Lack of drug-drug interaction between three different non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and omeprazole

Pharmacokinetic interactions between fexuprazan, a potassium-competitive acid blocker, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in healthy males

Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, is expected to be used for the prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) induced ulcer. This study aimed to evaluate pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between fexuprazan and NSAIDs in healthy subjects. A randomized, open-label, multicenter, six-sequence, one-way crossover study was conducted in healthy male subjects. Subjects randomly received one of the study drugs (fexuprazan 40 mg BID, celecoxib 200 mg BID, naproxen 500 mg BID, or meloxicam 15 mg QD) for 5 or 7 days in the first period followed by the combination of fexuprazan and one of NSAIDs for the same days and the perpetrator additionally administered for 1-2 days in the second period. Serial blood samples for PK analysis were collected until 48- or 72-h post-dose at steady state. PK parameters including maximum plasma concentration at steady state (Cmax,ss) and area under plasma concentration-time curve over dosing interval at steady state (AUCτ,ss) were compared between monotherapy and combination therapy. The PKs of NSAIDs were not significantly altered by fexuprazan. For fexuprazan, differences in PK parameters (22% in Cmax, 19% in AUCτ,ss) were observed when co-administered with naproxen, but not clinically significant. The geometric mean ratio (90% confidence interval) of combination therapy to monotherapy for Cmax,ss and AUCτ,ss was 1.22 (1.02-1.46) and 1.19 (1.00-1.43), respectively. There were no significant changes in the systemic exposure of fexuprazan by celecoxib and meloxicam. Fexuprazan and NSAIDs did not show clinically meaningful PK interactions.

Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between Tegoprazan and Naproxen, Aceclofenac, and Celecoxib in Healthy Korean Male Subjects

PURPOSE

Tegoprazan is a potassium-competitive acid blocker used for gastric acid suppression and may be used with NSAIDs to reduce gastrointestinal adverse effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic interaction between tegoprazan and commonly used NSAIDS, namely, naproxen, aceclofenac, and celecoxib.

METHODS

An open-label, 3-cohort, randomized, multiple-dose, 3-way crossover study was conducted in healthy male subjects. In cohort 1, tegoprazan (50-mg tablet, once daily) and naproxen (500-mg tablet, twice daily) were administered separately or concurrently for 7 days in each period. In cohort 2, tegoprazan and aceclofenac (100-mg tablet, twice daily) were administered separately or concurrently for 7 days in each period. In cohort 3, tegoprazan and celecoxib (200-mg capsule, twice daily) were administered separately or concurrently for 7 days in each period. Pharmacokinetic blood samples were collected up to 24 hours after the last dose.

FINDINGS

Seventeen subjects from cohort 1, sixteen subjects from cohort 2, and thirteen subjects from cohort 3 were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. In cohort 1, the geometric least squares mean ratios (90% CIs) for AUC_τ (AUC profiles over the dosing interval) and C_ss,max (C_max at steady state) were 1.01 (0.91-1.12) and 0.99 (0.83-1.17) for tegoprazan, and 1.00 (0.97-1.03) and 1.04 (0.99-1.09) for naproxen, respectively. The values in cohort 2 were 1.03 (0.93-1.13) and 0.94 (0.86-1.04) for tegoprazan, and 1.06 (1.00-1.12) and 1.31 (1.08-1.60) for aceclofenac. The values in cohort 3 were 1.01 (0.86-1.18) and 1.02 (0.87-1.19) for tegoprazan, and 1.08 (0.96-1.22) and 1.18 (0.97-1.43) for celecoxib.

IMPLICATIONS

Changes in the maximum aceclofenac or celecoxib concentrations were detected after concurrent administration with tegoprazan, which were considered mainly due to the pharmacodynamic effect of tegoprazan. Because systemic drug exposure (shown as AUC_τ) was unchanged after concurrent administration of any 3 NSAIDs with tegoprazan, the increase in aceclofenac or celecoxib C_ss,max when administered with tegoprazan would not be clinically significant in practice.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT04639804.

A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial comparing the incidence and severity of gastrointestinal adverse events in dogs with cancer treated with piroxicam alone or in combination with omeprazole or famotidine

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of prophylactic omeprazole and famotidine on the incidence and severity of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) in dogs with cancer treated with single agent piroxicam.

