Effects of calcitriol on bone mineral density in patients treated with esomeprazole

CONTEXT

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) increases the risk of decrease in bone mineral density (BMD). However, whether calcitrol improves this situation is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The current study investigates the effects of calcitriol on BMD in patients with esomeprazole therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three hundred and eighty-six participants with gastrointestinal ulcerations were enrolled and randomly assigned into controlled and supplemented groups. Participants in the controlled group were prescribed esomeprazole (20 mg/qd), while the supplemented group was prescribed esomeprazole (20 mg/qd) and calcitriol (2.5 μg/qd). BMD, serum levels of calcium, carboxy-terminal collagen crosslinks (CTX), and alkaline-phosphatase (ALP) were assessed.

RESULTS

(1) No significant between-group difference of age, gender, smoking, previous glucocorticoid use and hemoglobin level was found; (2) after 10.6 ± 0.8 d of PPI therapy, BMD T score in the controlled group was slightly increased compared with initial (-1.25 ± 0.08 versus -1.28 ± 0.06, p = 0.084), while there was no change in the supplemented group (-1.25 ± 0.05 versus -1.26 ± 0.03, p = 0.308); (3) during study termination, calcium level in the supplemented group was slightly higher than the controlled group (2.05 ± 0.03 mmol/L versus 2.01 ± 0.05 mmol/L, p = 0.073), while no significant differences of CTX (366.57 ± 43.71 pg/mL versus 373.15 ± 50.23 pg/mL, p = 0.036) and ALP were found among these two groups (50.47 ± 9.32 U/L versus 52.23 ± 10.45 U/L, p = 0.075).

CONCLUSION

Patients with gastrointestinal ulcerations with esomeprazole therapy, calcitriol supplement showed no efficacy on BMD changes.

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.)