Treating the symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a double-blind comparison of omeprazole and cisapride

Esomeprazole: a review of its use in the management of acid-related disorders in the US

Esomeprazole, the S-isomer of omeprazole, is the first proton pump inhibitor to be developed as a single optical isomer. It provides better acid control than current racemic proton pump inhibitors and has a favourable pharmacokinetic profile relative to omeprazole. In large well designed 8-week trials in patients with erosive oesophagitis, esomeprazole recipients achieved significantly higher rates of endoscopically confirmed healed oesophagitis than those receiving omeprazole or lansoprazole. Esomeprazole was effective across all baseline grades of oesophagitis; notably, relative to lansoprazole, as the baseline severity of disease increased, the difference in rates of healed oesophagitis also increased in favour of esomeprazole. In two trials, 94% of patients receiving esomeprazole 40mg once daily achieved healed oesophagitis versus 84 to 87% of omeprazole recipients (20mg once daily). In a study in >5000 patients, respective healed oesophagitis rates with once-daily esomeprazole 40mg or lansoprazole 30mg were 92.6 and 88.8%. Resolution of heartburn was also significantly better with esomeprazole than with these racemic proton pump inhibitors. Long-term (up to 12 months) therapy with esomeprazole effectively maintained healed oesophagitis in these patients. Esomeprazole 20 or 40mg once daily for 4 weeks proved effective in patients with symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) without oesophagitis. Eradicating Helicobacter pylori infection is considered pivotal to successfully managing duodenal ulcer disease. Ten days' triple therapy (esomeprazole 40mg once daily, plus twice-daily amoxicillin 1g and clarithromycin 500mg) eradicated H. pylori in 77 to 78% of patients (intention-to-treat) with endoscopically confirmed duodenal ulcer disease. Esomeprazole is generally well tolerated, both as monotherapy and in combination with antimicrobial agents. The tolerability profile is similar to that of other proton pump inhibitors. Few patients discontinued therapy because of treatment-emergent adverse events (<3% of patients) and very few (<1%) drug-related serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Esomeprazole is an effective and well tolerated treatment for managing GORD and for eradicating H. pylori infection in patients with duodenal ulcer disease. In 8-week double-blind trials, esomeprazole effectively healed oesophagitis and resolved symptoms in patients with endoscopically confirmed erosive oesophagitis. Notably, in large (n >1900 patients) double-blind trials, esomeprazole provided significantly better efficacy than omeprazole or lansoprazole in terms of both healing rates and resolution of symptoms. Long-term therapy with esomeprazole effectively maintained healed oesophagitis in these patients. Esomeprazole was also effective in patients with symptomatic GORD. Thus, esomeprazole has emerged as an effective option for first-line therapy in the management of acid-related disorders.

Rabeprazole in nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Clinical results to date suggest that antisecretory therapy may be less effective in providing symptom relief for patients with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) than for patients with erosive disease. This study was carried out to assess the efficacy and rapidity of once-daily rabeprazole (10 mg or 20 mg) in relieving symptoms in endoscopically negative patients with moderately severe GERD symptoms and to evaluate the safety of these doses over 4 wk.

METHODS

This placebo-controlled, double blind study enrolled 203 men and women with moderately severe symptoms of GERD. After a 2-wk, single-blind placebo run-in phase, patients were randomized to receive 10 mg or 20 mg of rabeprazole or placebo once daily for 4 wk.

RESULTS

Rabeprazole rapidly and effectively relieved heartburn, with significant improvements on day 1 of dosing. It also improved most other GERD-related symptoms, including regurgitation, belching, bloating, early satiety, and nausea. Both rabeprazole doses were significantly superior to the placebo with respect to time to the first 24-h heartburn-free interval (2.5 and 4.5 days for 10 mg and 20 mg of rabeprazole, respectively, vs 21.5 days for the placebo) and first daytime or nighttime heartburn-free interval (1.5-3 days for rabeprazole groups vs 12.5-15 days for the placebo), as well as to percentage of time patients were heartburn-free and free of antacid use. Both rabeprazole doses were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these findings and prior studies, rabeprazole reliably relieves GI symptoms equally well in both nonerosive GERD and erosive GERD.