ANIMALS

39 dogs with a cytologic or histologic diagnosis of cancer with no history of GI disease and received piroxicam.

PROCEDURES

A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial was performed. All dogs received piroxicam (0.3 mg/kg [0.14 mg/lb], PO, q 24 h) and either omeprazole (1 mg/kg [0.45 mg/lb], PO, q 12 h), famotidine (1 mg/kg, PO, q 12 h), or placebo (lactose; PO, q 12 h). Monthly assessments of GI AEs were performed and scored by using the Veterinary Comparative Oncology Group's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 1.1).

RESULTS

Compared with dogs in the placebo group, more dogs in the omeprazole group (84.6% vs 36.4%) and famotidine group (80.0% vs 36.4%) experienced GI AEs by day 56. The severity of GI AEs was higher in the omeprazole group, compared with the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Omeprazole was not helpful in reducing the frequency or severity of GI AEs and was associated with more frequent and severer GI AEs in dogs with cancer treated with single agent piroxicam. Proton-pump inhibitors and H2-receptor antagonists should not be prescribed as prophylaxis with NSAIDs for dogs with cancer.

Pharmacological inhibition of soluble epoxide hydrolase or genetic deletion reduces diclofenac-induced gastric ulcers

AIMS

This research was conducted to evaluate the hypothesis that gastric ulcers caused by the NSAID diclofenac sodium (DCF) can be prevented by the soluble epoxide hydrolase inhibitor TPPU.

MAIN METHODS

Mice were administered a single dose of 10, 30 or 100mg/kg of DCF. Once an ulcerative dose of DCF was chosen, mice were pretreated with TPPU for 7days at 0.1mg/kg to evaluate anti-ulcer effects of the sEH inhibitor on anatomy, histopathology, pH, inflammatory markers and epithelial apoptosis of stomachs.

KEY FINDINGS

Diclofenac caused ulceration of the stomach at a dose of 100mg/kg and a time post dose of 6h. Ulcers generated under these conditions were associated with a significant increase in the levels of TNF-α and IL-6 in serum and increased apoptosis compared to control mice. Pretreatment with TPPU resulted in a decrease of ulceration in mice treated with DCF with a significant decrease in the level of apoptosis, TNF-α and IL-6 in the serum in comparison to diclofenac-treated mice. TPPU did not affect the pH of the stomach, whereas omeprazole elevated the pH of the stomach as expected. A similar anti-ulcer effect was observed in sEH gene knockout mice treated with DCF.

SIGNIFICANCE

The sEH inhibitor TPPU decreases the NSAID-induced stomach ulcers.

Advances in NSAID development: evolution of diclofenac products using pharmaceutical technology

Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) of the phenylacetic acid class with anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and antipyretic properties. Contrary to the action of many traditional NSAIDs, diclofenac inhibits cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 enzyme with greater potency than it does COX-1. Similar to other NSAIDs, diclofenac is associated with serious dose-dependent gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and renal adverse effects. Since its introduction in 1973, a number of different diclofenac-containing drug products have been developed with the goal of improving efficacy, tolerability, and patient convenience. Delayed- and extended-release forms of diclofenac sodium were initially developed with the goal of improving the safety profile of diclofenac and providing convenient, once-daily dosing for the treatment of patients with chronic pain. New drug products consisting of diclofenac potassium salt were associated with faster absorption and rapid onset of pain relief. These include diclofenac potassium immediate-release tablets, diclofenac potassium liquid-filled soft gel capsules, and diclofenac potassium powder for oral solution. The advent of topical formulations of diclofenac enabled local treatment of pain and inflammation while minimizing systemic absorption of diclofenac. SoluMatrix diclofenac, consisting of submicron particles of diclofenac free acid and a proprietary combination of excipients, was developed to provide analgesic efficacy at reduced doses associated with lower systemic absorption. This review illustrates how pharmaceutical technology has been used to modify the pharmacokinetic properties of diclofenac, leading to the creation of novel drug products with improved clinical utility.

