Efficacy and safety of esomeprazole with flupentixol/melitracen in treating gastroesophageal reflux disease patients with emotional disorders

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This study was designed to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of esomeprazole combined with flupentixol/melitracen for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients with emotional disorders. METHODS Two hundred eighty-nine GERD patients with emotional disorders were divided randomly into two groups: group 1 received esomeprazole only (monotherapy) and group 2 received esomeprazole and flupentixol/melitracen (combination therapy). The patients' GERD questionnaire (GerdQ) and hospital anxiety and depression (HAD) scores were obtained before and after treatment. Changes in the scores, rates of symptom remission, and adverse effects were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

After 2 weeks of treatment, the average decrease in GerdQ score in the combination group (4.04 ± 2.34) was significantly greater than that in the monotherapy group (3.34 ± 2.74; P < 0.05). Significant differences between the two groups were also found for changes in HAD anxiety scores (5.45 ± 2.41 vs 3.34 ± 2.43, P < 0.05), depression scores (5.47 ± 2.47 vs 3.00 ± 3.28, P < 0.05), and anxiety-depression scores (5.20 ± 2.71 vs 3.60 ± 2.56, P < 0.05). The remission of symptoms (eructation, abdominal pain, anorexia, and other accompanying symptoms) in the combination group was significantly better than that in the monotherapy group, and no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events was observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination therapy has better efficacy than the monotherapy in improving the symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux in patients with emotional disorders. In addition, this combination treatment is safe, with a low incidence of adverse events.

Comparative study of esomeprazole and lansoprazole in triple therapy for eradication of Helicobacter pylori in Japan

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of esomeprazole-based triple therapy compared with lansoprazole therapy as first-line eradication therapy for patients with Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) in usual post-marketing use in Japan, where the clarithromycin (CAM) resistance rate is 30%.

METHODS: For this multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients (≥ 20 years of age) with H. pylori infection from 20 hospitals in Japan. We randomly allocated patients to esomeprazole therapy (esomeprazole 20 mg, CAM 400 mg, amoxicillin (AC) 750 mg for the first 7 d, with all drugs given twice daily) or lansoprazole therapy (lansoprazole 30 mg, CAM 400 mg, AC 750 mg for the first 7 d, with all drugs given twice daily) using a minimization method with age, sex, and institution as adjustment factors. Our primary outcome was the eradication rate by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. H. pylori eradication was confirmed by a urea breath test from 4 to 8 wk after cessation of therapy.

RESULTS: ITT analysis revealed the eradication rates of 69.4% (95%CI: 61.2%-76.6%) for esomeprazole therapy and 73.9% (95%CI: 65.9%-80.6%) for lansoprazole therapy (P = 0.4982). PP analysis showed eradication rate of 76.9% (95%CI: 68.6%-83.5%) for esomeprazole therapy and 79.8% (95%CI: 71.9%-86.0%) for lansoprazole therapy (P = 0.6423). There were no differences in adverse effects between the two therapies.

CONCLUSION: Esomeprazole showed non-inferiority and safety in a 7 day-triple therapy for eradication of H. pylori compared with lansoprazole.

Interaction of thiopental with esomeprazole in critically ill patients

INTRODUCTION

Thiopental is a thiobarbiturate given in the case of brain injuries to reduce intracranial pressure and to manage cerebral ischemia. A pharmacokinetic model has been described previously in critically ill patients with a different therapeutic strategy. New treatment options prompted us to investigate if drug-drug interactions occur. A new model is proposed describing the influence of concomitant administration of esomeprazole on the distribution of thiopental.

METHOD

The study population comprised 52 critically ill patients (body weight 47.1-114 kg) aged 18-78 years who had been admitted into the critical care unit for treatment of intracranial hypertension. A total mean dose of 282.8 ± 172.7 mg/kg was given in 96 ± 72 h. Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed by using a nonlinear mixed-effect population model.

RESULT

A one-compartment open model with first-order elimination identified two covariates, namely, body weight on clearance and volume of distribution, and the administration of esomeprazole on volume of distribution. The mean values (% relative standard error) for total clearance (CL) and for central volume of distribution (Vd) in patients with and without concomitant esomeprazole were 5.3 L/h (9.2 %) and 256.1 (6.4 %) and 153.2 l (19.2 %), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Based on these results, we conclude that concomitant administration of esomeprazole increases the volume of distribution and the half-live of thiopental. This drug-drug interaction should be considered when a target concentration has to be reached.

Effects of 12 weeks' treatment with a proton pump inhibitor on insulin secretion, glucose metabolism and markers of cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised double-blind prospective placebo-controlled study

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Recent studies suggest that proton pump inhibitor treatment may increase insulin secretion and improve glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetes. In a randomised double-blind prospective placebo-controlled 2 × 2 factorial study, we examined the effect of esomeprazole on insulin secretion, HbA(1c) and cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Forty-one patients with type 2 diabetes using dietary control or oral glucose-lowering treatment were randomised to receive add-on esomeprazole 40 mg (n = 20) or placebo (n = 21) for 12 weeks. Randomisation was carried out prior to inclusion on the basis of a computer-generated random-number list. The allocation sequence was concealed in sealed envelopes from the researcher enrolling and assessing participants. The study was undertaken at Steno Diabetes Center, Gentofte, Denmark. The primary outcome was change in AUC for insulin levels during a meal test. Secondary outcomes were the levels of HbA(1c) and biochemical markers of cardiovascular risk, including lipids, coagulation factors, inflammation markers, markers of endothelial function and 24 h ambulatory BP measurements.

RESULTS

Forty-one participants were analysed. In the esomeprazole-treated group the AUC for insulin did not change (before vs after treatment: 28,049 ± 17,659 vs 27,270 ± 32,004 pmol/l × min (p = 0.838). In the placebo group AUC for insulin decreased from 27,392 ± 14,348 pmol/l × min to 22,938 ± 11,936 pmol/l × min (p = 0.002). Esomeprazole treatment (n = 20) caused a ninefold increase in the AUC for gastrin. HbA(1c) increased from 7.0 ± 0.6% (53 ± 5 mmol/mol) to 7.3 ± 0.8% (56 ± 6 mmol/mol) in the esomeprazole-treated group and from 7.0 ± 0.6% (53 ± 5 mmol/mol) to 7.4 ± 0.8% (57 ± 6 mmol/mol) in the placebo group (n = 21) (p for difference in change >0.05). Except for BP, there were no differences between the groups in the markers of cardiovascular risk (p > 0.05). Monitoring of 24 h ambulatory BP showed a significant decrease in daytime systolic BP, daytime diastolic BP and 24 h diastolic BP in the placebo group (p < 0.05). No change in BP was seen in the patients treated with esomeprazole.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Treatment with esomeprazole over 12 weeks did not improve insulin secretion, glycaemic control or cardiovascular disease biomarkers in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Phase I, multicenter, randomized, open-label study evaluating the pharmacokinetics and safety profile of repeated once-daily doses of intravenous esomeprazole in children 0 to 17 years of age

BACKGROUND

Several oral proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are currently approved for use in pediatric patients in North America and Europe. However, when use of oral therapy is not possible or appropriate, intravenous formulations of PPIs may be helpful. Intravenous esomeprazole is approved in the United States for the short-term treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with erosive esophagitis in adults and in pediatric patients 1 month to 17 years of age (inclusive) as an alternative to oral therapy. Four open-label, randomized, 2-way crossover studies in adults with GERD found no clinically relevant differences in acid suppression between repeated doses of oral and intravenous esomeprazole. However, the pharmacokinetics of intravenous esomeprazole has not been studied extensively in children.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate steady-state pharmacokinetics and tolerability of repeated doses of intravenous esomeprazole in children.

METHODS

In this multicenter, open-label study, hospitalized patients (0-17 years of age) considered for acid suppression therapy received once-daily intravenous esomeprazole sodium for injection at 0.5 mg/kg (0-1 month of age), 1.0 mg/kg (1-11 months of age), 10 mg (1-5 years of age), 10 or 20 mg (6-11 years of age), or 20 or 40 mg (12-17 years of age) for 4 days. Children 6 to 11 years of age (inclusive) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive esomeprazole 10 or 20 mg, and adolescents 12 to 17 years of age (inclusive) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive esomeprazole 20 or 40 mg. Blood samples were drawn pre- and post-dose. Plasma esomeprazole was measured using reversed-phase liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic variables were derived using mixed-effects modeling. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were randomized and 57 received the study drug. A majority of patients were white (44 white, 5 black/African American, 3 Asian, 5 other) and male (35/57). Fifty patients were eligible for pharmacokinetic analysis, including 6 to 8 patients in each age group. Esomeprazole pharmacokinetics was dose proportional and related to weight and age. Clearance increased with increasing weight and age. The mean AUC(τ) ranged from 6.9 μmol · h/L (10 mg, 6-11 years) to 17.6 μmol · h/L (40 mg, 12-17 years). The mean C(ss,max) ranged from 3.7 μmol/L (0.5 mg/kg, 0-1 month) to 10.5 μmol/L (40 mg, 12-17 years). Thirty-one patients experienced 1 or more AEs; 6 patients experienced 1 or more treatment-unrelated serious AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous esomeprazole at doses resulting in targeted AUC(τ) and C(ss,max) similar to therapeutic exposure in adults appeared to be reasonably well tolerated in this small, select pediatric population. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00474019.