The clinical and economic impact of competing management strategies for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disorder in the primary care setting. Traditional management strategies consist of sequentially intensive therapeutic trials followed by invasive diagnostic testing for nonresponders. A high dose proton pump inhibitor trial (the "proton pump inhibitor test") has been shown to be an accurate diagnostic alternative, and may be an efficient initial approach to patients with GERD symptoms.

AIM

To examine the clinical, economic and policy implications of alternative management strategies for GERD.

METHODS

Decision analysis was used to calculate the clinical and economic outcomes of competing management strategies. The traditional strategy incorporates sequential therapeutic trials with more intensive therapy ("step-up" approach) followed by sequential invasive diagnostic testing of nonresponders. The "proton pump inhibitor test" strategy includes an initial "proton pump inhibitor test" (7 days of omeprazole; 40 mg AM + 20 mg PM daily) followed by less intensive therapeutic trials in those testing positive ("step-down" approach) with sequential invasive diagnostic testing as needed. Cost estimates were based on Medicare reimbursement and average wholesale drug prices. Probability estimates were derived from a systematic review of the published medical literature. Model results are reported as the average and incremental cost-per-symptom free patient and cost-per-quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained.

RESULTS

The average cost per patient was 1045 US dollars for the traditional step-up management strategy, compared to 1172 US dollars for the "proton pump inhibitor test" and step-down strategy. The percentage of patients who were symptom-free at 1 year was 50% for the traditional management strategy compared to 75% for the "proton pump inhibitor test" strategy. The "proton pump inhibitor test" strategy results in QALY gains of 0.01-0.05 depending on the utility estimate employed. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the "proton pump inhibitor test" strategy is 510 US dollars per additional symptomatic cure over 1 year, and between 2822-10,160 US dollars per QALY gained. The traditional management strategy resulted in a greater than 5-fold increase in the utilization of upper endoscopy, which was partially offset by a 47% reduction in the use of ambulatory 24-h oesophageal pH monitoring. The reduced effectiveness of the traditional management strategy may be attributed in part to a 118% increase in the use of "high-dose" H2RAs while reducing the use of standard dose proton pump inhibitors by only 42% and "high-dose" proton pump inhibitors by 57%.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this analysis, strategies utilizing the initial PPI test followed by a "step-down" approach may result in improved symptom relief and quality of life over 1 year, and more appropriate utilization of invasive diagnostic testing at a small marginal increase in total costs. These findings warrant a prospective trial comparing these competing management strategies.

Health-Related quality-of-life and quality-days incrementally gained in symptomatic nonerosive GERD patients treated with lansoprazole or ranitidine

Eight-hundred forty-nine patients with symptomatic nonerosive GERD from two clinical trials of lansoprazole 15 mg daily (LAN 15) and lansoprazole 30 mg daily (LAN 30) vs ranitidine 150 mg twice a day (RAN 150) completed a health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) questionnaire at baseline and four and eight weeks after treatment. The questionnaire included the Short-Form 12, GERD symptoms, eating symptoms, social restrictions, problems with sleep, work disability, treatment satisfaction, and associated importance weights items. Both LAN groups reported greater, although not significant, improvement from baseline to week 8 versus RAN 150 in the majority of HRQoL scales. Treatment satisfaction was significantly higher at week 8 in both LAN groups. Quality-days incrementally gained analysis showed that both LAN groups gained significantly more quality days than RAN 150. Patients taking lansoprazole 15 or 30 mg daily reported better outcomes than those receiving ranitidine 150 twice a day over the eight-week study.

Pharmacoeconomic issues of the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common diagnoses in a gastroenterologist's practice. Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) describes the retrograde movement of gastric contents through the lower oesophageal sphincter (LES) to the oesophagus. GER can occur physiologically and may be accompanied by symptoms. The introduction of endoscopes and ambulatory devices for continuous monitoring of oesophageal pH (24 h pH monitoring) has led to great improvement in the ability to diagnose reflux disease and reflux-associated complications. The development of pathological reflux and GERD can be attributed to many factors. Pathophysiology of GERD includes transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs), incompetent LES because of a decreased lower oesophageal sphincter pressure (LESP) and deficient or delayed oesophageal acid clearance. Uncomplicated GERD may be treated by modification of lifestyle and eating habits in an early stage of GERD. The various agents currently used for treatment of GERD include mucoprotective substances, antacids, H2-blockers, prokinetics and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Although these drugs are effective, they do not necessarily influence the underlying causes of the disease by improving the oesophageal clearance, increasing the LESP or reducing the frequency of TLESRs. The following article gives an overview regarding current concepts of the pathophysiology and pharmacological treatment of GERD stressing on pharmacoeconomic issues of the treatment and discusses the advantages and disadvantages for step-up and step-down therapy.