Pharmacokinetic drug interaction profiles of proton pump inhibitors: an update

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are used extensively for the treatment of gastric acid-related disorders, often over the long term, which raises the potential for clinically significant drug interactions in patients receiving concomitant medications. These drug–drug interactions have been previously reviewed. However, the current knowledge is likely to have advanced, so a thorough review of the literature published since 2006 was conducted. This identified new studies of drug interactions that are modulated by gastric pH. These studies showed the effect of a PPI-induced increase in intragastric pH on mycophenolate mofetil pharmacokinetics, which were characterised by a decrease in the maximum exposure and availability of mycophenolic acid, at least at early time points. Post-2006 data were also available outlining the altered pharmacokinetics of protease inhibitors with concomitant PPI exposure. New data for the more recently marketed dexlansoprazole suggest it has no impact on the pharmacokinetics of diazepam, phenytoin, theophylline and warfarin. The CYP2C19-mediated interaction that seems to exist between clopidogrel and omeprazole or esomeprazole has been shown to be clinically important in research published since the 2006 review; this effect is not seen as a class effect of PPIs. Finally, data suggest that coadministration of PPIs with methotrexate may affect methotrexate pharmacokinetics, although the mechanism of interaction is not well understood. As was shown in the previous review, individual PPIs differ in their propensities to interact with other drugs and the extent to which their interaction profiles have been defined. The interaction profiles of omeprazole and pantoprazole sodium (pantoprazole-Na) have been studied most extensively. Several studies have shown that omeprazole carries a considerable potential for drug interactions because of its high affinity for CYP2C19 and moderate affinity for CYP3A4. In contrast, pantoprazole-Na appears to have lower potential for interactions with other medications. Lansoprazole and rabeprazole also seem to have a weaker potential for interactions than omeprazole, although their interaction profiles, along with those of esomeprazole and dexlansoprazole, have been less extensively investigated. Only a few drug interactions involving PPIs are of clinical significance. Nonetheless, the potential for drug interactions should be considered when choosing a PPI to manage gastric acid-related disorders. This is particularly relevant for elderly patients taking multiple medications, or for those receiving a concomitant medication with a narrow therapeutic index.

Lack of Pharmacokinetic Interaction between Esomeprazole and the Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Naproxen and Rofecoxib in Healthy Subjects

BACKGROUND

We investigated the potential interactions between esomeprazole and a non-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID; naproxen) or a cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2-selective NSAID (rofecoxib) in healthy subjects.

METHODS

Two studies of identical randomised, open, three-way crossover design were conducted. Subjects (n = 32 for both studies) were to receive 1 week's treatment with esomeprazole 40mg once daily (studies A and B), naproxen 250mg twice daily (study A), rofecoxib 12.5mg once daily (study B), and esomeprazole in combination with naproxen (study A) or rofecoxib (study B). Study periods were separated by a 2-week washout period.

RESULTS

On day 7 of dosing, the ratios (and 95% CIs) for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve during the dosing interval (AUC(tau)) and observed maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) of esomeprazole and NSAID combination/NSAID alone were 0.98 (0.94, 1.01) and 1.00 (0.97, 1.04), respectively, for study A, and 1.15 (1.06, 1.24) and 1.14 (1.02, 1.28), respectively, for study B. The ratios (and 95% CIs) for AUC(tau) and C(max) of esomeprazole and NSAID combination/esomeprazole alone were 0.96 (0.89, 1.03) and 0.92 (0.85, 1.00), respectively, for study A, and 1.05 (0.96, 1.15) and 1.05 (0.94, 1.18), respectively, for study B. All treatments were well tolerated during the study period.

CONCLUSION

Naproxen and rofecoxib do not interact with esomeprazole, and esomeprazole does not affect the pharmacokinetics of naproxen or rofecoxib. These findings indicate that esomeprazole can be used in combination with NSAIDs without the risk of a pharmacokinetic interaction.

Pharmacokinetic assessment of a five-probe cocktail for CYPs 1A2, 2C9, 2C19, 2D6 and 3A

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

* Numerous cocktails using concurrent administration of several cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoform-selective probe drugs have been reported to investigate drug-drug interactions in vivo. * This approach has several advantages: characterize the inhibitory or induction potential of compounds in development toward the CYP enzymes identified in vitro in an in vivo situation, assess several enzymes in the same trial, and have complete in vivo information about potential CYP-based drug interactions.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

* This study describes a new cocktail containing five probe drugs that has never been published. * This cocktail can be used to test the effects of a new chemical entity on multiple CYP isoforms in a single clinical study: CYP1A2 (caffeine), CYP2C9 (warfarin), CYP2C19 (omeprazole), CYP2D6 (metoprolol), and CYP3A (midazolam) and was designed to overcome potential liabilities of other reported cocktails.

