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.

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.

Helicobacter pylori infection: a randomized, controlled study comparing 2 rescue therapies after failure of standard triple therapies

Antibiotic resistance to amoxicillin in second-line eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection is much less frequent than resistance to metronidazole. We conducted a randomized, controlled study to compare the efficacies of standard quadruple rescue therapy and a new therapy with amoxicillin replacing metronidazole for patients failing first-line eradication treatment. We randomly assigned 120 patients who failed H. pylori eradication using a proton pump inhibitor plus clarithromycin and amoxicillin to undergo a 1-week rescue therapy with esomeprazole, bismuth subcitrate, and tetracycline plus either metronidazole (EBTM group, n = 62) or amoxicillin (EBTA group, n = 58). We used follow-up endoscopy 8 weeks after the end of treatment to assess the treatment response. We also examined and analyzed antibiotic resistances and CYP2C19 genotypes. Intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated that the EBTA group had a significantly lower eradication rate than the EBTM group (62% vs. 81%, respectively, p = 0.02). Per-protocol analysis showed similar results (64% vs. 83%, p = 0.01). However, the EBTA group had less frequency of adverse events than the EBTM group (19% vs. 44%, p < 0.01). Both groups had good drug compliance (both 97%). Antibiotic susceptibility tests showed that the frequency of amoxicillin-resistant strains was much less than that of metronidazole-resistant strains (0% vs. 54%, respectively), and there were no significant differences between H. pylori eradication rates and antibiotic resistances. In conclusion, EBTA quadruple therapy demonstrated a lower eradication rate than standard EBTM therapy in second-line rescue treatment. The discrepancy between in vitro antibiotic susceptibility and in vivo eradication response is probably due to drug interactions between combined antibiotics or some unknown causes, and should not be neglected in H. pylori therapy.

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.

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.

Hypomagnesaemia due to use of proton pump inhibitors--a review

Magnesium homeostasis is essential for many intracellular processes and depends on the balance of intestinal absorption and renal excretion. Hypomagnesaemia may arise from various disorders. We review the literature on hypomagnesaemia due to the use of proton pump inhibitors, as illustrated by a case of a 76-year-old woman with muscle cramps and lethargy caused by hypomagnesaemia and hypocalcaemia with a low parathyroid hormone level while using esomeprazole, a proton pump inhibitor (PPI). After oral magnesium repletion both abnormalities resolved. Fractional magnesium excretion was low, excluding excessive renal loss. A causal relation with PPI use was supported by the recurrence of hypomagnesaemia after rechallenge. In the past decade our understanding of transcellular magnesium transport was enhanced by the discovery of several gene mutations i.e. transient receptor potential melastin (TR PM) 6 and 7. In this light we discuss the possible aetiology of proton pump inhibitor related hypomagnesaemia.

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.)

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.

Clinical trial: healing of NSAID-associated gastric ulcers in patients continuing NSAID therapy - a randomized study comparing ranitidine with esomeprazole

BACKGROUND

The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) is associated with an increased risk of gastric ulcer (GU) development.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial compared endoscopic healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks after treatment with oral esomeprazole 40 or 20 mg once daily, or ranitidine 150 mg twice daily, in patients with 1 baseline GU > or = 5 mm but no GUs or duodenal ulcers >25 mm in diameter who received continued cyclooxygenase-2-selective or non-selective NSAID therapies. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients in each treatment group who had no GUs at week 8.

RESULTS

Four hundred and forty patients were randomized to treatment. At week 8, GU healing rates (95% CI) with esomeprazole 40 mg, esomeprazole 20 mg and ranitidine were 85.7 (79.8-91.7)%, 84.8 (78.8-90.8)% and 76.3 (69.2-83.3)%, respectively; between-group differences were not statistically significant. Week-4 GU healing rates were 70.7 (62.9-78.4)% and 72.5 (65.0-79.9)% with esomeprazole 40 and 20 mg, respectively, and were significantly higher (P < 0.01 for both doses) than those with ranitidine [55.4 (47.1-63.7)%].

CONCLUSION

In patients who require continued NSAID therapy, GU healing rates at 8 weeks numerically favoured esomeprazole but were not significantly different from ranitidine.

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.

Esomeprazole: prevention and treatment of NSAID-induced symptoms and ulcers

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) represent one of the most widely used drug classes. However, many patients complain of dyspeptic symptoms impairing their quality of life: ~ 20% of patients taking NSAIDs show endoscopic ulcers with or without symptoms, and up to 2% of chronic NSAID users will develop serious complications each year, such as bleeding or perforation, which are the cause of death in many patients. Coprescription of a proton pump inhibitor is one established option for the healing and prevention of NSAID-associated lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract in patients at risk. Recent studies evaluated the clinical efficacy of esomeprazole in the management of gastrointestinal problems associated with the intake of selective and non-selective NSAIDs and aspirin.