Endoscopy-negative reflux disease

Endoscopy-negative reflux disease (ENRD) is more prevalent than reflux esophagitis, especially in a primary care setting. Acid-sensitive esophagus (ie, reflux-related symptoms with normal acid exposure at 24-hour pH monitoring) is part of the gastroesophageal reflux disease spectrum. ENRD is not a mild disease (symptoms return frequently and have an impact on quality of life), but it rarely progresses to the erosive stage. In patients with atypical or extra-esophageal manifestations, pH monitoring remains useful, and symptom analysis (symptom index or symptom-associated probability) is of pivotal importance. A proton pump inhibitor (PPI) test may represent a cost-effective alternative to 24-hour pH monitoring. However, well-designed validation studies are necessary to assess the diagnostic value of PPI tests and improve specificity without reducing sensitivity. Management of ENRD is based on the same principles as that of reflux esophagitis. Restoration of quality of life is the major goal. Proton pump inhibitors are not more (and are sometimes even less) effective in non-erosive reflux disease than in reflux esophagitis. Different long-term strategies (continuous maintenance, intermittent or on-demand therapy) are available, depending on the needs of the patient. Antireflux surgery may be indicated in carefully selected patients. In the future, pharmacologic approaches targeted to transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation or visceral perception should be developed.

Helicobacter pylori and gastroesophageal reflux disease: lack of influence of infection on twenty-four-hour esophageal pH monitoring and endoscopic findings

The precise role of Helicobacter pylori infection in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a matter of intense debate. Twenty-four-hour esophageal pH monitoring has a higher accuracy than endoscopy for the diagnosis of GERD, but the correlation between H. pylori infection and esophageal pH-metric parameters has almost never been assessed. Therefore, we evaluated the relationship between the infection and the presence of disturbances not only in endoscopy but also in 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring. One hundred consecutive patients undergoing 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring because of symptoms suggestive of GERD were included in the study. Esophageal manometry was carried out to study the position and the pressure of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). Prevalence of H. pylori infection was evaluated by histology (hematoxylin and eosin stain) and rapid urease test. The mean age of the patients was 50 +/- 15 years; 50% were men and 56% had an abnormal pH-metry (DeMeester score more than 14.7). The prevalence of H. pylori in patients with abnormal pH-metry was 57% (95% CI, 42-70%) and was 52% (95% CI, 39-64%) in those with normal pH-metry (nonsignificant differences [NS]). In the multivariate analysis, H. pylori infection did not correlate with an abnormal pH-metry (odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.4-1.8; NS). The proportion of cases with abnormal pH-metry among infected patients was 54% (95% CI, 41-66%) and was 59% (95% CI, 44-72%) among uninfected patients (NS). Mean values of pH-metric parameters (+/-SD), respectively for H. pylori-positive and -negative patients, were total score (30 +/- 33 vs. 36 +/- 38), number of reflux episodes (7 +/- 7 vs. 11 +/- 11), number of episodes more than 5 minutes (3.7 +/- 5 vs. 3.8 +/- 5), longest reflux episode (2.4 +/- 2 minutes vs. 3.1 +/- 3 minutes), and fraction time (%) with pH less than 4 (total, 6 +/- 7 vs. 6.8 +/- 8; upright, 3.9 +/- 4 vs. 4.5 +/- 5; supine, 7.4 +/- 12 vs. 7.2 +/- 10) (all findings were NS). Endoscopic findings, respectively for H. pylori-positive and -negative, were hiatus hernia (41% vs. 41%), endoscopic esophagitis (Savary-Miller) (54% vs. 46%), and Barrett's esophagus (15% vs. 11%) (all findings were NS). Finally, differences were not demonstrated in the pressure of the lower esophageal sphincter (12 +/- 8 mmHg vs. 14 +/- 12 mmHg) among H. pylori-positive and -negative patients. H. pylori infection is not associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease, as evaluated endoscopically and with 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring.