AIMS

To assess the pharmacokinetics (PK) of selective substrates of CYP1A2 (caffeine), CYP2C9 (S-warfarin), CYP2C19 (omeprazole), CYP2D6 (metoprolol) and CYP3A (midazolam) when administered orally and concurrently as a cocktail relative to the drugs administered alone.

METHODS

This was an open-label, single-dose, randomized, six-treatment six-period six-sequence William's design study with a wash-out of 7 or 14 days. Thirty healthy male subjects received 100 mg caffeine, 100 mg metoprolol, 0.03 mg kg(-1) midazolam, 20 mg omeprazole and 10 mg warfarin individually and in combination (cocktail). Poor metabolizers of CYP2C9, 2C19 and 2D6 were excluded. Plasma samples were obtained up to 48 h for caffeine, metoprolol and omeprazole, 12 h for midazolam, 312 h for warfarin and the cocktail. Three different validated liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methods were used. Noncompartmental PK parameters were calculated. Log-transformed C(max), AUC(last) and AUC for each analyte were analysed with a linear mixed effects model with fixed term for treatment, sequence and period, and random term for subject within sequence. Point estimates (90% CI) for treatment ratios (individual/cocktail) were computed for each analyte C(max), AUC(last) and AUC.

RESULTS

There was no PK interaction between the probe drugs when administered in combination as a cocktail, relative to the probes administered alone, as the 90% CI of the PK parameters was within the prespecified bioequivalence limits of 0.80, 1.25.

CONCLUSION

The lack of interaction between probes indicates that this cocktail could be used to evaluate the potential for multiple drug-drug interactions in vivo.

Pharmacokinetic drug interaction profiles of proton pump inhibitors

Proton pump inhibitors are used extensively for the treatment of gastric acid-related disorders because they produce a greater degree and longer duration of gastric acid suppression and, thus, better healing rates, than histamine H(2) receptor antagonists. The need for long-term treatment of these disorders raises the potential for clinically significant drug interactions in patients receiving proton pump inhibitors and other medications. Therefore, it is important to understand the mechanisms for drug interactions in this setting. Proton pump inhibitors can modify the intragastric release of other drugs from their dosage forms by elevating pH (e.g. reducing the antifungal activity of ketoconazole). Proton pump inhibitors also influence drug absorption and metabolism by interacting with adenosine triphosphate-dependent P-glycoprotein (e.g. inhibiting digoxin efflux) or with the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme system (e.g. decreasing simvastatin metabolism), thereby affecting both intestinal first-pass metabolism and hepatic clearance. Although interactions based on the change of gastric pH are a group-specific effect and thus may occur with all proton pump inhibitors, individual proton pump inhibitors differ in their propensities to interact with other drugs and the extent to which their interaction profiles have been defined. The interaction profiles of omeprazole and pantoprazole have been studied most extensively. A number of studies have shown that omeprazole carries a considerable potential for drug interactions, since it has a high affinity for CYP2C19 and a somewhat lower affinity for CYP3A4. In contrast, pantoprazole appears to have lower potential for interactions with other medications. Although the interaction profiles of esomeprazole, lansoprazole and rabeprazole have been less extensively investigated, evidence suggests that lansoprazole and rabeprazole seem to have a weaker potential for interactions than omeprazole. Although only a few drug interactions involving proton pump inhibitors have been shown to be of clinical significance, the potential for drug interactions should be taken into account when choosing a therapy for gastric acid-related disorders, especially for elderly patients in whom polypharmacy is common, or in those receiving a concomitant medication with a narrow therapeutic index.

Lack of effect of omeprazole or of an aluminium hydroxide/magnesium hydroxide antacid on the pharmacokinetics of lumiracoxib

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of multiple doses of omeprazole and of a single dose of an aluminium hydroxide/magnesium hydroxide (Al/Mg) antacid on the single-dose plasma pharmacokinetics of lumiracoxib.

