly consequential—gastrointestinal damage by NSAIDs are a significant cause of hospitalizations.1 Several approaches have been attempted to address this widespread problem, but all have proved unsatisfactory.
The accompanying bar chart illustrates that gastric ulcers that are left alone will begin to heal. NSAIDs, however, in addition to their tendency to cause ulcers throughout the gastrointestinal tract, also can retard their healing.
In this experiment, ulcers were induced in animals that were then treated for four days. With no drug treatment (“Vehicle”), ulcers decreased in size by about 45%. Typically, NSAIDs (naproxen, celecoxib) significantly impair ulcer healing, whereas otenaproxesul (“ATB-346”) significantly accelerated ulcer healing. We believe that this experiment is the first instance of an NSAID demonstrating promise as an ulcer healing agent. Otenaproxesul has also demonstrated the potential to improve a specific kind of bone healing.
While traditional NSAIDs block both COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes, the late 1990s saw the introduction of NSAIDs that specifically inhibit COX-2, on the premise that stomach damage was primarily due to the effects of suppressed COX-1. Although COX-2 selective NSAIDs were outstandingly successful commercially, the FDA eventually removed Vioxx and Bextra from the market, due to increased risk of cardiovascular events. Only celecoxib (branded as Celebrex) continues to be available in the US. To counteract cardiovascular concerns, it is often administered with low-dose aspirin, substantially reducing any gastroprotective advantage and intensifying damage to the small intestine.* 2,3,4
* Damage to most of the small intestine was hidden from researchers until the availability of capsule endoscopy, a method of viewing the digestive tract via a swallowed capsule that contains a miniaturized camera. Traditional endoscopes are only able to inspect the stomach/duodenum or the large intestine.
As depicted in the accompanying chart, intestinal damage in rats caused by naproxen (dark blue bars) and celecoxib (light blue bars) is worsened significantly when omeprazole (“Omep”), a common PPI, or low-dose aspirin (for cardiovascular protection), is administered at the same time.
Notably, when co-administered with PPIs, otenaproxesul (“ATB-346”) remained gastrointestinal-safe (although there is no need for PPIs or other acid-reduction medication to be co-administered with otenaproxesul).
Overall, intestinal injury is more difficult to diagnose and treat than stomach damage, and symptoms correlate poorly with the severity of tissue injury, complicating medical assessment. By focusing on the stomach, physicians may be inadvertently placing their patients at risk of serious, difficult-to-diagnose injury—with no proven-effective therapies and significantly higher rates of morbidity and mortality. Moreover, some solutions do not even adequately protect the stomach.