Combination of a cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor and a proton-pump inhibitor for prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding in patients at very high risk: a double-blind, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Guidelines on pain management recommend that patients at risk of ulcers receive either a cyclo-oxygenase (COX 2) inhibitor or a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI). These two treatments have similar effectiveness, but they are insufficient for protection of patients at very high risk for ulcer bleeding. We aimed to test the hypothesis that in patients with previous ulcer bleeding induced by non-selective NSAIDs, combined treatment with the COX 2 inhibitor celecoxib and the PPI esomeprazole would be better than celecoxib alone for prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

441 consecutively presenting patients who were taking non-selective NSAIDs for arthritis were recruited to our single-centre, prospective, randomised, double-blind trial after admission to hospital with upper-gastrointestinal bleeding. Patients were enrolled after their ulcers had healed and a histological test for Helicobacter pylori was negative. All patients were given 200 mg celecoxib twice daily. 137 patients were randomly assigned to receive 20 mg esomeprazole twice daily (combined-treatment group), and 136 to receive a placebo (control group) for 12 months. The primary endpoint was recurrent ulcer bleeding during treatment or within 1 month of the end of treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00365313.

FINDINGS

Combination treatment was more effective than celecoxib alone for prevention of ulcer bleeding in patients at high risk. The 13-month cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint was 0% in the combined-treatment group and 12 (8.9%) in the controls (95% CI difference, 4.1 to 13.7; p=0.0004). The median follow-up was 13 months (range 0.4-13.0). Discontinuation of treatment and the incidence of adverse events were similar in the two treatment groups.

INTERPRETATION

Patients at very high risk for recurrent ulcer bleeding who need anti-inflammatory analgesics should receive combination treatment with a COX 2 inhibitor and a PPI. Our findings should encourage guideline committees to review their recommendations for patients at very high risk of recurrent ulcer bleeding.

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.

Efficacy of pantoprazole 20 mg daily compared with esomeprazole 20 mg daily in the maintenance of healed gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized, double-blind comparative trial - the EMANCIPATE study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of pantoprazole 20 mg once daily with that of esomeprazole 20 mg once daily for 6 months as maintenance therapy in patients with previously healed gastroesophageal reflux disease.

METHODS

In an initial open-label acute phase, outpatients with endoscopically confirmed gastroesophageal reflux disease (Los Angeles grades A-D) received pantoprazole 40 mg once daily for 4 or 8 weeks. Those healed (defined as the absence of esophagitis, and 'no' or 'mild' heartburn and acid regurgitation) were randomized in the double-blind manner for maintenance therapy with pantoprazole 20 mg once daily or esomeprazole 20 mg once daily for 6 months.

RESULTS

In the acute healing phase, 1452 patients were recruited to receive pantoprazole 40 mg once daily. Healing success was 91% (intent-to-treat analysis). A total of 1303 patients entered the maintenance phase of the study. Pantoprazole 20 mg once daily and esomeprazole 20 mg once daily were equally effective at maintaining patients in remission; 84 and 85% of pantoprazole and esomeprazole recipients remained in combined endoscopic and symptomatic remission at 6 months (intent-to-treat analysis). The confidence interval of the difference was (-5.7; +infinity), showing that pantoprazole is as effective as esomeprazole with a noninferiority margin of 5.8%. Combined endoscopic and symptomatic remission was independent of Helicobacter pylori status. Both treatments were well tolerated and safe.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with pantoprazole 20 mg once daily or esomeprazole 20 mg once daily provides similarly effective and well-tolerated maintenance of previously healed gastroesophageal reflux disease irrespective of baseline H. pylori status.

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.

Does esomeprazole prevent post-operative nausea and vomiting?

BACKGROUND

Esomeprazole is a potent proton pump inhibitor (PPI), reducing acid production as well as gastric juice volume. This study evaluated the possible beneficial effect of esomeprazole on reducing post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

METHODS

Patients undergoing laparoscopic or open gynaecological surgery, or laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to receive three peri-operative doses double blindly of either esomeprazole 40 mg or placebo, given intravenously or orally. All patients were given a standardized anaesthesia regimen including fentanyl and sevoflurane/nitrous oxide.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 284 patients. Demographic data and known PONV risk factors were similar for the two treatment groups. PONV was observed in 77% of patients on esomeprazole vs. 81% on placebo (NS) and rescue antiemetic medication was needed in 56% vs. 53%, respectively (NS). The proportion of patients that vomited during 0-24 h was lower on esomeprazole than placebo (38% vs. 49%; NS), and the mean amount of vomit was significantly lower (52 vs. 86 g; P < 0.05). The use of neostigmine, use of opioids and type of surgery were significant risk factors for PONV (P < 0.05). The 24-h incidence of PONV was 63% after laparoscopic gynaecology, 80% after laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 88% after open gynaecological laparotomy, whereas laparoscopic cholecystectomy had the lowest risk when corrected for other risk factors of PONV.