Comparison of levofloxacin-containing sequential and standard triple therapies for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori

BACKGROUND

There is an important concern about the success of standard triple treatment for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) in recent years. Better eradication rates have been reported with sequential treatment in current studies. This study aimed to compare the success of a novel levofloxacin-containing sequential regimen with standard triple therapy.

METHODS

H. pylori-positive patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia were randomly allocated to one of the study groups. The patients on sequential arm were given esomeprazole 40 mg BID and amoxicillin 1g BID for the first week followed by esomeprazole 40 mg BID, levofloxacin 500 mg QD and metronidazole 500 mg TID for the second week. The patients on standard triple arm were given esomeprazole 40 mg BID, amoxicillin 1g BID and clarithromycin 500 mg BID for 2 weeks. Eradication was assessed by urea breath test on 6th weeks.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were enrolled in each group; 72 in sequential arm and 67 in standard arm completed the protocols. H. pylori eradication rate of per protocol was 90% in sequential versus 57% in standard treatment groups with a statistical significance (p<0.000). Both regimens were similarly well tolerated and side effects were comparable. Only one patient in sequential arm stopped the treatment because of side effects.

CONCLUSION

The levofloxacin-containing sequential therapy is a significantly better strategy than the standard triple treatment for H. pylori eradication. Standard triple treatment is no more effective for H. pylori in our population and levofloxacin-containing sequential regimen might be used as a first-line eradication option.

Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study to determine the effects of esomeprazole on inhibition of platelet function by clopidogrel

BACKGROUND

Pharmacokinetic studies suggest that clopidogrel and esomeprazole are metabolized by similar hepatic enzymes; however, previous studies have not identified a biochemical interaction.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether addition of esomeprazole to patients receiving aspirin and clopidogrel reduces the antiplatelet effects of clopidogrel.

PATIENT/METHODS

Patients with a history of an acute coronary syndrome who had previously received clopidogrel were recruited. Subjects were commenced on clopidogrel and randomized to one of two treatment arms (esomeprazole or placebo) for 6 weeks. Following a 2-week washout period for study medications, patients were crossed over onto the alternative treatment arm for a further 6 weeks. Platelet function tests were undertaken at baseline, following the first treatment period, after washout and following the second treatment period.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients were enrolled. Significant attenuation of clopidogrel's antiplatelet effects was seen with co-administration of esomeprazole compared with placebo. Vasodilator stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP), platelet aggregometry (area under the curve (AUC)) and VerifyNow results were 54.7% ± 2.8 platelet reactivity index (PRI), 66.3 ± 2.6 AUC units and 213.1 ± 14.1 platelet reactivity units (PRU) with esomeprazole vs. 47% ± 2.7 PRI, 59.7 ± 3.7 AUC units and 181.4 ± 14.6 PRU with placebo (P < 0.01 esomeprazole vs. placebo for all measures). There was no significant difference in platelet aggregometry (maximal aggregation) between the esomeprazole group (68.9% ± 2.7 units) and placebo-treated group (64.5% ± 4.1 units; P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Esomeprazole when co-administered with aspirin and clopidogrel results in a significant attenuation of clopidogrel's antiplatelet effects.

Empirical modified sequential therapy containing levofloxacin and high-dose esomeprazole in second-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection: a multicentre clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Sequential therapy appears to achieve a higher Helicobacter pylori eradication rate than triple therapy. We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of modified sequential therapy containing levofloxacin and high-dose esomeprazole in second-line therapy.

METHODS

Patients who failed first-line triple therapy with clarithromycin, amoxicillin and a proton pump inhibitor were eligible in this multicentre trial. Eligible patients were treated with esomeprazole 40 mg and amoxicillin 1 g for the first 5 days, followed by esomeprazole 40 mg, levofloxacin 250 mg and metronidazole 500 mg for another 5 days (all given twice daily). Eradication was confirmed with a (13)C-urea breath test 6 weeks after therapy. Drug susceptibility, presence/absence of gyrA mutation and CYP2C19 genotype were also determined.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients were enrolled. The eradication rate was 95.1% [135/142, 95% confidence interval (CI) 91.5%-98.6%] in the intention-to-treat analysis and 96.4% (133/138, 95% CI 93.3%-99.5%) in the per protocol analysis. Four patients (2.8%) failed to take at least 80% of the drugs due to adverse effects. The eradication rates were 50% (4/8) and 97.7% (43/44) in patients with and without metronidazole resistance, respectively (P = 0.001). The eradication rates were 84.6% (11/13) and 95.1% (58/61) in patients with and without gyrA mutation, respectively (P = 0.210). The eradication rates were not affected by the CYP2C19 polymorphism (P = 0.421).

CONCLUSIONS

This modified sequential therapy achieved an excellent eradication rate (>95%) in second-line treatment and the eradication rate appeared to be affected by metronidazole resistance.

Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled evaluation of esomeprazole in coronary artery disease patients. EPAC: esomeprazole prevention of atypical chest pains

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease (CAD) patients experience chest pain (CP) from cardiac and non-cardiac etiologies.

OBJECTIVE

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment of CAD patients with atypical CP would result in less CP, as well as fewer emergency room (ER) visits for CP, medical evaluations, and hospitalizations.

METHODS

A randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled trial in patients with a history of severe CAD, without current ischemia, and not receiving acid reducing therapy. Patients received esomeprazole 40 mg or placebo daily added to standard cardiac medications for 6 months. The primary endpoint was percentage of patients experiencing CP.

RESULTS

In 162 patients randomized, 78 received esomeprazole and 84 received placebo. Esomeprazole significantly reduced the primary endpoint of patients experiencing CP (24.4% versus 54.8%; p < 0.001). The absolute number of CP episodes and CP days was also significantly reduced. Fewer patients experienced the combined endpoint of doctor office/ER visits for CP (19.2% versus 48.8%; p < 0.001), mainly due to significantly fewer office visits for CP (14.1% versus 39.3%; p < 0.001). ER visits for CP trended less with esomeprazole (12.8% versus 22.6%; p = 0.10), as did hospitalizations for CP (14.1% versus 20.2%; p = 0.30). However, the study lacked statistical power to reach these secondary endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant esomeprazole therapy in CAD patients without active ischemia but with a history of atypical CP reduces number of patients with further CP symptoms and medical office visits for CP. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate PPI treatment on ER CP visits and hospitalizations in this patient population.

Fixed-dose combination of enteric-coated naproxen and immediate-release esomeprazole has comparable efficacy to celecoxib for knee osteoarthritis: two randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate that a fixed-dose combination of enteric-coated naproxen 500 mg and immediate-release esomeprazole magnesium 20 mg has comparable efficacy to celecoxib for knee osteoarthritis.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Two randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III studies (PN400-307 and PN400-309) enrolled patients aged ≥50 years with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Following an osteoarthritis flare, patients received naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium twice daily, celecoxib 200 mg once daily, or placebo for 12 weeks.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00664560 and NCT00665431.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Three co-primary efficacy endpoints were mean change from baseline to week 12 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and function subscales, and Patient Global Assessment of osteoarthritis using a visual analog scale (PGA-VAS).

RESULTS

In Study 307, 619 patients were randomized and 614 treated. In Study 309, 615 patients were randomized and 610 treated. Both naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium and celecoxib were associated with improvements (least squares mean change from baseline to week 12) in WOMAC pain (Study 307: -42.0 and -41.8, respectively; Study 309: -44.2 and -42.9, respectively), WOMAC function (Study 307: -36.4 and -36.3, respectively; Study 309: -38.9 and -36.8, respectively), and PGA-VAS (Study 307: 21.2 and 21.6, respectively; Study 309: 29.0 and 25.6, respectively). A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10 mm between naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium and celecoxib was satisfied for each co-primary endpoint at week 12 in both studies. Significant improvements were observed with naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium versus placebo in both studies (p < 0.05). Celecoxib was significantly different from placebo in Study 307 (p < 0.05); however, the improvements were not significant in Study 309. Acetaminophen use and patient expectation of receiving active treatment (80% probability) may have contributed to a high placebo response observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium has comparable efficacy to celecoxib for the management of pain associated with osteoarthritis of the knee over 12 weeks.

