Comparison of rabeprazole 20 mg versus omeprazole 20 mg in the treatment of active duodenal ulcer: a European multicentre study

Efficacy and safety of vonoprazan versus proton pump inhibitors in the treatment of peptic ulcer disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis for randomized controlled trails

Background and aims

Vonoprazan, a novel acid suppressant, has been employed in the treatment of peptic ulcer disease in recent years. However, the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan versus proton-pump inhibitors remains controversial. To address this gap, a systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan in comparison with various proton-pump inhibitors.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials that met selection criteria in PubMed (Medline), EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched up to July 15, 2024. The primary outcome was ulcer healing rate. Secondary outcomes were treatment-emergent adverse events and drug-related adverse events. Effect size on outcomes is presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Thirty-five randomized controlled trials containing 9,544 participants were included. In terms of the healing rate at 2 weeks, lansoprazole 30 mg ranked first, followed by vonoprazan 20 mg and ilaprazole 10 mg. In terms of the healing rate at 4 weeks, pantoprazole 40 mg ranked first, with rabeprazole 10 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg ranking second and third, respectively. Regarding the healing rate at 8 weeks, lansoprazole 30 mg is demonstrated to be the most efficacious regimen. Moreover, subgroup analysis indicated that lansoprazole 30 mg is the optimal regimen in the treatment of artificial gastric ulcer at 4 and 8 weeks. Importantly, lansoprazole 30 mg has fewer adverse reactions and higher safety.

Conclusion

The optimal regimen for the treatment of peptic ulcer disease may be lansoprazole 30 mg at 2 and 8 weeks, while pantoprazole 40 mg has demonstrated superior performance at the 4-week when compared to vonoprazan 20 mg. Furthermore, lansoprazole 30 mg has shown to be superior in terms of safety outcomes. These findings, derived from a network meta-analysis, necessitate further research for validation.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers vs. Proton Pump Inhibitors for Peptic Ulcer with or without Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Novel potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) have emerged as effective acid-suppressive drugs in recent years, replacing proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of P-CABs versus PPIs in the treatment of peptic ulcers with or without Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection. We searched in PubMed, Embase, WOS, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI, and Wanfang databases (all years up to January 2024). Efficacy and safety outcomes were evaluated using odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) probabilities were used to rank each intervention. Among 14,056 studies screened, 56 studies involving 9792 participants were analyzed. Vonoprazan demonstrated the best efficacy in ulcer healing rate and H. pylori eradication rate (SUCRA = 86.4% and 90.7%, respectively). Keverprazan ranked second in ulcer healing rates (SUCRA = 76.0%) and was more effective in pain remission rates (SUCRA = 91.7%). The risk of adverse events was low for keverprazan (SUCRA = 11.8%) and tegoprazan (SUCRA = 12.9%), and moderate risk for vonoprazan (SUCRA = 44.3%) was demonstrated. Compared to lansoprazole, vonoprazan exhibited a higher risk of drug-related adverse events (OR: 2.15; 95% CI: 1.60-2.89) and serious adverse events (OR: 2.22; 95% CI: 1.11-4.42). Subgroup analysis on patients with H. pylori-positive peptic ulcers showed that vonoprazan was at the top of the SUCRA rankings, followed by keverprazan. Vonoprazan showed superior performance in peptic ulcers, especially for patients with H. pylori-positive peptic ulcers. However, the risk of adverse events associated with vonoprazan should be noted. Keverprazan has also shown good therapeutic outcomes and has performed better in terms of safety.

Guidelines on optimizing the use of proton pump inhibitors: PPI stewardship

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been available for over three decades and are among the most commonly prescribed medications. They are effective in treating a variety of gastric acid-related disorders. They are freely available and based on current evidence, use of PPIs for inappropriate indications and duration appears to be common. Over the years, concerns have been raised on the safety of PPIs as they have been associated with several adverse effects. Hence, there is a need for PPI stewardship to promote the use of PPIs for appropriate indication and duration. With this objective, the Indian Society of Gastroenterology has formulated guidelines on the rational use of PPIs. The guidelines were developed using a modified Delphi process. This paper presents these guidelines in detail, including the statements, review of literature, level of evidence and recommendations. This would help the clinicians in optimizing the use of PPIs in their practice and promote PPI stewardship.

Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors and H2 receptor antagonists in the initial non‑eradication treatment of duodenal ulcer: A network meta‑analysis

The present network meta-analysis aimed to enhance the corresponding evidence with respect to the efficacy and safety of pharmaceuticals treatments. Frequentist network meta-analysis was used. Medical literature up to November 2022 was searched for randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of these pharmaceuticals, either compared with each other or compared with placebo. With the exception of ranitidine (300 mg four times daily) and vonoprazan (20 mg once daily) having lower safety than placebo, the efficacy and safety of the remaining treatments were superior to placebo. Cimetidine (400 mg four times daily) and pantoprazole (40 mg once daily) were ranked first in terms of efficacy. The frequentist network meta-analysis shows that for cimetidine (except 400 mg once daily), famotidine, rabeprazole, ilaprazole, lansoprazole (except 7.5 mg once daily) and omeprazole (except 10 mg once daily or 30 mg once daily), the efficacy comparison between the different doses of each of the aforementioned pharmaceuticals did not indicate statistically significant differences. In conclusion, pantoprazole (40 mg once daily) was the best choice for the initial non-eradication treatment of patients with duodenal ulcer, and cimetidine (400 mg twice daily), omeprazole (20 mg once daily), lansoprazole (15 mg once daily), ilaprazole (5 mg once daily) and rabeprazole (10 mg once daily) could be used as the first choice. If the aforementioned pharmaceuticals cannot be prescribed, famotidine (40 mg twice daily) is recommended.

Effect and safety of anaprazole in the treatment of duodenal ulcers: a randomized, rabeprazole-controlled, phase III non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

The pharmacokinetic and clinical behaviors of many proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in peptic ulcer treatment are altered by CYP2C19 genetic polymorphisms. This non-inferiority study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the novel PPI anaprazole compared with rabeprazole. We also explored the influence of Helicobacter pylori ( H. pylori ) infection status and CYP2C19 polymorphism on anaprazole.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, positive-drug parallel-controlled, phase III study, Chinese patients with duodenal ulcers were randomized 1:1 to receive rabeprazole 10 mg + anaprazole placebo or rabeprazole placebo + anaprazole 20 mg once daily for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the 4-week ulcer healing rate assessed by blinded independent review. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with improved overall and individual duodenal ulcer symptoms at 4 weeks. Furthermore, exploratory subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint by H. pylori status and CYP2C19 polymorphism was conducted. Adverse events were monitored for safety. Non-inferiority analysis was conducted for the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 448 patients (anaprazole, n = 225; rabeprazole, n = 223). The 4-week healing rates were 90.9% and 93.7% for anaprazole and rabeprazole, respectively (difference, -2.8% [95% confidence interval, -7.7%, 2.2%]), demonstrating non-inferiority of anaprazole to rabeprazole. Overall duodenal ulcer symptoms improved in 90.9% and 92.5% of patients, respectively. Improvement rates of individual symptoms were similar between the groups. Healing rates did not significantly differ by H. pylori status or CYP2C19 genotype for either treatment group. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for anaprazole (72/220, 32.7%) and rabeprazole (84/219, 38.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of anaprazole is non-inferior to that of rabeprazole in Chinese patients with duodenal ulcers.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04215653.

Proton pump inhibitor use is associated with hip fracture development: a nationwide population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Effect of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use on the risk of hip fracture is controversial. This study aimed to clarify the association between PPI use and hip fracture risk using a large cohort.

METHODS

This study recruited participants from the nationwide cohort (n = 1,025,340). After exclusion of participants who had hip fractures or were aged less than 40 years during the baseline period (2002 to 2004), 371,806 participants were followed to 2013. Participants prescribed PPIs for more than 90 days during baseline period were defined as users. Fracture cases were defined when participants were hospitalized with claims of a hip fracture.