Nonerosive reflux disease--current concepts and dilemmas

Nonerosive reflux disease is defined as the presence of typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease caused by intraesophageal acid in the absence of visible esophageal mucosal injury at endoscopy. Recent studies demonstrate that it is a chronic disease with a significant impact on quality of life, and it is very common in primary care settings. Treatment with acid inhibitory agents is effective, and proton pump inhibitors are the most effective form of therapy.

Symptom and health-related quality-of-life measures for use in selected gastrointestinal disease studies: a review and synthesis of the literature

Patient-rated symptom and health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL) outcomes are important end-points for clinical trials of medical treatments for gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. Based on this review, patient outcomes research is focused on gastroesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia, with a growing interest in irritable bowel syndrome but little research in gastroparesis. State-of-the-art for patient-rated symptom scales is rudimentary with an abundance of scales and little attention to systematic instrument development or comprehensive psychometric evaluation. Generally, disease-specific HR-QOL measures have been more systematically developed and evaluated psychometrically, but few have been incorporated into clinical trials. More comprehensive outcome assessments are needed to determine the effectiveness of new medical treatments for functional GI disorders. Future clinical trials of GI disorders should combine clinician assessments of outcomes and symptoms with patient-rated symptom and HR-QOL end-points.

Endoscopy-negative reflux disease

The majority of patients with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux have no endoscopic evidence of oesophagitis. There has been remarkably little systematic gathering of information about this group of patients. It is commonly believed that they have a mild form of reflux disease, with low levels of dysfunction that usually respond to simple therapeutic measures. Emerging data from recent studies indicate that this is not the case. Endoscopy-negative patients have symptom severities comparable to those with erosive disease, and which significantly impair their quality of life. The limited data available on the pathophysiology of endoscopy-negative reflux disease suggest that, in the majority of patients, it is as much a disease of excessive gastro-oesophageal reflux as it is in patients with oesophageal lesions. The same principles that apply to successful treatment in patients with oesophagitis also hold true for patients with endoscopy-negative disease.

Functional Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)

Lack of endoscopic esophagitis does not exclude gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Ambulatory pH testing is also an imperfect standard, and patients with both a normal endoscopy and a normal pH test may still have symptoms produced by acid reflux. A therapeutic trial of acid suppression is often the best approach to these patients. Ideally, therapeutic trials should use a medication with a high degree of efficacy in the treatment of GERD to avoid a false-negative test. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the best currently available medical therapy for all forms of GERD. If the patient does not respond to a once daily PPI, options include increasing the dose of PPIs, and, perhaps, adding another class of agent or studying the patient with an ambulatory pH test. Patients with a negative endoscopy, negative pH test. and those who do not respond to an adequate trial of acid suppression are unlikely to benefit from antireflux surgery.

Digestive system disorders: gastroesophageal reflux disease

This article comes from Clinical Evidence (1999; 1 : 145-153), a new resource for clinicians produced jointly by the BMJ Publishing Group and the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine. Clinical Evidence is an extensively peer-reviewed publication that summarizes the best available evidence on the effects of common clinical interventions gleaned from thorough searches and appraisal of the world literature. It became available in the United States late last year. Please see advertisement for more information or, alternatively, visit the web site at www. evidence.org.

Cost effectiveness of competing strategies to prevent or treat GORD-related dysphagia

OBJECTIVES

The variety of influences that contribute to the occurrence of dysphagia in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) provide the physician with many options to intervene in the pathophysiology of the disease process. The aims of the present analysis were to compare the relationships between the costs and effectiveness of competing therapeutic interventions in preventing dysphagia.

METHODS

Dysphagia was modelled as the focal point of multiple influences leading to its development. The costs associated with different forms of drug therapy were based on the average wholesale prices listed in the Red Book of 1998. Procedural costs were estimated from Medicare reimbursements. Different treatment options were assessed by their incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

Lifestyle modifications, treatment with prokinetic agents or antacids reduce the occurrence of dysphagia by 22, 21 or 25%, respectively. Acid inhibition results in a 57 to 89% reduction of dysphagia, depending on treatment with histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Oesophageal dilation results in a reduction ranging between 54 and 81%. The incremental ratio of cost effectiveness associated with prokinetic agents or H2RAs is much higher than that of PPIs. Based on the concept of extended dominance, therefore, prokinetic drugs and H2RAs do not constitute cost-effective means to prevent dysphagia and should be excluded in favour of treatment with PPIs.