STUDY DESIGN

Open-label, randomised, three-period, crossover study.

POPULATION STUDIED

Healthy subjects aged 18-65 years.

METHODS

Fourteen subjects who met eligibility criteria were each administered three treatments in random order: (A) lumiracoxib 400 mg as a single oral dose; (B) oral omeprazole 20 mg once daily for 4 consecutive days, then lumiracoxib 400 mg as a single oral dose just prior to oral omeprazole 20 mg on day 5; and (C) lumiracoxib 400 mg as a single oral dose immediately prior to a 20 mL dose of Al/Mg antacid (magnesium hydroxide 800 mg and aluminium hydroxide 900 mg). The interval between each lumiracoxib dose was 7 days. Analysis of variance was performed to determine whether lumiracoxib alone differed from lumiracoxib plus omeprazole or from lumiracoxib plus Al/Mg antacid for overall exposure (area under the concentration-time curve from zero to infinity [AUC( infinity )]) and peak concentration (C(max)), with treatment sequence, subject, period and treatment as factors. Ratios of geometric means between lumiracoxib plus omeprazole and lumiracoxib plus Al/Mg antacid to lumiracoxib alone (reference) were calculated for AUC( infinity ) and C(max). If the mean ratios, with 90% CIs, fell within the interval 0.80-1.25, the treatments were considered equivalent.

RESULTS

Arithmetic mean plasma lumiracoxib concentration-time profiles were similar for all treatments, with a rapid rise in concentration after administration, reaching C(max) values (mean +/- SD) of 9.24 +/- 1.96, 8.81 +/- 2.30, and 10.43 +/- 3.24 mg/L within 2-3 hours for treatments A, B and C, respectively. AUC( infinity ) was similar for the three treatments (36.75 +/- 7.73, 34.88 +/- 8.40 and 35.50 +/- 5.72 mg. h/L). All ratios of geometric means with 90% CIs fell within the interval used for establishing bioequivalence, except for the C(max) comparison between lumiracoxib plus Al/Mg antacid and lumiracoxib alone, which was 1.11 (0.95, 1.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Coadministration of lumiracoxib with omeprazole or with an Al/Mg antacid had no clinically significant effect on lumiracoxib single-dose plasma pharmacokinetics. Lumiracoxib can, therefore, be administered concurrently with either of these agents without need for lumiracoxib dosage alteration.

Enhanced bioavailability of piroxicam using Gelucire 44/14 and Labrasol: in vitro and in vivo evaluation

Piroxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug that is characterized by low solubility and high permeability. The purpose of the study was to investigate the in vitro and in vivo performance of the semi-solid dispersion prepared with Gelucire 44/14 and Labrasol into hard gelatin capsules (GL) for enhancing the dissolution rate of the drug. The results were evaluated by comparing with pure piroxicam filled into hard gelatin capsules (PP) and a commercially available tablet dosage form containing a piroxicam:beta-cyclodextrin complex (CD). The in vitro dissolution testing of the dosage forms was performed in different media (simulated gastric fluid, pH 1.2; phosphate buffers, pH 4.5 and 6.8; and water). Amongst the dosage forms, GL provided at least 85% piroxicam dissolution within 30 min in each of the media, behaving like a fast-dissolving immediate release drug product. Oral bioavailability of 20 mg piroxicam in GL, CD, and PP was compared after administration of a single dose to eight healthy volunteers. Three treatments were administered in crossover fashion, separated by a washout period of 2 weeks. Piroxicam was monitored in plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography. The apparent rate of absorption of piroxicam from GL (Cmax=2.64 micrograms/ml, tmax=82.5 min) was significantly higher than that of the PP (Cmax=0.999 micrograms/ml, tmax=144 min) (P<0.05) and similar to that of CD (Cmax=2.44 micrograms/ml, tmax=120 min) (P>0.05). The relative bioavailability values as the ratios of mean total AUC for GL relative to PP and CD, were 221 and 98.6%. Piroxicam is characterized by a slow and gradual absorption via the oral route and this causes a delayed onset of therapeutic effect. Thus, plain piroxicam preparations are not indicated for analgesia. The results of the in vivo study revealed that the GL dosage form would be advantageous with regards to rapid onset of action, especially in various painful conditions where an acute analgesic effect is desired.