RESULTS

During 4,159,343 person-years of follow-up, fractures developed more often in PPI users than in nonusers (relative risk [RR], 1.787; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.260 to 2.534; p = 0.002). The results persisted after adjusting for age, sex, and many drugs relevant to osteoporosis or influential in bone health. Furthermore, fracture risk associated with PPI use increased with duration of use (p trend < 0.001). The fully adjusted RRs of hip fracture development were 1.350 (95% CI, 1.203 to 1.515) for 1- to 90-day users, 1.487 (95% CI, 0.957 to 2.311) for 91- to 180-day users, and 1.771 (95% CI, 0.931 to 3.368) for > 180-day users. The positive association between PPI use and fracture was also confirmed in a subgroup with health screening data where further adjustment for body mass index, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and physical activity was available (adjusted RR, 2.025; 95% CI, 1.151 to 3.564, p = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

PPI use is associated with hip fracture development.

Exposure to proton pump inhibitors and risk of pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis

Objectives: To estimate the pancreatic cancer risk among subjects exposed versus not exposed to proton pump inhibitors.Methods: The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov to identify relevant studies. The authors quantified pancreatic cancer risk among subjects exposed versus not exposed to PPIs, expressed as the pooled (adjusted) odds ratio (OR/aOR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) in overall and sensitivity analyses.Results: One randomized trial, two cohort, four case-control, and five nested case-control studies with 700,178 subjects (73,985 cases; 626,193 controls) were retained. PPI exposure was associated with pancreatic cancer risk (OR = 1.75, 95%CI = 1.12-2.72, I2 = 99%); confirmed in sensitivity analyses for high-quality studies, observational studies, case-control studies, studies with pancreatic cancer as the primary outcome, and in sensitivity analyses for diabetes and obesity but not for pancreatitis and smoking. This association was independent of the duration and Defined Daily Dose of PPI exposure. Rabeprazole had a singular significant association with pancreatic cancer (OR = 5.40, 95%CI = 1.98-14.703, I2 = 87.9%).Conclusion: The class of PPIs is associated with a 1.75-fold increase in pancreatic cancer risk, confirmed in sensitivity analyses.

Factors Associated with Gastric Black Spot, White Flat Elevated Mucosa, and Cobblestone-Like Mucosa: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Previous studies have reported a possible relevance between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and 3 new gastric mucosal changes: black spots (BSs), white flat elevated mucosa (WFEM), and cobblestone-like mucosa (CLM). The aim of this study was to investigate the association between these mucosal changes and multiple factors including PPI use.

METHODS

All subjects who underwent a routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were successively enrolled. Endoscopists carried out the EGD after being blinded about -information on patient PPI usage and determined the presence of these mucosal changes. The ratio of each factor was -compared in cases with and without each gastric finding.

RESULTS

Out of 1,214 patients, BSs were recognized in 75 (6.2%) cases, WFEM in 59 (4.9%), and CLM in 41 (3.4%). In logistic regression analysis, PPI use was significantly correlated with all of these findings (BSs: OR 2.94; 95% CI 1.66-5.21), (WFEM: OR 3.58; 95% CI 1.94-6.61), and (CLM: OR 4.57; 95% CI 2.34-9.96), and Helicobacter pylori eradication was related to BSs (OR 3.01; 95% CI 1.73-5.24) and WFEM (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.08-4.11). Decision-tree analyses showed that H. pylori eradication was associated with all findings.

CONCLUSIONS

All of the considered findings were correlated with PPI and H. pylori eradication.

Standard-Dose Proton Pump Inhibitors in the Initial Non-eradication Treatment of Duodenal Ulcer: Systematic Review, Network Meta-Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background: Short-term use of standard-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is the first-line initial non-eradication treatment for duodenal ulcer (DU), but the choice on individual PPI drug is still controversial. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of standard-dose PPI medications in the initial non-eradication treatment of DU. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, and the Wanfang database from their earliest records to September 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating omeprazole (20 mg/day), pantoprazole (40 mg/day), lansoprazole (30 mg/day), rabeprazole (20 mg/day), ilaprazole (10 mg/day), ranitidine (300 mg/day), famotidine (40 mg/day), or placebo for DU were included. The outcomes were 4-week ulcer healing rate (4-UHR) and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). A network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Bayesian random effects model was conducted, and a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision tree was performed from the payer's perspective over 1 year. Results: A total of 62 RCTs involving 10,339 participants (eight interventions) were included. The NMA showed that all the PPIs significantly increased the 4-UHR compared to H2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) and placebo, while there was no significant difference for 4-UHR among PPIs. As to the incidence of AEs, no significant difference was observed among PPIs, H2RA, and placebo during 4-week follow-up. Based on the costs of both PPIs and management of AEs in China, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year (in US dollars) for pantoprazole, lansoprazole, rabeprazole, and ilaprazole compared to omeprazole corresponded to $5134.67, $17801.67, $25488.31, and $44572.22, respectively. Conclusion: Although the efficacy and tolerance of different PPIs are similar in the initial non-eradication treatment of DU, pantoprazole (40 mg/day) seems to be the most cost-effective option in China.