Laparoscopic antireflux surgery vs esomeprazole treatment for chronic GERD: the LOTUS randomized clinical trial

CONTEXT

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic, relapsing disease with symptoms that have negative effects on daily life. Two treatment options are long-term medication or surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate optimized esomeprazole therapy vs standardized laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LARS) in patients with GERD.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The LOTUS trial, a 5-year exploratory randomized, open, parallel-group trial conducted in academic hospitals in 11 European countries between October 2001 and April 2009 among 554 patients with well-established chronic GERD who initially responded to acid suppression. A total of 372 patients (esomeprazole, n = 192; LARS, n = 180) completed 5-year follow-up. Interventions Two hundred sixty-six patients were randomly assigned to receive esomeprazole, 20 to 40 mg/d, allowing for dose adjustments; 288 were randomly assigned to undergo LARS, of whom 248 actually underwent the operation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Time to treatment failure (for LARS, defined as need for acid suppressive therapy; for esomeprazole, inadequate symptom control after dose adjustment), expressed as estimated remission rates and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Estimated remission rates at 5 years were 92% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89%-96%) in the esomeprazole group and 85% (95% CI, 81%-90%) in the LARS group (log-rank P = .048). The difference between groups was no longer statistically significant following best-case scenario modeling of the effects of study dropout. The prevalence and severity of symptoms at 5 years in the esomeprazole and LARS groups, respectively, were 16% and 8% for heartburn (P = .14), 13% and 2% for acid regurgitation (P < .001), 5% and 11% for dysphagia (P < .001), 28% and 40% for bloating (P < .001), and 40% and 57% for flatulence (P < .001). Mortality during the study was low (4 deaths in the esomeprazole group and 1 death in the LARS group) and not attributed to treatment, and the percentages of patients reporting serious adverse events were similar in the esomeprazole group (24.1%) and in the LARS group (28.6%).

CONCLUSION

This multicenter clinical trial demonstrated that with contemporary antireflux therapy for GERD, either by drug-induced acid suppression with esomeprazole or by LARS, most patients achieve and remain in remission at 5 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00251927.

Long-term safety of naproxen and esomeprazole magnesium fixed-dose combination: phase III study in patients at risk for NSAID-associated gastric ulcers

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate long-term safety of enteric-coated naproxen 500 mg and immediate-release esomeprazole magnesium 20 mg fixed-dose combination (FDC) in patients at risk of NSAID-associated upper gastrointestinal (UGI) ulcers.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this open-label, multicenter, phase III study, Helicobacter pylori-negative patients aged ≥50 years or 18-49 years with history of uncomplicated ulcer within the past 5 years, who had osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or other condition requiring daily NSAIDs for ≥12 months received naproxen/esomeprazole twice daily for 12 months.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00527904.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Adverse events (AEs), vital signs, physical examination, and laboratory tests. Subgroup analyses included age and low-dose aspirin (LDA) use. Predefined NSAID-associated UGI and cardiovascular AEs were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 239 patients treated (safety population), 135 completed ≥348 treatment days (12-month completers). AE incidence was approximately 70%; dyspepsia, constipation, upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, back pain, and contusion were most frequent (≥5% patients, either population). Treatment-related AEs occurred in 28.0% and 23.7% of patients in the safety and 12-month completer populations, respectively; 18.8% of patients withdrew due to AEs (safety population). Few serious AEs and no deaths occurred. In the safety population, AE incidence was 71.4% and 76.9% in patients aged <65 years (n = 161) and ≥65 years (n = 78), respectively, and 67.6% and 75.8% in LDA users (n = 74) and non-users (n = 165), respectively. Predefined UGI and cardiovascular AEs were observed in 18.8% and 6.3% of patients, respectively, in the safety population, and 16.3% and 5.2%, respectively, in 12-month completers. Dyspepsia and hypertension were most common. Additional assessments showed no unexpected findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these outcome measures, long-term treatment with FDC naproxen/esomeprazole is not associated with any new safety issues, including predefined UGI and cardiovascular AEs, in patients requiring NSAID therapy who are at risk of UGI complications.

Comparison of infusion or low-dose proton pump inhibitor treatments in upper gastrointestinal system bleeding

BACKGROUND

The most effective schedule of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration following endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding ulcers remains uncertain.

AIM

To compare the treatment effects of continuous infusion and low-dose esomeprazole therapies in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

METHODS

This prospective clinical study compared continuous infusion of esomeprazole (80 mg bolus followed by 8 mg∕h continuous infusion for 72 h) and low-dose esomeprazole (40 mg twice daily IV) treatments in GI bleeding patients with peptic ulcer presenting a high risk of re-bleeding, who were administered a successful endoscopic homeostasis. The primary end point was the occurrence of re-bleeding during hospitalization and within one month of discharge. Secondary outcomes were defined as duration of hospitalization, need of transfusion, surgical treatment, and mortality rate. After 72 h, both groups were switched to oral esomeprazole therapy for one-month.

RESULTS

A hundred thirty-two subjects were enrolled. Re-bleeding occurred in 11 (16.7%) patients in the infusion therapy group and in 12 (18.2%) patients in the low-dose group (P=0.819) within the first 72 h. No patient experienced re-bleeding in the first month following discharge. There was no statistical significant difference between the two groups in terms of transfusion need, durations of hospitalization, need for surgery and mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

PPI infusion therapy following endoscopic hemostasis treatment was not found superior to low-dose PPI therapy in the terms of re-bleeding, need of surgery and mortality.

Comparison of the once-daily levofloxacin-containing triple therapy with the twice-daily standard triple therapy for first-line Helicobacter pylori eradication: a prospective randomised study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Simple compound of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy may improve drug compliance of patients. The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a simple combination containing levofloxacin 7-day once-daily with standard twice-daily triple therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, randomised, open-label trial. A total of 189 consecutive patients diagnosed with peptic ulcer and H. pylori infection were enrolled. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: LEC group--levofloxacin 500 mg, esomeprazole 40 mg and clarithromycin 500 mg once daily for 7 days; AEC group--amoxicillin 1 g, esomeprazole 40 mg and clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily for 7 days.

RESULTS

There were 90 patients in the LEC group and 99 patients in the AEC group. By intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis, the H. pylori eradication rate was 78.9% [71/90; 95% confidence interval (CI), 70.3-87.5%] and 83.5% (71/85; 95% CI, 75.5-91.6%) respectively, in the LEC group; and 74.8% (74/99; 95% CI, 66.0-83.5%) and 86.0% (74/86; 95% CI, 78.6-93.5%) respectively, in the AEC group. The incidence and tolerability of side effects were similar between these two groups.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and tolerability of once-daily levofloxacin-containing triple therapy are equal to those of the standard twice-daily triple therapy in this study. However, none of the treatment regimens evaluated achieved enough eradication efficacies to be considered as a recommendable first-line treatment.

Pharmacogenetics of esomeprazole or rabeprazole-based triple therapy in Helicobacter pylori eradication in Hong Kong non-ulcer dyspepsia Chinese subjects

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to assess the effectiveness of esomeprazole or rabeprazole in combination with amoxicillin and clarithromycin for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori in Hong Kong non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD) patients.

METHODS

A prospective clinical trial was conducted at the Alice Ho Miu ling Nethersole Hospital outpatient endoscopy center from June 2004 to December 2005. Participants received amoxicillin 1 g, clarithromycin 500 mg, and, esomeprazole 20 mg (EAC) or rabeprazole 20 mg (RAC), all given twice daily for 1 week. The H. pylori status was determined by the [13C] urea breath test at least 4 weeks after completion of the treatment. Mutation status of CYP2C19 in exon 4 and exon 5 associated with the poor metabolizer phenotype was determined.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat eradication rates in patients treated with RAC and EAC were 77% and 84.6% respectively, and per protocol-based eradication rates were 83.7% and 88.9% respectively. The eradication rates did not vary with CYP2C19 phenotype found. For clarithromycin-sensitive strains, the cure rates were statistically significant regardless of CYP2C19 polymorphism (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Triple therapy with either EAC or RAC is effective for Hong Kong Chinese NUD patients with H. pylori infection. Success eradication was related to clarithromycin resistance and not CYP2C19 genotype.

Intravenous esomeprazole pharmacodynamics in critically ill patients

OBJECTIVE

A widely held belief contends that food-induced proton pump activation is important for optimal proton pump inhibitor-induced inhibition of gastric acid secretion. This study was undertaken to assess intragastric acid control with intravenous (IV) esomeprazole in critically ill patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This open-label, single-arm, exploratory trial was conducted at five university or regional hospital intensive care units in the US. Adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit who required mechanical ventilation and had at least one additional risk factor for stress-induced ulcer received twice-daily IV esomeprazole 40 mg for 48 hours and could continue for another 24 hours if no prepyloric enteral feedings were planned.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

D9612L00107; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00428701.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary efficacy variable was the linear-interpolated percentage of time intragastric pH was > or =4 during 24-48 hours. Secondary efficacy variables included the interpolated percentage of time intragastric pH was > or =4 during 0-24, 0-48, and 48-72 hours, the percentage of gastric aspirates collected with pH > or =4 during 0-24, 24-48, 0-48, and 48-72 hours, and time to stable pH > or =4. Safety was assessed based on adverse events (AEs), physical examinations, vital signs, laboratory tests, and electrocardiograms.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were enrolled (one was excluded because of previous partial gastrectomy). Interpolated mean percentage time pH > or =4 was 88.8%, 80.7%, and 83.5% for 24-48, 0-24, and 0-48 hours, respectively. For 0-72 hours, > or =78% of gastric aspirates had pH > or =4. Median time to stable pH was 1 hour (95% confidence interval: 0.67, 2.00). Treatment was well tolerated, with no evidence of gastrointestinal bleeding. A total of 75 AEs occurred in 34 patients, none considered treatment related.