A summary of Food and Drug Administration-reported adverse events and drug interactions occurring during therapy with omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole

BACKGROUND

Pantoprazole is claimed to have a lower potential for drug interaction than other proton pump inhibitors.

AIM

To estimate the frequency of adverse events and drug interactions reported to the Food and Drug Administration in patients receiving omeprazole, lansoprazole or pantoprazole.

METHODS

The study involved a search of the Food and Drug Administration's database for adverse events and drug interactions with omeprazole, lansoprazole or pantoprazole as primary or secondary suspect drug. An estimate of the amount of drug dispensed during the adverse event collection period (from US drug launch) was obtained from the International Medical Statistics health database.

RESULTS

Of the suspected drug interactions recorded, vitamin K antagonist interactions, although rare, were the most common. The frequency of vitamin K antagonist interactions was 0.09 per million packages for omeprazole and 0.11 per million packages for lansoprazole and pantoprazole. Interactions with benzodiazepines or phenytoin were even rarer, being reported in less than 10 patients on each proton pump inhibitor.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of reported drug interactions was low for omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole and vitamin K antagonist interactions were by far the most common. These potentially important drug interactions, although rare, were no less frequent on pantoprazole than on omeprazole or lansoprazole, suggesting a class effect.

Pharmacokinetic considerations in the eradication of Helicobacter pylori

As Helicobacter pylori plays an important role in the aetiopathogenesis of peptic ulcer, therapeutic strategies aimed at maintaining long term remission have shifted from the control of intragastric pH to targeting H. pylori. According to recent international guidelines the clinical goals--rapid ulcer healing and prevention of relapse--can be best accomplished by combination therapy consisting of an antisecretory drug (proton pump inhibitor or ranitidine) and 2 antimicrobial agents (preferable amoxicillin, clarithromycin or metronidazole). When applying such multidrug regimens, possible synergy between the agents suggests that pharmacokinetic considerations might help to improve H. pylori eradication rates, which should be above 85 to 90% on an intention-to-treat basis. The present review summarises the pharmacokinetic properties and interaction potential of all drugs presently used in the various H. pylori eradication regimens, with emphasis on particular patient populations such as the elderly and those with renal impairment. The drugs considered are omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, ranitidine and ranitidine bismutrex, bismuth salts, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, azithromycin, roxithromycin, metronidazole, tinidazole and tetracycline. When addressing the clinically important questions of the efficacy, safety and costs of the recommended regimens, the impact of drug disposition on H. pylori eradication should not be neglected.

Evaluation of omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole in the treatment of acid-related diseases

OBJECTIVE

To review the comparative efficacy and safety of the proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)--omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole--in the management of acid-related diseases.

DATA SOURCES

English-language journal articles retrieved from a MEDLINE search from 1990 to the present using these index terms: proton pump inhibitors, omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rebeprazole, and each of the acid-related diseases.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical trials and pertinent review articles that discussed the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of PPIs in the management of acid-related disease.

DATA EXTRACTION

By the authors.

DATA SYNTHESIS

PPIs are substituted benzimidazoles that inhibit gastric acid secretion by covalently binding to the proton pump (H+/K+ ATPase). All undergo extensive hepatic metabolism and conjugation. The four agents differ in their metabolism by and effects on specific hepatic enzymes and thus in their ability to interact with other medications. PPIs are important agents used for eradicating Helicobacter pylori, in treating peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and for preventing acid aspiration. Short-term side effects of the four agents are similar. The long-term safety of pantoprazole and rabeprazole appears similar to that of omeprazole and lansoprazole. Pantoprazole, which is in the final stages of approval for marketing in the United States, will be available in both an oral and injectable formulation.

CONCLUSION

Based on superior efficacy profiles, PPIs are the drugs of choice in managing patients with peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. The decision to select one PPI versus another is most likely to be based on the agents' acquisition costs, formulations, FDA-labeled indications, and overall safety profiles. Intravenous or parenteral pantoprazole may become the preferred antisecretory agent for patients unable to take oral medications (e.g., critically ill patients and those with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome).