Journal of Gastroenterology

, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp 607–614 | Cite as

A comparison of two prostaglandin analogues (enprostil vs misoprostol) in the treatment of acute duodenal ulcer disease

  • C. K. Ching
  • S. K. Lam
Alimentary Tract


We conducted a clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety profile of two prostaglandin analogues, enprostil (35 μg twice daily) and misoprostol (200 μg four times daily) in the treatment of acute duodenal ulcers in 214 patients. The two agents healed approximately 80% and in excess of 90% of duodenal ulcers after 4 and 6 weeks' therapy, respectively. There was a significantly lower ulcer healing rate in both treatment groups in smokers compared with nonsmokers (P<0.05). However, daytime and nighttime ulcer pain relief was achieved in fewer than 50% of patients by either agent. Diarrhea, which occurred in more than 40% of patients, was the predominant side effect, and occurred mainly during the first 2 weeks of therapy with either agent. Nevertheless, this side effect was mild and self-limiting in the majority of patients. Both agents were found to be safe and well tolerated by the majority of patients. We conclude that these prostaglandin analogues are safe and effective duodenal ulcer healing agents. Furthermore, there was very little difference between enprostil and misoprostol. The limiting factors, however, for their routine use as ulcer healing agents are their low efficacy with regard to ulcer pain relief and the high incidence of diarrhea.