CONCLUSIONS

In this noncontrolled exploratory study, twice-daily IV esomeprazole 40 mg rapidly decreased intragastric acidity and effectively maintained pH >/=4 during 0-72 hours in fasting, critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients at high risk for stress ulcers.

Cost effectiveness of high-dose intravenous esomeprazole for peptic ulcer bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) is a serious and sometimes fatal condition. The outcome of PUB strongly depends on the risk of rebleeding. A recent multinational placebo-controlled clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00251979) showed that high-dose intravenous (IV) esomeprazole, when administered after successful endoscopic haemostasis in patients with PUB, is effective in preventing rebleeding. From a policy perspective it is important to assess the cost efficacy of this benefit so as to enable clinicians and payers to make an informed decision regarding the management of PUB. Using a decision-tree model, we compared the cost efficacy of high-dose IV esomeprazole versus an approach of no-IV proton pump inhibitor for prevention of rebleeding in patients with PUB. The model adopted a 30-day time horizon and the perspective of third-party payers in the USA and Europe. The main efficacy variable was the number of averted rebleedings. Healthcare resource utilization costs (physician fees, hospitalizations, surgeries, pharmacotherapies) relevant for the management of PUB were also determined. Data for unit costs (prices) were primarily taken from official governmental sources, and data for other model assumptions were retrieved from the original clinical trial and the literature. After successful endoscopic haemostasis, patients received either high-dose IV esomeprazole (80 mg infusion over 30 min, then 8 mg/hour for 71.5 hours) or no-IV esomeprazole treatment, with both groups receiving oral esomeprazole 40 mg once daily from days 4 to 30. Rebleed rates at 30 days were 7.7% and 13.6%, respectively, for the high-dose IV esomeprazole and no-IV esomeprazole treatment groups (equating to a number needed to treat of 17 in order to prevent one additional patient from rebleeding). In the US setting, the average cost per patient for the high-dose IV esomeprazole strategy was $US14 290 compared with $US14 239 for the no-IV esomeprazole strategy (year 2007 values). For the European setting, Sweden and Spain were used as examples. In the Swedish setting the corresponding respective figures were Swedish kronor (SEK)67 862 ($US9220 at average 2006 interbank exchange rates) and SEK67 807 ($US9212) [year 2006 values]. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $US866 and SEK938 ($US127), respectively, per averted rebleed when using IV esomeprazole. For the Spanish setting, the high-dose IV esomeprazole strategy was dominant (more effective and less costly than the no-IV esomeprazole strategy) [year 2008 values]. All results appeared robust to univariate/threshold sensitivity analysis, with high-dose IV esomeprazole becoming dominant with small variations in assumptions in the US and Swedish settings, while remaining a dominant approach in the Spanish scenario across a broad range of values. Sensitivity variables with prespecified ranges included lengths of stay and per diem assumptions, rebleeding rates and, in some cases, professional fees. In patients with PUB, high-dose IV esomeprazole after successful endoscopic haemostasis appears to improve outcomes at a modest increase in costs relative to a no-IV esomeprazole strategy from the US and Swedish third-party payer perspective. Whereas, in the Spanish setting, the high-dose IV esomeprazole strategy appeared dominant, being more effective and less costly.

Quantification of dental erosions in patients with GERD using optical coherence tomography before and after double-blind, randomized treatment with esomeprazole or placebo

OBJECTIVES

Dental erosion, the chemical dissolution of enamel without bacterial involvement, is a rarely reported manifestation of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), as well as of recurrent vomiting and dietary habits. It leads to loss of tooth substance, hypersensitivity, functional impairment, and even tooth fracture. To date, dental erosions have been assessed using only very basic visual methods, and no evidence-based guidelines or studies exist regarding the prevention or treatment of GERD-related dental erosions.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind study, we used optical coherence tomography (OCT) to quantify dental tissue demineralization and enamel loss before and after 3 weeks of acid-suppressive treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg b.i.d. or placebo in 30 patients presenting to the Berne University Dental Clinic with advanced dental erosions and abnormal acid exposure by 24-h esophageal pH manometry (defined as >4% of the 24-h period with pH<4). Enamel thickness, reflectivity, and absorbance as measures of demineralization were quantified by OCT before and after therapy at identical localizations on teeth with most severe visible erosions as well as several other predefined changes in teeth.

RESULTS

The mean+/-s.e.m. decrease of enamel thickness of all teeth before and after treatment at the site of maximum exposure was 7.2+/-0.16 black trianglem with esomeprazole and 15.25+/-0.17black trianglem with placebo (P=0.013), representing a loss of 0.3% and 0.8% of the total enamel thickness, respectively. The change in optical reflectivity to a depth of 25 black trianglem after treatment was-1.122 +/-0.769 dB with esomeprazole and +2.059+/-0.534 dB with placebo (P 0.012), with increased reflectivity signifying demineralization.

CONCLUSIONS

OCT non-invasively detected and quantified significantly diminished progression of dental tissue demineralization and enamel loss after only 3 weeks of treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg b.i.d. vs. placebo. This suggests that esomeprazole may be useful in counteracting progression of GERD-related dental erosions. Further validation of preventative treatment regimens using this sensitive detection method is required, including longer follow-up and correlation with quantitative reflux measures.

Predictors of heartburn resolution and erosive esophagitis in patients with GERD

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptom resolution rates with esomeprazole by erosive esophagitis (EE) status, and the secondary objective was to evaluate potential predictors of the presence of EE and heartburn resolution.

BACKGROUND

Patients with GERD who have EE have higher reported symptom resolution rates than those with nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) when treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

STUDY

This open-label multicenter study included adults with GERD symptoms. Patients were stratified by EE status after endoscopy and received once-daily esomeprazole 40 mg for 4 weeks. Questionnaires determined symptom response rates, and baseline predictors of EE or heartburn resolution were evaluated. Potential predictors, including years with GERD, history of EE, and time to relief with antacids, were examined.

RESULTS

Heartburn resolution rates at 4 weeks were higher for patients with EE than NERD (69% [124/179] vs. 48% [85/177]; p < 0.0001). Multivariate models had moderate predictive ability for EE (c-index, 0.76) and poor predictive ability (c-index, 0.57) for heartburn resolution. However, faster heartburn relief with antacid use, particularly within 15 min, was predictive of EE and heartburn resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with EE have higher heartburn resolution rates than patients with NERD after treatment, although recall bias may be possible. Fast relief with antacid use is predictive of EE and heartburn resolution with a PPI and suggests that a history of antacid relief may provide corroborative evidence to empiric PPI therapy in determining whether patients with heartburn have acid reflux disease. ClinicalTrials.Gov IDENTIFIER: NCT00242736.

Efficacy of esomeprazole for treatment of poorly controlled asthma

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux is common among patients with asthma but often causes mild or no symptoms. It is not known whether treatment of gastroesophageal reflux with proton-pump inhibitors in patients who have poorly controlled asthma without symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux can substantially improve asthma control.

METHODS

In a parallel-group, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 412 participants with inadequately controlled asthma, despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, and with minimal or no symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux to receive either 40 mg of esomeprazole twice a day or matching placebo. Participants were followed for 24 weeks with the use of daily asthma diaries, spirometry performed once every 4 weeks, and questionnaires that asked about asthma symptoms. We used ambulatory pH monitoring to ascertain the presence or absence of gastroesophageal reflux in the participants. The primary outcome was the rate of episodes of poor asthma control, as assessed on the basis of entries in asthma diaries.

RESULTS

Episodes of poor asthma control occurred with similar frequency in the placebo and esomeprazole groups (2.3 and 2.5 events per person-year, respectively; P=0.66). There was no treatment effect with respect to individual components of the episodes of poor asthma control or with respect to secondary outcomes, including pulmonary function, airway reactivity, asthma control, symptom scores, nocturnal awakening, or quality of life. The presence of gastroesophageal reflux, which was documented by pH monitoring in 40% of participants with minimal or no symptoms, did not identify a subgroup of patients that benefited from treatment with proton-pump inhibitors. There were fewer serious adverse events among patients receiving esomeprazole than among those receiving placebo (11 vs. 17).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high prevalence of asymptomatic gastroesophageal reflux among patients with poorly controlled asthma, treatment with proton-pump inhibitors does not improve asthma control. Asymptomatic gastroesophageal reflux is not a likely cause of poorly controlled asthma. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00069823.)

Cost analysis of long-term treatment of patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with esomeprazole on-demand treatment or esomeprazole continuous treatment: an open, randomized, multicenter study in Switzerland

OBJECTIVES

To assess the difference in direct medical costs between on-demand (OD) treatment with esomeprazole (E) 20 mg and continuous (C) treatment with E 20 mg q.d. from a clinical practice view in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms.

METHODS

This open, randomized study (ONE: on-demand Nexium evaluation) compared two long-term management options with E 20 mg in endoscopically uninvestigated patients seeking primary care for GERD symptoms who demonstrated complete relief of symptoms after an initial treatment of 4 weeks with E 40 mg. Data on consumed quantities of all cost items were collected in the study, while data on prices during the time of study were collected separately. The analysis was done from a societal perspective.