Development and validation of a high throughput UPLC-MS/MS method for simultaneous quantification of esomeprazole, rabeprazole and levosulpiride in human plasma

A high throughput ultra pressure liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (UPLC–MS/MS) method with good sensitivity and selectivity has been developed and validated for simultaneous quantification of esomeprazole, rabeprazole and levosulpiride in human plasma using lansoprazole as internal standard (IS). The extraction method based on liquid–liquid extraction technique was used to extract the analytes and IS from of 50 µL of human plasma using methyl tert-butyl ether:ethyl acetate (80:20, v/v), which offers a high recovery. Chromatographic separation of analytes and IS was achieved on a Hypersil gold C₁₈ column using gradient mobile phase consisting of 2 mM ammonium formate/acetonitrile. The flow rate was set at 0.5 mL/min to elute all the analytes and IS within 1.00 min runtime. Detection of target compounds was performed on a triple quadruple mass spectrometer by multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode via positive electrospray ionization (ESI). Method validation results demonstrated that the developed method has good precision and accuracy over the concentration ranges of 0.1–2000 ng/mL for each analyte. Stability of compounds was established in a battery of stability studies, i.e., bench top, autosampler, dry extract and long-term storage stability as well as freeze-thaw cycles. The validated method has been successfully applied to analyze human plasma samples for application in pharmacokinetic studies.

Long-term proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and the development of gastric pre-malignant lesions

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most effective drugs to reduce gastric acid secretion. PPIs are one of the most commonly prescribed classes of medications worldwide. Apart from short-term application, maintenance therapy with PPIs is recommended and increasingly used in certain diseases, such as Zollinger-Ellison syndrome and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, especially for people with erosive oesophagitis or Barrett's oesophagus. Although PPIs are generally safe, their efficacy and safety of long-term use remains unclear. The question of whether the long-term use of PPIs could promote the development of gastric pre-malignant lesions has been widely investigated, but results are inconsistent. Limited insight on this problem leads to a dilemma in decision making for long-term PPI prescription.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the development or progression of gastric pre-malignant lesions, such as atrophic gastritis, intestinal metaplasia, enterochromaffin-like (ECL) cell hyperplasia, and dysplasia, in people taking long-term (six months or greater) PPI maintenance therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (from inception to 6 August 2013): the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. In addition, we searched the reference lists of included trials and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults (aged 18 years or greater) concerning the effects of long-term (six months or greater) PPI use on gastric mucosa changes, confirmed by endoscopy or biopsy sampling (or both).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed selection of eligible trials, assessment of trial quality, and data extraction. We calculated odds ratios (OR) for analysis of dichotomous data and mean differences for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials (1789 participants). Four studies had high risk of bias and the risk of bias in the other three trials was unclear. In addition, it was difficult to assess possible reporting bias. We pooled 1070 participants from four RCTs to evaluate corporal atrophy development revealing an insignificantly increased OR of 1.50 (95% CI 0.59 to 3.80; P value = 0.39; low-quality evidence) for long-term PPI users relative to non-PPI users. In five eligible trials, corporal intestinal metaplasia was assessed among 1408 participants, also with uncertain results (OR 1.46; 95% CI 0.43 to 5.03; P value = 0.55; low-quality evidence). However, by pooling data of 1705 participants from six RCTs, our meta-analysis showed that participants with PPI maintenance treatment were more likely to experience either diffuse (simple) (OR 5.01; 95% CI 1.54 to 16.26; P value = 0.007; very-low-quality evidence) or linear/micronodular (focal) ECL hyperplasia (OR 3.98; 95% CI 1.31 to 12.16; P value = 0.02; low-quality evidence) than controls. No participant showed any dysplastic or neoplastic change in any included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is presently no clear evidence that the long-term use of PPIs can cause or accelerate the progression of corpus gastric atrophy or intestinal metaplasia, although results were imprecise. People with PPI maintenance treatment may have a higher possibility of experiencing either diffuse (simple) or linear/micronodular (focal) ECL cell hyperplasia. However, the clinical importance of this outcome is currently uncertain.

