Evaluation of the treatment of equine glandular gastric disease with either long-acting-injectable or oral omeprazole

Comparison of oral esomeprazole and oral omeprazole in the treatment of equine squamous gastric disease

BACKGROUND

Oral omeprazole is the accepted treatment for equine squamous gastric disease (ESGD); however, it is not universally effective. Esomeprazole results in more consistent and pronounced acid suppression in men and is more effective than omeprazole in the treatment of oesophageal and gastric disease. Pharmacodynamic and pilot clinical studies have indicated esomeprazole might also be more effective than omeprazole in horses.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of oral esomeprazole and omeprazole pastes in the treatment of ESGD and, where present, concurrent equine glandular gastric disease (EGGD).

STUDY DESIGN

Randomised, single-blinded controlled trial.

METHODS

Horses presenting with grade ≥2 ESGD lesions were randomly allocated to receive 4 mg/kg of either a buffered esomeprazole or omeprazole paste orally once daily for 28 days before gastroscopy being repeated within a further 3 days. Videos and images were anonymised and subsequently graded blind by one researcher. The severity of ESGD (and EGGD) lesions before and after treatment, and thereby treatment responses, were compared using univariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A higher proportion of horses had ESGD healing in response to esomeprazole treatment (63/74, 85%) than with omeprazole treatment (43/73, 59%) (odds ratio [OR]: 4.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.81, 8.82, p = 0.001). In a subset of horses that had concurrent EGGD, a greater proportion of the horses treated with esomeprazole had lesions ≤grade 1 (esomeprazole 28/51, 55%; omeprazole 6/24, 25%; OR: 3.65, 95% CI: 1.25, 10.71, p = 0.02) Using grade 0 as the benchmark for EGGD healing, the difference remained significant (OR: 4.44, 95% CI: 1.33, 14.85, p = 0.02).

MAIN LIMITATIONS

It may not be possible to extrapolate these results to other populations with different signalment or management.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral-buffered esomeprazole was a more effective treatment for ESGD (and concurrent EGGD) than oral-buffered omeprazole.

Five- versus seven-day dosing intervals of extended-release injectable omeprazole in the treatment of equine squamous and glandular gastric disease

BACKGROUND

An extended-release injectable omeprazole formulation (ERIO) has become a popular treatment for equine squamous gastric disease (ESGD) and equine glandular gastric disease (EGGD) where it is available; however, published data are limited and optimal treatment regimens have not been determined.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects of treatment on ESGD and EGGD when an ERIO formulation is administered at either 5- or 7-day intervals.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective clinical study.

METHODS

Case records and gastroscopy images of horses with ESGD or EGGD treated with ERIO were reviewed. Images were anonymised and graded by one researcher masked to treatment group. Treatment responses were compared between the two treatment schedules using univariable ordered logistic regression.

RESULTS

Forty-three horses were treated with ERIO at 5-day intervals and 39 horses at 7-day intervals. Signalment and presenting signs did not differ between groups. The proportions of horses with EGGD healing (to grade 0 or 1) in association with ERIO used at 5-day intervals (93%) were higher than associated with treatment at 7-day intervals (69%; odds ratio [OR]: 2.41, 95% CI: 1.23-4.74, p = 0.01). For ESGD, there was no significant difference in the proportion of horses healing in association with treatment at 5-day intervals (97%) compared with 7-day intervals (82%; OR: 2.75, 95% CI: 0.91-8.31, p = 0.07). Four of 328 injections were associated with an injection-site reaction (1%).

MAIN LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study design, lack of randomisation and limited case numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ERIO at 5-day intervals might be more appropriate than the 7-day interval that is used currently.

Current Topics in Medical Colic

The list of medical causes of acute or chronic colic in horses is extensive. The purpose of this article is to review 4 medical causes of equine colic with a focus on newer trends in treatment. The 4 topics selected include gastric impaction, gastric glandular disease, colon displacement, and inflammatory bowel disease.

Equine Gastric Ulcer Syndrome: An Update on Current Knowledge

Equine Gastric Ulcer Syndrome (EGUS) is a term that has been used since 1999, initially being used to describe all gastric mucosal disease in horses. Since this time, the identification of two distinct main disease entities of the equine gastric mucosa have been described under the umbrella of EGUS; these are Equine Squamous Gastric Disease (ESGD) and Equine Glandular Gastric Disease (EGGD). In 2015 the European College of Equine Internal Medicine (ECEIM) released a consensus statement defining these disease entities. This document highlighted the lack of evidence surrounding EGGD compared to ESGD, and identified knowledge gaps for further research to be directed. Subsequently, many studies on EGGD have been published, especially on pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. This article updates current knowledge on both ESGD and EGGD as understanding has evolved since the last large-scale review.

Does lesion type or severity predict outcome of therapy for horses with equine glandular gastric disease? - A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Equine glandular gastric disease (EGGD) is a common condition of the horse. Misoprostol is reported to be superior to oral omeprazole and sucralfate for treatment. Long-acting intramuscular injectable omeprazole (LAIOMEP) is a novel treatment shown to be effective in a small population.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine LAIOMEP efficacy compared to misoprostol and oral omeprazole and identify characteristics that predict treatment outcome.

METHODS

All horses that underwent gastroscopy between 2012 and 2019 were reviewed. Lesions were characterised by 4 blinded observers, all of whom are diplomates in equine internal medicine, using established descriptors from the ECEIM consensus statement and subjective severity. Treatment outcome was ranked as worsened, improved or healed. Consensus lesion type, lesion severity and treatment choice were compared to outcome and data screened using univariate analysis (chi-squared) to determine whether each predicted outcome. Lesion types where univariate analysis predicted a trend (p<0.2) were included in a multiple-regression analysis to identify predictors of outcome irrespective of treatment.

RESULTS

Only severity significantly predicted final outcome (p = 0.025) with severe lesions being more likely to improve. Treatment choice did not significantly predict outcome. Overall healing rate was 29% (24 horses), and 43% (44 horses) improved. Treatment healing rates were 23% (10), 12% (7) and 27% (7) for LAIOMEP, misoprostol and oral omeprazole, respectively, with improvement in 69% (14), 76% (21) and 61% (9). 64% of the latter group received sucralfate. Worsening occurred in 7% (6). Treatment length varied with a median of 4 weeks (range 4-20 weeks).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed poorer therapy outcome compared to previous studies. The only initial lesion descriptor to predict outcome was severity and treatment choice did not affect outcome.