RESULTS

Forty-nine percent (484 of 991) of patients randomized to the OD regimen and 46% (420 of 913) of the patients in the C group had at least one contact with the investigator that would have occurred nonprotocol-driven. The difference of the adjusted mean direct medical costs between the treatment groups was CHF 88.72 (95% confidence interval: CHF 41.34-153.95) in favor of the OD treatment strategy (Wilcoxon rank-sum test: P < 0.0001). Adjusted direct nonmedical costs and productivity loss were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The adjusted direct medical costs of a 6-month OD treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg in uninvestigated patients with symptoms of GERD were significantly lower compared with a continuous treatment with E 20 mg once a day. The OD therapy represents a cost-saving alternative to the continuous treatment strategy with E.

Seven-day PPI-triple therapy with levofloxacin is very effective for Helicobacter pylori eradication

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori infection causes lifelong gastritis and is associated with the development of peptic ulcer disease, MALT lymphoma and gastric cancer. Many patients benefit from H. pylori eradication therapy. PPI-triple therapy is recommended as initial therapy. Quadruple therapy, with a PPI, bismuth, and two antibiotics, used to be recommended as second-line therapy, but can no longer be prescribed because bismuth is no longer available. Therefore, there is an urgent need for new effective rescue therapies. Levofloxacin-based therapies were suggested as an alternative to quadruple therapy. The aim of this study is to examine the efficacy and tolerability of such a one-week therapy with levofloxacin and esomeprazole combined with either amoxicillin or clarithromycin in a Dutch population.

METHODS

Between February 2005 and November 2006, 123 consecutive H. pylori positive patients were enrolled in this study. The first 59 patients were treated with esomeprazole, amoxicillin and levofloxacin (group I). The next 64 patients were treated with esomeprazole, clarithromycin, and levofloxacin (group II ). Both therapies were compared for efficacy and tolerability.

RESULTS

In group I the overall (ITT) cure rate was 96% and in group II it was 93%. Minor side effects occurred in 29% of patients in group I and in 41% of patients in group II. Major side effects that warranted discontinuation of therapy occurred in two patients in group II.

CONCLUSION

Seven-day triple therapy with esomeprazole, levofloxacin and either amoxicillin or clarithromycin for seven days is very effective and safe for H. pylori eradication. The combination with amoxicillin seems to be better tolerated than the combination with clarithromycin.

Peptic ulcer bleeding following therapeutic endoscopy: a new indication for intravenous esomeprazole

Intravenous (IV) administration of the esomeprazole is a faster way to achieve gastric acid suppression than oral administration of the same agent. Peak suppression following IV administration occurs within hours compared with several days following oral administration. Thus, the IV administration route offers a faster onset of gastric suppression, achievement of intragastric pH closer to target levels, and better bioavailability. Treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding is the newest indication for the IV formulation of esomeprazole. The drug is effective in preventing rebleeds following endoscopic treatment when administered within 24 hours of the procedure as an 80-mg bolus followed by an IV infusion for 72 hours. What remains to be seen is whether oral therapy can be substituted for all, or part, of the 72-hour IV infusion and whether the patient can be discharged from the hospital sooner with similar outcomes.

The effectiveness of esomeprazole 40 mg in patients with persistent symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease following treatment with a full dose proton pump inhibitor

BACKGROUND

Some patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) remain symptomatic despite proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment. There is a need to determine the most appropriate management of these patients.

AIMS

To assess the effectiveness of esomeprazole 40 mg in GORD symptoms persisting in patients receiving a full daily dose PPI.

METHODS

In this multi-centre open label study patients who had received full daily dose PPI for 8 weeks, but were still experiencing persistent GORD symptoms, were treated with esomeprazole 40 mg for 8 weeks (n = 99). The primary outcome variable was the change in the frequency of heartburn. Patient-reported outcomes were also assessed using the Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ) and the GORD Impact Scale (GIS).

RESULTS

The mean frequency of heartburn was reduced by 78% from 4.4 days a week to 1 day a week at the end of the 8-week treatment period (p < 0.0001). Other GORD symptoms were also significantly reduced following of treatment with esomeprazole (all p < 0.0001). All RDQ dimensions and the level of symptom control as measured by the GIS also showed significant improvement at 8 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with persistent GORD symptoms despite full dose daily PPI therapy, esomeprazole 40 mg significantly improved the frequency and severity of all GORD symptoms.

Effect of acid suppression on gastric myoelectrical activity in GERD

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The study aimed to investigate whether acid suppression influences gastric myoelectrical activity in patients with reflux disease.

METHODOLOGY

Twenty-eight patients with erosive esophagitis underwent electrogastrography. All patients were studied before and after esomeprazole. Subjects were divided into mild or moderate esophagitis in order to determine any variation in response related to esophagitis severity.

RESULTS

The reflux symptom improved from 4.2 at baseline to 1.0 at week 8 (P < 0.001). A significant increase in postprandial gastric 3 cycle per minute (normal) activity was observed at week 8 (P < 0.05). There was also significantly increased postprandial gastric 3 cycle per minute (normal) activity in moderate esophagitis (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of acid suppression on gastric myoelectrical activity is subtle with an enhancement in normal gastric myoelectrical activity. The myoelectrical response to acid suppression appears to be associated with esophagitis severity.

High-dose versus low-dose esomeprazole-based triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND

This prospective, randomized, controlled study was conducted to compare the efficacies of high-dose and low-dose esomeprazole-based triple therapies for Helicobacter pylori eradication in Taiwan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2004 to June 2006, 240 H. pylori-infected patients were randomly assigned to undergo high-dose (40 mg b.d.) or low-dose (40 mg o.d.) esomeprazole combined with clarithromycin (500 mg b.d.) and amoxicillin (1 g b.d.) for one week. Follow-up endoscopy was performed at eight weeks after the end of treatment to evaluate the response to therapy.

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated no differences between eradication rates of high-dose and low-dose groups (92% vs. 90%, respectively, P > 0.05). Per-protocol analysis yielded comparable results (95% vs. 93%). Both groups exhibited similar frequencies of adverse events (13% vs. 11%) and drug compliance (96% vs. 93%). Multivariate analysis indicated that only good compliance (odds ratio: 10.3, 95% CI, 3.0-35.7) was an independent predictor of treatment success.

CONCLUSIONS

This work demonstrates that low-dose esomeprazole-based triple therapy yields a similar eradication rate as high-dose esomeprazole-based therapy in Taiwan. Since the cost of the low-dose regime is lower than that of the high-dose regime, low-dose esomeprazole-based triple therapy can reasonably be recommended for the first-line eradication of H. pylori for Taiwanese and probably most Asians.

Randomized-controlled trial of esomeprazole in functional dyspepsia patients with epigastric pain or burning: does a 1-week trial of acid suppression predict symptom response?

BACKGROUND

Early identification of true responders to acid suppression in functional dyspepsia patients with symptoms of epigastric pain or burning may enable clinicians to optimally tailor treatment.

AIM

To evaluate whether a 1-w acid suppression trial is useful for identifying true responders in this population.

METHODS

Patients (18-70 years) were randomized to either esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s., b.d. or placebo for 1w, and then esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s. or placebo for 7w. Epigastric pain and/or burning were recorded on a 4-point scale (0 = none, 3 = severe). Trial-week response was defined as symptom score sum < or = 1 on last 3d of therapy; response at 8w was symptom score sum < or = 1 over preceding 7d.

RESULTS

1-w response rates were 33% (199 of 597), 29% (188 of 629) and 23% (71 of 315) with esomeprazole q.d.s., esomeprazole b.d. and placebo, respectively (P = 0.002 for esomeprazole groups vs. placebo). At 8w, trial week sensitivity and specificity were 46% and 80%, respectively, for esomeprazole (40 or 80 mg), and 33% and 87%, respectively, for placebo. The positive and negative predictive values for esomeprazole were 60% and 69%.

CONCLUSION

Response to a 1-w acid suppression trial is of limited use for predicting symptom response at 8w in patients with unexplained epigastric pain or burning.

One-week acid suppression trial in uninvestigated dyspepsia patients with epigastric pain or burning to predict response to 8 weeks' treatment with esomeprazole: a randomized, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

While empiric acid-suppressive therapy for uninvestigated dyspepsia patients with symptoms of epigastric pain or burning is standard practice, it is unknown whether an early response to therapy predicts outcome.

AIM

To evaluate whether a 1-w acid suppression trial is effective for predicting 8-w response in such patients.

METHODS

Helicobacter pylori-negative patients (aged 18-50 years) in primary care with uninvestigated epigastric pain or burning were randomized to esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s. or b.d. for 1w, followed by esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s. or placebo for 7w. Each day, patients rated the severity of their symptoms.

RESULTS

Based on the last 3d, 1-w response rates were 39% (231 of 588) and 43% (258 of 596) with esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s. and b.d., respectively. Based on the last 7d, response rates at 4w were 38% (283 of 738) and 25% (93 of 380) for esomeprazole and placebo, respectively, and 47% (339 of 716) and 34% (124 of 368), respectively, at 8w (both P < 0.001 vs. placebo). The sensitivity and specificity of esomeprazole treatment were 58% and 70%, respectively, at 8w.

