Langman M J
Med Toxicol. 1986;1 Suppl 1:34-8.
Over the years conflicting data have been produced suggesting that the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation associated with anti-inflammatory drug intake could be negligible or substantial. Opinions have diverged for a number of reasons. Data concerning the use of aspirin have generally failed to include adequate controls or to distinguish analgesic intake which might be causal from that which might be consequential upon the presence of the bleeding lesion. When proper allowance is made, it seems likely that about one-third of aspirin intake in patients with bleeding is equivalent to that in controls and is by deduction non-causal; a further one-third by reference to parallel increases in paracetamol (acetaminophen) intake is non-causal but consequential upon the presence of the bleeding lesion. The remaining one-third is unexplained and likely to be causal. The importance of non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NANSAID) intake has likewise been disputed. Opinions have conflicted because evidence has not generally been available from case-control studies but has been obtained either from simple case series or from the results of post-marketing surveillance. By formal case-control studies it has been possible to show that the risks of ulcer complications in individuals over the age of 60 are appreciable. These risks have not been detected during post-marketing surveillance because the apparently large case series studied during surveillance are dwarfed by the general extent of prescribing, and because elderly people may be particularly at risk and surveillance has not concentrated on this group.
多年来,产生了相互矛盾的数据,表明与服用抗炎药相关的上消化道出血或穿孔风险可能微不足道,也可能很大。观点存在分歧有多种原因。关于阿司匹林使用的数据通常未纳入足够的对照,也未区分可能是出血病因的止痛药物摄入与因出血病变而产生的止痛药物摄入。如果适当考虑这些因素,似乎出血患者中约三分之一的阿司匹林摄入量与对照组相当,经推断为非病因性;另外三分之一通过参考对乙酰氨基酚摄入量的平行增加,虽非病因性,但与出血病变的存在有关。其余三分之一无法解释,可能是病因性的。非阿司匹林非甾体抗炎药(NANSAID)摄入的重要性同样存在争议。观点相互冲突,因为通常无法从病例对照研究中获得证据,而是从简单的病例系列或上市后监测结果中获取。通过正式的病例对照研究,已表明60岁以上个体发生溃疡并发症的风险相当可观。这些风险在上市后监测中未被发现,原因一是监测期间所研究的看似庞大的病例系列与总体处方量相比微不足道,二是老年人可能特别容易出现风险,而监测并未集中在这一群体上。