CONCLUSIONS

An economic analysis of various treatment strategies to reduce the risk of GORD-related dysphagia indicates that PPIs are the most cost-effective means to prevent its occurrence.

Diagnostic evaluation in gastroesophageal reflux disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) describes the clinical manifestations of reflux of gastric contents and the associated symptoms and patterns of tissue injury. Although its exact prevalence is difficult to determine, there is no doubt the GERD is the most common esophageal disease and probably among the most prevalent conditions seen in the primary care setting. GERD has a wide clinical spectrum, making the diagnostic evaluation challenging and complicated at times. Confirmatory test are rarely needed in patients with typical symptoms of heartburn or regurgitation who have a good clinical response to GERD therapy. This article describes the diagnostic tests necessary for some cases of GERD.

Heartburn treatment in primary care: randomised, double blind study for 8 weeks

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects and tolerability of omeprazole and cisapride with that of placebo for control of heartburn in primary care patients.

DESIGN

Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled study.

SETTING

65 primary care practices in Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

483 untreated patients with complaints of heartburn >/=3 days a week, with at most grade 1 reflux oesophagitis.

INTERVENTIONS

Omeprazole 20 mg once daily, cisapride 20 mg twice daily, or placebo for 8 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Adequate control of heartburn, defined as </=1 day of the past 7 days with no more than mild heartburn, after 4 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

In the all patients treated analysis, adequate control of heartburn was achieved in 71% of patients taking omeprazole, 22% taking cisapride, and 18% taking placebo after 4 weeks of treatment (omeprazole v cisapride and placebo, P<0.0001; cisapride v placebo, non-significant). Results were comparable in patients with or without reflux oesophagitis. In patients treated with omeprazole only, symptom control was achieved significantly more often in patients positive for Helicobacter pylori. Antacid use was 2-3 times greater in patients taking cisapride or placebo than in those taking omeprazole. Relief of non-reflux symptoms did not significantly differ between the three groups. Significantly more patients taking cisapride reported adverse events than those taking omeprazole or placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Omeprazole 20 mg once daily was highly effective in relieving heartburn whereas cisapride 20 mg twice daily was not significantly more effective than placebo.

Economic analysis of step-wise treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

To expose patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) to the least amount of medication and to reduce health expenditures, it is recommended that their treatment is started with a small dose of an antisecretory or prokinetic medication. If patients fail to respond, the dose is increased in several consecutive steps or the initial regimen is changed to a more potent medication until the patients become asymptomatic. Although such treatment strategy is widely recommended, its impact on health expenditures has not been evaluated.

METHODS

The economic analysis compares the medication costs of competing medical treatment strategies, using two different sets of cost data. Medication costs are estimated from the average wholesale prices (AWP) and from the lowest discount prices charged to governmental health institutions. A decision tree is used to model the step-wise treatment of GERD. In a Monte Carlo simulation, all transition probabilities built into the model are varied over a wide range. A threshold analysis evaluates the relationship between the cost of an individual medication and its therapeutic success rate.

RESULTS

In a governmental health care system, a step-wise strategy saves on average $916 per patient every 5 years (range: $443-$1628) in comparison with a strategy utilizing only the most potent medication. In a cost environment relying on AWP, the average savings amount to $256 (-$206 to +$1561). The smaller the cost difference between two consecutive treatment steps, the longer one needs to follow the patients to reap the benefit of the small cost difference. However, even a small cost difference can turn into tangible cost savings, if a large enough fraction of GERD patients responds to the initial step of a less potent but also less expensive medication.

CONCLUSIONS

The economic analysis suggests that a step-wise utilization of increasingly more potent and more expensive medications to treat GERD would result in appreciable cost savings.