CONCLUSION

A 1-w acid suppression trial is of limited clinical value for predicting 8-w response in patients with symptoms of epigastric pain or burning. Esomeprazole provides greater symptom control than placebo at 4w and 8w.

Pantoprazole 40 mg is as effective as esomeprazole 40 mg to relieve symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease after 4 weeks of treatment and superior regarding the prevention of symptomatic relapse

BACKGROUND/AIM

Little is known about the symptom course during and after treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Here we address this question in patients with erosive GERD treated with pantoprazole or esomeprazole 40 mg once daily using the validated reflux questionnaire ReQuest.

METHODS

Of 585 patients enrolled, 561 (intention-to-treat; ITT) patients with endoscopically confirmed GERD grades A-D (Los Angeles Classification) were randomized. To assess the GERD symptomatology, the patients completed the ReQuest daily, and analysis was done prior to (7 days), during (28 days), and after treatment (7 days). The mean scores (last 3 treatment days) of the subscale ReQuest-GI (gastrointestinal complaints) were compared between both groups. After the end of treatment, the number of symptom episodes and the rate of relapses were calculated.

RESULTS

Noninferiority of pantoprazole versus esomeprazole during treatment was shown (mean ReQuest-GI score). During the posttreatment period, the proportion of patients experiencing a symptomatic relapse (51 vs. 61%, p = 0.0216, ITT) and the number of symptom episodes (0.56 vs. 0.74, p = 0.0095, ITT) were significantly lower on pantoprazole than on esomeprazole.

CONCLUSIONS

Pantoprazole 40 mg was at least as effective as esomeprazole 40 mg for relieving GERD symptoms. During the posttreatment phase, patients on pantoprazole had a significantly lower risk to relapse and experienced significantly fewer symptom episodes.

Diagnostic value of the Reflux Disease Questionnaire in general practice

OBJECTIVES

This study determined the diagnostic and therapeutic response of the Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ) using the symptom association probability (SAP) as reference. In addition, the RDQ's construct validity and its relationship to quality of life (QOL) were ascertained.

METHODS

Seventy-four patients with GORD symptoms (age 51 years (22-78); male 62%) derived from primary care completed the RDQ, GSRS and QOLRAD before and after a 2 weeks' course of esomeprazole 40 mg daily. The SAP was determined by a 24-hour pH recording before PPI treatment. The diagnostic abilities of the RDQ (total and 4 dimensions scores) were assessed with the area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver operating curve. RDQ scores before and after PPI treatment were compared with Wilcoxon tests. Multiple linear regressions assessed the RDQ's construct validity (GSRS) and relationship to QOL (QOLRAD).

RESULTS

The AUCs were low for all RDQ dimensions (AUC <0.6). In the SAP-positive patients all RDQ dimensions improved (p < 0.0001) while the scores of the SAP negatives did not (heartburn p < 0.01; GORD and total score p < 0.05; regurgitation and dyspepsia n.s.). The RDQ was related to the total and reflux GSRS dimensions while the food and drink QOL dimension was linearly associated with the RDQ.

CONCLUSIONS

The RDQ is a valid and reliable questionnaire with excellent construct validity and a good relationship to QOL. The diagnostic value of the RDQ in primary care is limited, but combination with an additional PPI treatment course might improve the RDQ's ability to discriminate GORD patients according to their SAP outcome.

A new esomeprazole packet (sachet) formulation for suspension: in vitro characteristics and comparative pharmacokinetics versus intact capsules/tablets in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

A packet (sachet) formulation of esomeprazole for suspension has been developed for use in patients who have difficulty swallowing.

OBJECTIVES

This article reports the in vitro characteristics of the new esomeprazole formulation, including stability in suspension and suitability for administration orally or via enteral tubes. It also describes the pharmacokinetic profile of the esomeprazole 40-mg packet compared with that of existing solid dosage forms (capsules and tablets) in a clinical bioequivalence study.

METHODS

The stability in suspension of the packet formulation was assessed after reconstitution at various strengths (2.5, 10, and 40 mg) and a different pH (3.4-5.0) in strength-appropriate volumes of water held at temperatures ranging from 5 degrees C to 37 degrees C for up to 60 minutes. Suitability for oral administration was examined in terms of reconstitution time and the actual dose delivered after simulated oral administration, as well as in terms of the actual dose delivered by enteral tubes ranging in diameter from 6 to 20 Fr. Chemical stability and suspension characteristics were also analyzed using alternative reconstitution vehicles (applesauce, apple juice, and orange juice). The comparative pharmacokinetics of the packet, capsule, and tablet formulations of esomeprazole were evaluated in a randomized, open-label, 3-way crossover study in healthy volunteers, who received single 40-mg doses of each formulation. Bioequivalence was assumed if the 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric mean AUC and CmaX were between 0.80 and 1.25. Reversephase liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection was used to assess the esomeprazole content and/or degradation products of esomeprazole in the tests for in-suspension stability, dose delivery, and acid resistance. Normal-phase liquid chromatography was used to assess the esomeprazole content of the plasma samples in the bioequivalence study.

RESULTS

At the pH and temperature ranges investigated, the packet formulation was stable for up to 60 minutes after reconstitution. Chemical degradation was low (<0.1%) for all reconstitution vehicles investigated. Reconstitution time was 2 minutes with water and 9 to 10 minutes with apple or orange juice. Dose delivery was >/=98% after simulated oral administration and was generally >/=96% after administration via enteral tubes. Ninety-six healthy volunteers (56 women, 40 men; mean age, 24.9 years; mean weight, 68.9 kg) participated in the randomized, crossover, comparative pharmacokinetic study of the packet and capsule/tablet formulations. The estimated ratios of the geometric mean AUC and C(max) for the packet:capsule and packet: tablet formulations were 0.98 (90% CI, 0.93-1.03) and 0.99 (90% CI, 0.94-1.04), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In these analyses, the packet (sachet) formulation of esomeprazole was chemically stable in suspension and when administered orally and via enteral tubes. The formulation had a short reconstitution time, remaining fully dispersed in water for at least 30 minutes, and was dispersed in applesauce, apple juice, or orange juice without compromising its stability or dispersion characteristics. The packet formulation met the regulatory definition for bioequivalence to the tablet and capsule formulations.

Pantoprazole 40 mg is as effective as esomeprazole 40 mg to relieve symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease after 4 weeks of treatment and superior regarding the prevention of symptomatic relapse

BACKGROUND/AIM

Little is known about the symptom course during and after treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Here we address this question in patients with erosive GERD treated with pantoprazole or esomeprazole 40 mg once daily using the validated reflux questionnaire ReQuest.

METHODS

Of 585 patients enrolled, 561 (intention-to-treat; ITT) patients with endoscopically confirmed GERD grades A-D (Los Angeles Classification) were randomized. To assess the GERD symptomatology, the patients completed the ReQuest daily, and analysis was done prior to (7 days), during (28 days), and after treatment (7 days). The mean scores (last 3 treatment days) of the subscale ReQuest(TM)-GI (gastrointestinal complaints) were compared between both groups. After the end of treatment, the number of symptom episodes and the rate of relapses were calculated.

RESULTS

Noninferiority of pantoprazole versus esomeprazole during treatment was shown (mean ReQuest-GI score). During the posttreatment period, the proportion of patients experiencing a symptomatic relapse (51 vs. 61%, p = 0.0216, ITT) and the number of symptom episodes (0.56 vs. 0.74, p = 0.0095, ITT) were significantly lower on pantoprazole than on esomeprazole.

CONCLUSIONS

Pantoprazole 40 mg was at least as effective as esomeprazole 40 mg for relieving GERD symptoms. During the posttreatment phase, patients on pantoprazole had a significantly lower risk to relapse and experienced significantly fewer symptom episodes.

Novel measurement of rapid treatment success with ReQuest: first and sustained symptom relief as outcome parameters in patients with endoscopy-negative GERD receiving 20 mg pantoprazole or 20 mg esomeprazole

BACKGROUND/AIMS

A prime concern for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients is fast symptom control. Sparse valid information is available on the rapidity of the effect of proton pump inhibitors in providing symptom relief. The new reflux questionnaire ReQuest is validated for daily assessment of changes in GERD symptoms. Therefore, this study investigated the efficacy of 20 mg pantoprazole and 20 mg esomeprazole with regard to the time to symptom relief in patients with endoscopy-negative GERD (enGERD) using ReQuest.

METHODS

529 patients were treated with pantoprazole or esomeprazole over 4 weeks. ReQuest symptom scores were assessed daily. The mean and median times to first and sustained symptom relief were determined.

RESULTS

Median time to first symptom relief was 2 days for both drugs (intention-to-treat population). The median time to sustained symptom relief was 3 days shorter with pantoprazole (10.0 vs. 13.0 days). The Hodges-Lehmann estimator for the difference in time to reach first and sustained symptom relief between both groups was 0.00 days. For both variables the one-sided 95% CI (Moses) was [0.00; infinity[, documenting no significant differences between the treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The rapidity of symptom control can be evaluated by clinically significant parameters using ReQuest. Pantoprazole and esomeprazole are equally effective in the time to first and sustained symptom relief.

[Different courses of esomeprazole-based triple therapy for Helicobactor pylori infection in children]

OBJECTIVE

To study the efficacy of esomeprazole-based 1 week or 2 weeks triple therapy for Helicobactor pylori (H. pylori) infection in children.

METHODS

One hundred and five children with H. pylori infection identified by 13C-UBT were randomly assigned into Group A (n=60) and Group B (n=45). The patients of the two groups were administered with 1 week or 2 weeks triple therapy consisting of esomeprazole, clarithromycin and amoxillin, respectively. They were followed up four weeks after drug withdrawal.

RESULTS

Recurrent abdominal pain was relieved in all of patients. Fifty-five patients (91.7%) showed 13C-UBT negative in Group A and 42 (93.3%) presented negative in Group B. There was no significant difference in the eradication rate of H. pylori.

CONCLUSIONS

Esomeprazole-based triple therapy for H. pylori infection is effective in children. The efficacy of esomeprazole-based 1 week or 2 weeks triple therapy for this disorder does not appear to be different.

Maintenance treatment with esomeprazole following initial relief of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms: the NASA2 and SPACE2 studies

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, cause upper gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms that are relieved by treatment with esomeprazole. We assessed esomeprazole for maintaining long-term relief of such symptoms. Six hundred and ten patients with a chronic condition requiring anti-inflammatory therapy who achieved relief of NSAID-associated symptoms of pain, discomfort, or burning in the upper abdomen during two previous studies were enrolled and randomly assigned into two identical, multicentre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled studies of esomeprazole 20 mg or 40 mg treatment (NASA2 [Nexium Anti-inflammatory Symptom Amelioration] and SPACE2 [Symptom Prevention by Acid Control with Esomeprazole] studies; ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT00241514 and NCT00241553, respectively) performed at various rheumatology, gastroenterology, and primary care clinics. Four hundred and twenty-six patients completed the 6-month treatment period. The primary measure was the proportion of patients with relapse of upper GI symptoms, recorded in daily diary cards, after 6 months. Relapse was defined as moderate-to-severe upper GI symptoms (a score of more than or equal to 3 on a 7-grade scale) for 3 days or more in any 7-day period. Esomeprazole was significantly more effective than placebo in maintaining relief of upper GI symptoms throughout 6 months of treatment. Life-table estimates (95% confidence intervals) of the proportion of patients with relapse at 6 months (pooled population) were placebo, 39.1% (32.2% to 46.0%); esomeprazole 20 mg, 29.3% (22.3% to 36.2%) (p = 0.006 versus placebo); and esomeprazole 40 mg, 26.1% (19.4% to 32.9%) (p = 0.001 versus placebo). Patients on either non-selective NSAIDs or selective COX-2 inhibitors appeared to benefit. The frequency of adverse events was similar in the three groups. Esomeprazole maintains relief of NSAID-associated upper GI symptoms in patients taking continuous NSAIDs, including selective COX-2 inhibitors.

Effect of timing of dosing in relation to food intake on the pharmacokinetics of esomeprazole

AIM

To investigate the pharmacokinetics of esomeprazole before a high-fat meal vs. fasting.

METHODS

This open-label, randomized, crossover study consisted of two 5-day dosing periods of esomeprazole 40 mg per day. On days 1 and 5, subjects received esomeprazole 15 min before a high-fat meal (fed) or 4 h before a non-high-fat meal (fasting).

RESULTS

On days 1 and 5, ratio of fed to fasting area under the plasma concentration-time curve [0.56, 90% confidence interval (CI) 0.50, 0.64, and 0.78, 90% CI 0.74, 0.82, respectively] and peak plasma concentration (0.34, 90% CI 0.28, 0.41, and 0.47, 90% CI 0.41, 0.52, respectively) were outside of the limits of bioequivalence.

CONCLUSIONS

Esomeprazole bioavailability was reduced when taken within 15 min before eating a high-fat meal vs. that while fasting.

Tegaserod for dyspepsia and reflux symptoms in patients with chronic constipation: an exploratory open-label study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the potential role of tegaserod in the management of functional dyspepsia (FD) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in patients with chronic constipation and to determine the possible efficacy of tegaserod on solid-phase gastric emptying and gastric hypersensitivity.

METHOD

This was an exploratory open-label trial of tegaserod therapy for dyspepsia and reflux symptoms in patients with chronic constipation. The study cohort consisted of 90 patients randomized to three treatment groups for a study period of 4 weeks (tegaserod 6 mg, twice daily; esomeprazole 40 mg, once daily; tegaserod 6 mg, twice daily plus esomeprazole 40 mg, once daily). Twenty healthy volunteers provided control values. Clinical symptoms were evaluated by one of the investigators using a Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS). Solid-phase gastric emptying and colonic transit were measured by the radiopaque barium marker method, and the water load test (WLT) was used to evaluate gastric sensation and the function of proximal stomach. The proportions of patients with complete relief of epigastric pain /discomfort, epigastric fullness, early satiety and heartburn in the tegaserod group and the tegaserod plus esomeprazole group were compared with the esomeprazole group, respectively.

RESULTS

The mean global gastrointestinal (GI) scores of all three treatment groups reported using the GSRS showed the same trend, with decreasing scores over the 4-week study period indicating a reported decreasing severity of symptoms that was significantly different from baseline values. Patients in the tegaserod plus esomeprazole group reported the lowest global GI scores after 4 weeks, as expected. Solid-phase gastric emptying (GER) and colonic transit (CTT) increased significantly in the tegaserod 6 mg twice daily group compared with baseline. These parameters did not change in the esomeprazole group at week 4 compared with baseline. In terms of gastric sensation, in the tegaserod group, the proportions of patients with hypersensitivity of the first perception threshold did not change at week 2 or week 4 compared with baseline; however, in this group and in the tegaserod plus esomeprazole group, the proportions of patients with hypersensitivity of discomfort threshold decreased significantly at week 4 compared with baseline. In the esomeprazole group, there were no changes in the proportions of patients with hypersensitivity of the first perception threshold and discomfort threshold at week 2 or 4 compared with baseline. No severe adverse events were recorded, and the medications were in general well-tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Tegaserod is effective and safe at improving dyspepsia and reflux symptoms in patients with chronic constipation, and tegaserod plus esomeprazole is superior to esomeprazole alone in the resolution of epigastric pain/discomfort and heartburn.

Therapiekontrolle bei laryngopharyngealem Reflux durch wiederholte 2-Kanal-pH-Metrie

OBJECTIVES

The most effective current treatment option for patients suffering from laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Compared to other PPIs, esomeprazole seems to provide best 24-h control of intragastric acid. However, some patients remain resistant to medical acid suppression with PPIs. The aim of this investigation was to identify the number of non-responders among patients suffering from LPR being treated by esomeprazole 40 mg once daily (officially approved maximum dosage).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between June 2004 and January 2006, 27 patients suffering from LPR diagnosed by dual-probe pH monitoring were treated with esomeprazole 40 mg once daily. After 13-54 days (mean 28 days) while still under PPI-treatment, the 24-h pH-study was repeated in order to control the effectiveness of therapy. Patients with at least a reduction of the reflux area index (RAI) compared to the result before treatment were categorized as responders. Furthermore, the number of patients with a measurable reduction of proximal reflux episodes under PPI-treatment was quantified.

RESULTS

Repeated pH monitoring during PPI therapy revealed a reduction of the RAI in 22 of 27 patients. Five patients, however, showed a higher RAI despite medical treatment (19%). In 13 patients (48%), treatment with 40 mg esomeprazole once daily reduced the RAI to a normal value (<6.3). In 18 of 27 patients, the number of proximal reflux episodes has decreased (67%).

CONCLUSION

In a number of patients suffering from LPR, treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg once daily did not provide any measurable proximal acid reduction. Repeated pH monitoring during treatment is an adequate diagnostic tool to control the therapeutic effect of PPIs objectively and to identify non-responders at an early point.

Pharmacokinetic properties of esomeprazole in children aged 1 to 11 years with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized, open-label study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the overall exposure, other pharmacokinetic (PK) properties, and tolerability of esomeprazole magnesium after repeated oral doses of 5, 10, and 20 mg in pediatric patients who had symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

This randomized, open-label study was conducted at West Coast Clinical Trials, Long Beach, California. Boys and girls aged 1 to 11 years who had a clinical diagnosis of GERD were included and stratified by age (1-5 years [younger group] and 6-11 years [older group]). For this 5-day study, children in the younger group were randomly assigned to receive 1 esomeprazole 5- or 10-mg capsule p.o. QD, and those in the older group were randomly assigned to receive 1 esomeprazole 10- or 20-mg capsule p.o. QD. On days 1 to 4, study medications were administered with the supervision of the study personnel 1 hour before breakfast. Blood samples were collected within 0.5 hour before and 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 hours after study drug administration on day 5. Plasma concentrations of esomeprazole were measured using reverse-phase liquid chromatography and mass-spectrometric detection. Tolerability assessments were performed by reviewing the number and severity of adverse events (collected via spontaneous reporting and direct questioning) and findings from the physical examination, which included vital-sign measurements and laboratory analysis (hematology, biochemistry, and urinalysis). Site personnel supervised the administration of the study drug to ensure compliance with treatment.

RESULTS

The study included 31 children (17 boys, 14 girls; mean age, 5 years; 18 children in the younger group, 13 in the older group). A total of 27 children were included in the PK analysis. In the younger group, the geometric mean AUC(0-infinity) and Cmax values in the esomeprazole 10-mg group were >2-fold that in the 5-mg group (AUC(0-infinity), 4.83 and 0.74 pmol x h/L [0.32 and 0.04 micromol x h x L(-1)/kg], respectively; Cmax, 2.98 and 0.62 micromol/L [0.19 and 0.03 micromol/L x kg(-1)], respectively). In the older group, the geometric mean AUC(0-infinity) and Cmax values for the 20-mg dose group were approximately 2-fold those for the 10-mg dose group (AUC(0-infinity), 6.28 and 3.70 micromol x h/L [0.21 and 0.12 pmol x h x L(-1)/kg], respectively; Cmax, 3.73 and 1.77 micromol/L [0.13 and 0.06 micromol/L x kg 1], respectively). For the 10-mg esomeprazole dose, the geometric mean body-weight-normalized apparent oral clearance was approximately 50% higher in the younger group compared with the older group (0.40 and 0.25 L/h x kg(-1), respectively). Thirty patients were included in the tolerability analysis. The adverse events that occurred were skin excoriation, discolored feces, and skin laceration (1 [3.3%] patient each); none were considered related to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this small study suggest that, in children aged 1 to 11 years who had GERD, the PK properties of esomeprazole may be both dose and age dependent and that younger children might have a more rapid metabolism of esomeprazole per kilogram of body weight compared with older children. Esomeprazole was well tolerated at doses of 5, 10, and 20 mg in the pediatric patients studied.

Acidic and Non-Acidic Reflux During Sleep Under Conditions of Powerful Acid Suppression

BACKGROUND

During sleep, individuals are uniquely vulnerable to acid reflux. Acid reflux during sleep has been studied by a number of investigators, but non-acid reflux is largely unexplored.

METHODS

In this study, 15 individuals with significant subjective complaints of heartburn were treated with esomeprazole, 40 mg bid, and with placebo, in random order, for 1 week each. After 1 week of treatment, participants underwent combined impedence/pH monitoring and polysomnography. In both drug and placebo conditions, these procedures were done after participants consumed a meal designed to increase the likelihood of reflux events.

RESULTS

Total reflux events and acid reflux events were significantly decreased with proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment as compared to placebo. Nonacid reflux events were more common with PPI treatment as compared to placebo, but this result was not statistically significant. The ratio of non-acidic to acidic events was significantly greater with PPI treatment, however. Similar results were found for reflux events that occurred only during sleep. Proximal migration of acidic vs non-acidic reflux events was found to be similar. There was no difference in sleep architecture between placebo and drug conditions.

CONCLUSION

PPI treatment reduced overall reflux events, but non-acidic reflux events were relatively more likely to occur with PPI treatment. The occurrence of these non-acidic reflux events on PPI might conceivably explain why some individuals continue to have symptoms after PPI treatment.

Acid control with esomeprazole and lansoprazole: a comparative dose-response study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the level of acid control and the dose-response relationships achieved with esomeprazole and lansoprazole. These data are relevant in helping clinicians to decide on whether to increase a proton-pump inhibitor dose, or whether to switch to an alterative drug for increased acid control.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In an open-label, single-centre, randomized, six-way crossover study, 40 healthy subjects received esomeprazole 20, 40 and 80 mg, and lansoprazole 15, 30 and 60 mg once daily for 5 days. The mean time with intragastric pH >4 and mean 24-h median intragastric pH on day 5 were analyzed using a mixed-model ANOVA. Post-hoc analyses were completed for 0-12-h (daytime) and 12-24-h (night-time) post-dose intervals.

RESULTS

Increasing the dose of esomeprazole from 20 mg to 40 mg resulted in significantly improved acid control over 0-12, 12-24 and 0-24 h post-dose (p<0.001), but no significant improvement in acid control for either period was seen when further increasing the dose to 80 mg. Increasing the dose of lansoprazole from 15 mg to 30 mg or from 30 mg to 60 mg significantly improved acid control over 0-12 and 0-24 h (p<0.01) but not over 12-24 h. With the exception of the esomeprazole 20 mg versus lansoprazole 30 mg comparisons, and the esomeprazole 20 mg versus lansoprazole 15 mg during 12-24 h post-dose comparison, esomeprazole provided significantly greater acid control than lansoprazole at each dose level over 0-12, 12-24 and 0-24 h (p<0.05). Mean 24-h median intragastric pH was higher following esomeprazole dosing compared with lansoprazole at each dose level.

CONCLUSIONS

For low-, standard- and double-dose comparisons, esomeprazole achieved greater elevation of gastric pH and better acid control in more subjects than lansoprazole. Use of esomeprazole may therefore reduce the need for dose adaptations or drug switching.

[Efficiency and safety of the intravenous application of esomeprazole (nexium - Astra Zeneca) in high risk patients subjected to mechanic ventilation]

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the research was to determine the effectivity and the safety of the intravenous application of Esomeprazole (Nexium - Astra Zeneca) like prevention of the development of stress-ulcers of the gastric mucous with high risk patients at ICU with mechanic ventilation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

47 patients subjected to mechanic ventilation over 48 hours with availability of just one more risk factor for development of stress-ulcers of gastric musous were included in the study. Samples of gastric juice for determination of the acidity and presence of fresh erythrocytes and microbiological cultures from gastric contents, wash away of the mouth cavity and tracheal aspiration were tested on the 1st, the 3rd and the 5th day from the start of the treatment. At the end of the therapy there has been determinated the outcome - survivor or died and total quantity of the haemotransfusions.

RESULTS

The acidity of the gastric juice changed in the range over pH 5 during the 24 hours by the application of esomeprazole. Fibrogastroscopic examinations were performed of patients who were found to have fresh erythrocytes in the gastric contents. No one was registered with bleeding of the gastric mucous. The isolated microorganisms of the gastric juice and wash away of mouth cavity were identical with those of tracheobronchial aspiration in about 13 %.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study the application of esomeprazole i.v. was effective and safe approach for profilaxy of the stress-ulcers and the bleeding of the gastric mucous. Comparative studies with H2-blockers and sucralfat are necessary for clarifying and objectifying the significance of the microbiologic isolates of the gastric contents and wash away from mouth cavity and their relation to the development of nosocomial pneumonia.

Effect of oral esomeprazole on recurrent bleeding after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers

BACKGROUND

After endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer, a high-dose infusion of omeprazole substantially reduces the risk of recurrent bleeding. The role of oral proton pump inhibitors for these patients is uncertain. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether the use of oral esomeprazole would reduce the frequency of recurrent bleeding after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers.

METHODS

Patients with actively bleeding ulcers or ulcers with non-bleeding visible vessels were treated with an epinephrine injection followed by thermocoagulation. After hemostasis had been achieved, they were randomly assigned in a double-blind fashion to receive esomeprazole (40 mg p.o. twice daily for 3 days) or placebo. The outcome measures studied were recurrent bleeding, blood transfusion requirement, surgery and death.

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients were enrolled, 35 in each group. Bleeding recurred within 30 days in two patients (5.7%) in the esomeprazole group, as compared with three (8.6%) in the placebo group (P = 0.999). Blood transfusion requirement was 2.8 +/- 1.4 units in the esomeprazole group and 2.7 +/- 1.3 units in the placebo group (P = 0.761). Duration of hospitalization was 4.82 +/- 1.8 days in the esomeprazole group and 4.58 +/- 2.7 days in the placebo group (P = 0.792). No patients needed surgery for control of bleeding and no patients died in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

After successful endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer, oral use of esomeprazole might offer no additional benefit on the risk of recurrent bleeding.

Bioequivalence study of a sustained release fixed dose combination capsule containing esomeprazole and domperidone in healthy subjects

OBJECTIVE

The study was designed to determine the relative bioavailability of two sustained release fixed dose combination (FDC) products of two manufacturers containing esomeprazole (CAS 326602-80-6) 40 mg and domperidone (CAS 57808-66-9) 30 mg in 24 healthy male volunteers. The pharmacokinetics of esomeprazole and domperidone individually after oral administration of tablet formulation has been extensively evaluated in adult volunteers. However, no published data are available regarding the combined pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of this particular FDC.

METHOD

The study was designed as a randomized, balanced, open-label, 2-period cross-over study. Each subject was randomized at the beginning of the study to receive either a single dose of the Test FDC or Reference FDC during Period I. Following a 7-day wash-out period, all subjects received the alternate formulation during Period II.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were obtained between the two products with respect to the mean concentration-time profiles or in the pharmacokinetic parameters, including area under the serum concentration-time curve from the present study. The relative extent of absorption as assessed by the AUC ratio (Test/Reference) and C(max), the average value was found to be 1.00 +/- .09 with 90% confidence limits (C.L.) of 0.82-1.18.

CONCLUSION

These findings clearly indicate that the two products are bioequivalent in terms of rate and extent of drug absorption. Both preparations were well tolerated with no adverse reactions throughout the study.