Key words

enprostil misoprostol duodenal ulcer 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Akdamar K, Agrawal N, Ertan A. Inhibition of nocturnal gastric secretion in normal human volunteers by misoprostol: A synthetic prostaglandin E1 methyl ester analog. Am J Gastroenterol 1982;77:902–904.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis GR, Fordtran JS, Dajani EZ. Dose-response, mealstimulated gastric antisecretory study of prostaglandin E1 analog, misoprostol, in man. Dig Dis Sc 1988;33:298–302.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilson DE. Antisecretory and mucosal protective actions of misoprostol: Potential role in the treatment of peptic ulcer disease. Am J Med 1987;83 [Suppl 1A]:2–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lacy ER, Ito S. Microscopic analysis of ethanol to rat gastric mucosa after treatment with a prostaglandin. Gastroenterology 1982;83:619–625.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tarnawski A, Hollander D, Stachura J, et al. Prostaglandin protection of the gastric mucosa against alcohol injury—a dynamic time-related process: Role of the mucosal proliferative zone. Gastroenterology 1985;88:334–352.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goa KL, Monk JP, Enprostil. A preliminary review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of peptic ulcer disease. Drugs 1987;34:539–559.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nicholson PA. A multicenter international controlled comparison of two dosage regimes of misoprostol and cimetidine in the treatment of duodenal ulcer in out-patients. Dig Dis Sci 1985;30:171S-177SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sontag SJ, Mazure PA, Pontes JF, et al. Misoprostol in the treatment of duodenal ulcer. A multicenter double-blind placebocontrolled study. Dig Dis Sci 1985;30:159S-163S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brand DL, Roufail WM, Thomson AB, Tapper EJ. Misoprostol, a synthetic PGE1 analog, in the treatment of duodenal ulcers. A multicenter double-blind study. Dig Dis SCI 1985;30:147S-158S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O'Keefe SJ, Spitaels JM, Mannion G, Naiker N. Misoprostol, a synthetic prostaglandin E1 analogue, in the treatment of duodenal ulcers. A double-blind, cimetidine-controlled trial. S Afr Med J 1985;67:321–324.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lam SK, Lau WY, Choi TK, et al. Prostaglandin E1 (misoprostol) overcomes the adverse effect of chronic cigarette smoking on duodenal ulcer healing. Dig Dis Sci 1986;31:68S-74S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bright-Asare P, Sontag SJ, Gould RJ, et al. Efficacy of misoprostol (twice daily dosage) in acute healing of duodenal ulcer. A multicenter double-blind controlled trial. Dig Dis Sci 1986; 31:63S-67S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simjee AE, Spitaels JM, Pettengell KE, Manion GL. A comparative study of misoprostol and ranitidine in the healing of duodenal ulcers. A double-blind controlled trial. S Afr Med J 1987;72:15–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldin E, Fich A, Eliakim R, et al. Comparison of misoprostol and ranitidine in the treatment of duodenal ulcer. Isr J Med Sci 1988;24:282–285.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ahmed WU, Qureshi H, Alam E, Zuberi SJ. A double-blind study of misoprostol (SC-29333) in the healing of duodenal ulcer. J Gastroenterol-Hepatol 1991;6:179–180.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nauert C, Caspary WF. Duodenal ulcer therapy with low-dose antacids: A multicenter trial. J Clin Gastroenterol 1991;13:S149-S154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thomson AB. Treatment of duodenal ulcer with enprostil, a synthetic prostaglandin E2 analogue. Am J Med 1986;81:59–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lauritsen K, Laursen LS, Havelund T, et al. Enprostil and ranitidine in duodenal ulcer healing: Double-blind comparative trial. BMJ 1986;292:864–866.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bright-Asare P. Treatment of duodenal ulcer with enprostil, a prostaglandin E2 analogue Am J Med 1986;81:64–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Winters L Comparison of enprostil and cimetidine in active duodenal ulcer disease. Summary of pooled European studies. Am J Med 1986;81:69–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mackinnon M, Alp M, Austad WI, et al. Enprostil and ranitidine: Comparative efficacy and safety in patients with duodenal ulcer. Aust NZ J Med 1987;17:316–320.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Walt RP, Pounder RE, Hawkey CJ, et al. Twenty-four-hour intragastric acidity and clinical trial of bedtime enprostil 70 micrograms compared with ranitidine 300 mg in duodenal ulcer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1987;1:161–166.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carling L, Unge P, Almstrom C, et al. Enprostil and cimetidine: Comparative efficacy and safety in patients with duodenal ulcer. Scand J Gastroenterol 1987;22:325–331.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jazrawi RP, Northfield TC, Reed PI, et al. Enprostil, a prostaglandin E2 analogue, in the treatment of duodenal ulcer; a multicenter comparison with cimetidine. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1988;2:353–359.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bardhan KD, Lee FI, Bose K, et al. A comparison of enprostil and ranitidine in treatment of duodenal ulcer. J Clin Gastroenterol 1988;10:137–142.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Frexinos J, Andrieu J, Evreux M, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of enprostil in the treatment of duodenal ulcer. Comparison with cimetidine. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 1989;13:188–192.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schubert TT, Frizzell JA, Meier PB, Cano RI, Schwartz KE. A US multicenter study of enprostil 35 micrograms twice daily for treatment of prepyloric, pyloric channel, and duodenal bulb ulcers. Enprostil study group. Dig Dis Sci 1989;3:1355–1360.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walt RP. Misoprostol for the treatment of peptic ulcer and antiinflammatory drug-induced gastroduodenal ulceration N Engl J Med 1992;22:1575–1579.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Newman RD, Gitlin N, Lacayo EJ, et al. Misoprostol in the treatment of duodenal ulcer refractory to H2-blocker therapy. A placebo-controlled, multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial. Am J Med 1987;83:27–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Corboy ED Jr, Clay GA, Fakouhi DT, Swabb EA. Humanitarian use of misoprostol in severe refractory upper gastrointestinal disease. Am J Med 1987;83:49–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Silvoso GR, Ivey KJ, Butt JH, et al. Incidence of gastric lesions in patients with rheumatic disease on chronic aspirin therapy. Ann Intern Med 1979;91:517–520.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lockard OO Jr, Ivey KJ, Butt JH, et al. The prevalence of duodenal lesions in patients with rheumatic disease on chronic aspirin therapy. Gastrointest Endose 1980;26:5–7.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Caruso I, Bianchi Porro G. Gastroscopic evaluation of antiinflammatory agents. Br Med J 1980;280:75–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Farah D, Sturrock RD, Russell RI. Peptic ulcer in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 1988;47:472–480.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Graham DY, Agrawal NM, Roth SH. Prevention of NSAID-induced gastric ulcer with misoprostol: A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 1988;II:1277–1280.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bianchi Porro G, Lazzaroni M. Prevention and treatment of non-steroidal gastroduodenal lesions. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1993;5:420–432.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Monk JP, Clissold AP. Misoprostol. A preliminary review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of peptic ulcer disease. Drugs 1987;33:1–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sontag SJ, Schnell TG, Mak E, et al. Enprostil heals NSAID-induced gastric ulcers (abstract). Gastroenterology 1990; 98:A129.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Paladini G, Fabiani MG, Tosato F, Maggiolo F. Prophylactic and therapeutic role of rioprostil in NSAID-induced gastroduodenal lesions. Scand J Gastroenterol 1989;24 [Suppl 164]:242–246.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Euler AR, Safdi MD, Rao J, et al. A report of three multiclinic trials evaluating arbaprostil in arthritic patients with ASA/NSAID gastric mucosal damage. Gastroenterology 1990;98:1549–1557.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Graham DY, White RH, Moreland LW, et al. Duodenal and gastric ulcer prevention with misoprostol in arthritis patients taking NSAIDs. Ann Intern Med 1993;119:257–262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lauritsen K, Havelund T, Laursen LS, et al. Enprostil and ranitidine in prevention of duodenal ulcer relapse: 1-year doubleblind comparative trial. Br Med J Clin Res Ed 1987;294932–934.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bardhan KD, Morris P, Hinchliffe RF, et al. A comparison of low-dose maintenance treatment with enprostil against ranitidine in the prevention of duodenal ulcer recurrence. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1989;3:489–497.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Navert H, Thompson AB, Archambault A, et al. Treatment of gastric ulcer with enprostil. Am J Med 1986;81 [Suppl 2A]:75–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Butt JH, Brthel JS, Moore SA. Clinical spectrum of the upper gastrointestinal effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Am J Med 1988;84 [Suppl 2A]:5–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Larkai EN, Smith I, Sessoms SL, Graham DY. Dyspepsia in NSAID users: The size of the problem. J Clin Gastroenterol 1989;11:158–162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    FDA Drug Bull 1989;19:3–4.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Smallcy WE, Griffin Mr, Daugherty JR. Hospitalization for ulcer-related diseases in the elderly medical population. Gastroenterology 1992;102:A25.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fries JF, Williams CA, Block DA, Michel BA. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs associated gastropathy: Incidence and risk factor model Am J Med 1991;91:213–222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. K. Ching
    • 1
  • S. K. Lam
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of Hong Kong, Queen Mary HapitalPokfulamHong Kong

Personalised recommendations