Omeprazole. A review of its use in Helicobacter pylori infection, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcers induced by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Omeprazole is a well studied proton pump inhibitor that reduces gastric acid secretion. This review examines its use in Helicobacter pylori infection, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) with or without oesophagitis and gastrointestinal damage caused by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Optimal omeprazole regimens for anti-H. pylori therapy are those that administer the drug at a dosage of 40 mg/day (in 1 or 2 divided doses) for 7, 10 or 14 days in combination with 2 antibacterial agents. As a component of 3-drug regimens in direct comparative studies, omeprazole was at least as effective as lansoprazole, pantoprazole, bismuth compounds and ranitidine. However, a meta-analysis suggests that triple therapies with omeprazole are more effective than comparable regimens containing ranitidine, lansoprazole or bismuth. Omeprazole also appears to be successful in triple therapy regimens used in children with H. pylori infection. In patients with acute GORD with oesophagitis, omeprazole is at least as effective as lansoprazole or pantoprazole in promoting healing, and superior to ranitidine, cimetidine or cisapride in oesophagitis healing and symptom relief. Omeprazole was similar to lansoprazole and superior to ranitidine in preventing oesophagitis relapse in patients with all grades of oesophagitis, but may be superior to lansoprazole or pantoprazole in patients with more severe disease. More patients with symptomatic GORD without oesophagitis experienced symptom relief after short term treatment with omeprazole than with ranitidine, cisapride or placebo, and symptoms were more readily prevented by omeprazole than by cimetidine or placebo. Omeprazole was effective in healing and relieving symptoms of reflux oesophagitis in children with oesophagitis refractory to histamine H2 receptor antagonists. Omeprazole is superior to placebo in preventing NSAID-induced gastrointestinal damage in patients who must continue to take NSAIDs. It is also similar to misoprostol and superior to ranitidine in its ability to heal NSAID-induced peptic ulcers and erosions, and superior to misoprostol, ranitidine or placebo in its ability to prevent relapse. In long and short term studies, omeprazole was well tolerated, with diarrhoea, headache, dizziness, flatulence, abdominal pain and constipation being the most commonly reported adverse events. Usual omeprazole dosages, alone or combined with other agents, are 10 to 40 mg/day for adults and 10 to 20 mg/day for children.

CONCLUSIONS

Omeprazole is a well studied and well tolerated agent effective in adults or children as a component in regimens aimed at eradicating H. pylori infections or as monotherapy in the treatment and prophylaxis of GORD with or without oesophagitis or NSAID-induced gastrointestinal damage.

Proton pump inhibitors. Pharmacology and rationale for use in gastrointestinal disorders

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are drugs which irreversibly inhibit proton pump (H+/K+ ATPase) function and are the most potent gastric acid-suppressing agents in clinical use. There is now a substantial body of evidence showing improved efficacy of PPIs over the histamine H2 receptor antagonists and other drugs in acid-related disorders. Omeprazole 20 mg/day, lansoprazole 30 mg/day, pantoprazole 40 mg/day or rabeprazole 20 mg/day for 2 to 4 weeks are more effective than standard doses of H2-receptor antagonists in healing duodenal and gastric ulcers. Patients with gastric ulcers should receive standard doses of PPIs as for duodenal ulcers but for a longer time period (4 to 8 weeks). There is no conclusive evidence to support the use of a particular PPI over another for either duodenal or gastric ulcer healing. For Helicobacter pylori-positive duodenal ulceration, a combination of a PPI and 2 antibacterials will eradicate H. pylori in over 90% of cases and significantly reduce ulcer recurrence. Patients with H. pylori-positive gastric ulcers should be managed similarly. PPIs also have efficacy advantages over ranitidine and misoprostol and are better tolerated than misoprostol in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In endoscopically proven gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, standard daily doses of the PPIs are more effective than H2-receptor antagonists for healing, and patients should receive a 4 to 8 week course of treatment. For severe reflux, with ulceration and/or stricture formation, a higher dose regimen (omeprazole 40 mg, lansoprazole 60 mg, pantoprazole 80 mg or rabeprazole 40 mg daily) appears to yield better healing rates. There is little evidence that PPIs lead to resolution of Barrett's oesophagus or a reduction of subsequent adenocarcinoma development, but PPIs are indicated in healing of any associated ulceration. In Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, PPIs have become the treatment of choice for the management of gastric acid hypersecretion.