CONCLUSION

Esomeprazole had no clinically relevant effect on the overall 24-h incidence of PONV. However, esomeprazole significantly reduced the total amount of vomit during 24-h post-operatively. This may be of value in patients with an increased risk of pulmonary aspiration.

[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 intravenous esomeprazole 40 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg on intragastric pH in healthy subjects. A prospective, open, randomised, two-way cross-over comparative study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effect on intragastric acidity over 24 h on days 1 and 3 following treatment with intravenous (i.v.) esomeprazole 40 mg (CAS for esomeprazole sodium: 161796-78-7) and pantoprazole 40 mg (CAS for pantoprazole sodium: 138786-67-1).

METHODS

In an open, randomised, two-way cross-over study, 36 healthy volunteers received esomeprazole (Nexium) 40 mg or pantoprazole 40 mg, both administered once daily as an i.v. bolus injection for 3 consecutive days. Continuous 24-h pH recordings were made under standardised conditions at baseline and on days 1 and 3 of each treatment period. The primary variable was the percentage of time with intragastric pH > 4 during a 24-h period.

RESULTS

Time with intragastric pH > 4 was significantly greater with esomeprazole than with pantoprazole during the first 4 h (47.8% vs. 18.9%), as well as for the 24-h period of day 1 and day 3 (day 1: 38.8% vs. 23.7%; day 3:55.0% vs. 35.2%, p < 0.0001 for all times examined). Mean of median intragastric pH with esomeprazole was significantly higher than with pantoprazole during the 24-h period (day 1:3.2 vs. 2.2, p < 0.0001; day 3: 4.3 vs. 3.1, p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Esomeprazole administered as a 40 mg i.v. bolus injection provided faster and more effective control of intragastric acidity than a 40 mg i.v. bolus injection of pantoprazole, and also maintained pH > 4 longer both during the first 4 h on day 1 and during the 24-h period of day 1 and day 3 of dosing.

Intragastric acidity after switching from 5-day treatment with intravenous pantoprazole 40 mg/d to 5-day treatment with oral esomeprazole 40 mg/d or pantoprazole 40 mg/d: an open-label crossover study in healthy adult volunteers

BACKGROUND

After a course of IV proton pump inhibitor therapy, patients might require continued oral antisecretory therapy. A direct comparison of therapeutic alternatives could assist physicians in decisions regarding optimal acid-suppressive therapy. Oral esomeprazole might control intragastric acidity more effectively compared with other acid-suppressive agents after IV therapy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare intragastric acid control on day 5 of administration of esomeprazole magnesium versus pantoprazole 40 mg PO QD after switching from 5 days of treatment with pantoprazole 40 mg IV in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

This randomized, open-label, comparative, 2-way crossover study was conducted at the Oklahoma Foundation for Digestive Research, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, between October and December 2004. Healthy, Helicobacter pylori-negative adults were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 dosing sequences: pantoprazole IV followed by esomeprazole PO or pantoprazole IV followed by pantoprazole PO. All study medications were administered for 5 days at a dose of 40 mg QD. IV pantoprazole was administered over 2 minutes; all medications were administered 30 minutes before breakfast. There was a 10- to 21-day washout period between each 10-day dosing period. All doses were administered at the study site. Before oral study drug administration on days 1 and 5, 24-hour pH monitoring was performed using a pH catheter positioned 10 cm distal to the lower esophageal sphincter in the stomach. The primary end point was percentage of time with pH >4 (%t pH >4) during the 24-hour pH-monitoring period. Tolerability was assessed using spontaneous reporting, laboratory analysis, and vital-sign measurement.

RESULTS

Of 42 subjects randomized to treatment sequences, 4 were withdrawn during the study because of invalid pH data; 38 subjects (24 men, 14 women; mean [SD] age, 25.2 [8.1] years) had assessable data. Day-5 %t pH >4 was 68.5% with esomeprazole and 53.3% with pantoprazole (P < 0.001). Day-1 %t pH >4 was 62.5% with esomeprazole and 51.0% with pantoprazole (P < 0.001). The most common adverse events were rhinitis (2 subjects each with pantoprazole IV and PO; 1 subject with esomeprazole) and headache (2 subjects with esomeprazole; 1 subject with pantoprazole IV).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study in healthy adult volunteers suggest that switching from pantoprazole 40 mg IV to esomeprazole 40 mg PO QD more effectively suppresses intragastric acid compared with switching from pantoprazole 40 mg IV to pantoprazole 40 mg PO QD. All 3 treatments were well tolerated.