Proton pump inhibitor use significantly increases the risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in 1965 patients with cirrhosis and ascites: a propensity score matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

The risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) associated with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use has been raised in cirrhotic patients with ascites. However, this is based on case-control studies, often with a small series.

AIM

To determine whether PPI use increases the risk of SBP using a large cohort.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 1965 cirrhotic patients with ascites diagnosed between January 2005 and December 2009. The SBP incidence rate was compared between the PPI and non-PPI groups before and after propensity score matching to reduce the effect of selection bias and potential confounders. Multivariate analysis was conducted to confirm the association of PPI use with SBP.

RESULTS

After excluding 411 patients, 1554 were analysed. Among them, 512 patients (32.9%) were included in the PPI group. The annual SBP incidence rate was higher in the PPI group than in the non-PPI group (10.6% and 5.8%, P = 0.002) before matching. Indications for PPI use and dose of PPI were similar between patients with and without SBP. In the propensity score matched cohort (402 pairs), the SBP incidence rate was also higher in the PPI group than in the non-PPI group (10.8% vs. 6.0%, P = 0.038). Multivariate analysis revealed that PPI use (Hazard ratio 1.396; 95% confidence interval, 1.057-1.843; P = 0.019) was the independent risk factor for SBP.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitor use significantly increases the risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients with ascites. Proton pump inhibitor use should be undertaken with greater caution and appropriately in patients with cirrhosis.

Oral gel choline salicylate induced refractory gastric ulceration

Common over the counter oral ulcer soothing gel can be an unexpected source of salicylate and cause refractory gastrointestinal ulcers if not identified.

Differences in efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical treatments between men and women: an umbrella review

Being male or female is an important determinant of risks for certain diseases, patterns of illness and life expectancy. Although differences in risks for and prognoses of several diseases have been well documented, sex-based differences in responses to pharmaceutical treatments and accompanying risks of adverse events are less clear. The objective of this umbrella review was to determine whether clinically relevant differences in efficacy and safety of commonly prescribed medications exist between men and women. We retrieved all available systematic reviews of the Oregon Drug Effectiveness Review Project published before January 2010. Two persons independently reviewed each report to identify relevant studies. We dually abstracted data from the original publications into standardized forms. We synthesized the available evidence for each drug class and rated its quality applying the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Findings, based on 59 studies and data of more than 250,000 patients suggested that for the majority of drugs no substantial differences in efficacy and safety exist between men and women. Some clinically important exceptions, however, were apparent: women experienced substantially lower response rates with newer antiemetics than men (45% vs. 58%; relative risk 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.35–1.64); men had higher rates of sexual dysfunction than women while on paroxetine for major depressive disorder; women discontinued lovastatin more frequently than men because of adverse events. Overall, for the majority of drugs sex does not appear to be a factor that has to be taken into consideration when choosing a drug treatment. The available body of evidence, however, was limited in quality and quantity, confining the range and certainty of our conclusions.

Rabeprazole: a review of its use in the management of gastric acid-related diseases in adults

Rabeprazole (Aciphex, Alfence, Pariet) is a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) used for the treatment of adults with conditions requiring a reduction of gastric acid secretion such as erosive or ulcerative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), duodenal and gastric ulcers, and pathological hypersecretory conditions including Zollinger-Ellison syndrome (ZES). It is also used as part of combination therapy for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori, a pathogen frequently implicated in the development of gastric and duodenal ulcers. Rabeprazole has a well established efficacy and safety profile in the treatment of gastric acid-related diseases. Rabeprazole is a useful, well tolerated and cost-effective option for the treatment of GORD, NERD, peptic ulcer and other gastric acid-related diseases (including ZES), and provides an appropriate alternative to other currently available PPIs, with the added benefits of having a consistent efficacy profile and low drug interaction potential due to its predominantly nonenzymatic metabolism.

Comparison of the efficacy of rabeprazole 10 mg and omeprazole 20 mg for the healing rapidity of peptic ulcer diseases

AIM

Rabeprazole has been known to inhibit H(+)/K(+)-ATPase more rapidly than omeprazole, the prototype proton pump inhibitor (PPI). The aim of this study was to demonstrate equivalence between low-dose rabeprazole 10 mg and omeprazole 20 mg for the healing rapidity of active peptic ulcer and for improvement of symptoms. Also, the effect of CYP2C19 genotypes on ulcer healing rapidity was investigated.

METHODS

A total of 112 patients with active peptic ulcer were randomized to receive either rabeprazole 10 mg q.d. or omeprazole 20 mg q.d. for 6 weeks. The remaining ratios (%) and complete healing of the ulcer were determined by endoscopy at 1 week and 6 weeks of treatment. The severity of ulcer pain was also investigated during treatment. CYP2C19 genotype was determined by the polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) method.

RESULTS

The remaining ratio of peptic ulcers after 1 week and the complete healing rate after 6 weeks in the rabeprazole versus omeprazole group were 45.5% versus 50.3% (P = 0.475) and 80.6% versus 87.0% (P = 0.423), respectively. CYP2C19 genotypes had no effect on the remaining ratio of peptic ulcers after 1 week and the healing rate of peptic ulcers after 6 weeks in both groups. The proportions of patients with symptom improvement or resolution were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose rabeprazole 10 mg has a similar efficacy for the healing rapidity of active peptic ulcer disease and symptom improvement compared with standard-dose omeprazole 20 mg.

One-year follow-up study of Helicobacter pylori eradication rate with 13C-urea breath test after 3-d and 7-d rabeprazole-based triple therapy

AIM: To investigate the long-term role of a 3-d rabeprazole-based triple therapy in patients with Helicobacter pylori(H pylori)-infected active peptic ulcers.

METHODS: We prospectively studied 115 consecutive patients with H pylori-infected active peptic ulcers. H pylori infection was confirmed if any two of H pylori DNA, histology, and rapid urease test were positive. Patients were assigned to either an open-labeled 3-d course of oral amoxicillin 1000 mg b.i.d., clarithromycin 500 mg b.i.d., and rabeprazole 20 mg b.i.d., or 7-d course of oral amoxicillin 1000 mg b.i.d., clarithromycin 500 mg b.i.d., and rabeprazole 20 mg b.i.d. Subsequently, all patients received oral rabeprazole 20 mg once daily until the 8^th wk. Three months after therapy, all patients were followed-up endoscopically for the peptic ulcer, H pylori DNA, histology, and rapid urease test. One year after therapy, H pylori infection was tested using the ¹³C-urea breath test.

RESULTS: The ulcer healing rates 3 mo after therapy were 81.0% vs 75.4% for the 3-d and 7-d groups [intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, P = 0.47] respectively, and 90.4% vs 89.6% for the 3-d and 7-d groups [per-protocol (PP) analysis, P = 0.89] respectively. The eradication rates 3 mo after therapy were 75.9% vs 73.7% for the 3-d and 7-d groups (ITT, P = 0.79) respectively, and 84.6% vs 87.5% for the 3-d and 7-d groups (PP, P = 0.68) respectively. One year after therapy, seventy-five patients returned to receive the ¹³C-urea breath test, and the eradication rates were 78.4% vs 81.6% in 3-d and 7-d groups (PP, P = 0.73) respectively.

CONCLUSION: Our study showed the eradication rates against H pylori infection 3 and 12 mo after triple therapy were not different between the 3-d and 7-d rabeprazole-based groups. Therefore, the 3-d rabeprazole-based triple therapy may be an alternative treatment for peptic ulcers with H pylori infection.

Review article: relief of symptoms in gastric acid-related diseases--correlation with acid suppression in rabeprazole treatment

Symptom relief is one of the key goals in the management of gastric acid-related disorders such as gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), including nonerosive reflux disease (NERD), and duodenal and gastric ulcer. Whereas heartburn and regurgitation are classic symptoms of GERD, duodenal and gastric ulcers are associated with epigastric pain. The relationship between gastric acid and the presence of symptoms correlates well in GERD and duodenal ulcer, but not in gastric ulcer and NERD. Nevertheless, in all these disorders, gastric acid is considered a key pathogenic element, and acid suppression remains central to therapy. With their profound, prolonged effect on acid inhibition, proton pump inhibitors are considered the first-choice therapy for these disorders. Rabeprazole is a newer generation proton pump inhibitor that suppresses the gastric proton pump and acid secretion more rapidly than does omeprazole, lansoprazole or pantoprazole. In clinical trial settings, rabeprazole provided fast and sustained symptom relief, which can help ensure patient acceptance of therapy and aid in patient compliance.

Review article: pH, healing and symptom relief with rabeprazole treatment in acid-related disorders

Control of gastric acid secretion by antisecretory agents has been the cornerstone of therapy in the successful management of all acid-related disorders, including gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and duodenal and gastric ulcer. Treatment efficacy has been strongly correlated with degree and duration of acid suppression within the 24-h period and with total duration of therapy. All proton pump inhibitors are highly effective for the healing of ulcers and erosive oesophagitis. All have closely similar mechanisms of action, yet important pharmacological differences exist, which can significantly impact certain aspects of their clinical efficacy. Rabeprazole's rapid activation over a wide pH range may be the explanation for its early onset of effective acid inhibition compared with other proton pump inhibitors such as omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole. Like rabeprazole, esomeprazole is also a potent inhibitor of gastric acid at steady state, although it is thought that rabeprazole may provide enhanced first-day acid suppression compared with esomeprazole. First-day antisecretory efficacy should produce faster symptom relief, a hypothesis supported by clinical data. Moreover, drugs with pharmacological profiles that include both rapid onset and potent antisecretory effects should help control healthcare costs by reducing the need for otherwise commonly used twice-daily proton pump inhibitor administration.

Direct comparative trials of the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcer disease

BACKGROUND

Five proton pump inhibitors are now available for use in North America. Claims of differences in the clinical efficacy of different strengths and/or agents have been made.

AIM

To identify any consistent evidence of differences in outcomes between agents or doses within this class of drugs.

METHODS

A search of the medical literature was performed in two electronic databases, and randomized controlled trials of higher quality were included in the assessment.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Thirty-two trials met our criteria. No convincing data were found to indicate that low doses of proton pump inhibitors are as effective as standard doses of proton pump inhibitors in the healing of erosive oesophagitis or in the relief of symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; however, they may be as effective as maintenance therapy for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcer disease. Differences were found between the standard doses of proton pump inhibitors with regard to the onset of symptom relief in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (lansoprazole was faster than omeprazole, and esomeprazole was faster than both lansoprazole and omeprazole) and the healing of oesophagitis (esomeprazole was superior to both omeprazole and lansoprazole). Despite these differences, there are as yet insufficient data to establish the superiority of any one agent over all others across all disease states treated with these agents.

Rabeprazole in a one-week eradication therapy of Helicobacter pylori: comparison of different dosages

AIM

Many data regarding omeprazole-, lanzoprazole- and pantoprazole-based triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication have been reported, but there is few data present regarding rabeprazole (R). We report the efficacy and tolerability of rabeprazole in different dosages in association with clarithromycin (C)and tinidazole (T) in H. pylori eradication.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Ninety-four H. pylori-positive patients with dyspeptic symptoms were enrolled and randomly allocated to eradication therapy in two different one-week regimens. In regimen A, 47 patients received R 20 mg b.i.d, C 500 mg b.i.d and T 500 mg b.i.d, while in regimen B, 47 patients received R 10 mg b.i.d, C 500 mg b.i.d and T 500 mg b.i.d. Eradication of H. pylori was evaluated by a 13C urea breath test (UBT) two months after the end of the therapy.

RESULTS

Four patients (two in each regimen) did not complete treatment. The H. pylori eradication rate was 91.4% in group A compared to 89.3% in group B (P-value not significant). Minor side-effects were reported in 4.2% of group A and 6.4% of group B patients.

CONCLUSION

Rabeprazole showed good efficacy and tolerability in one-week H. pylori therapy at 20 mg b.i.d and 10 mg b.i.d, suggesting the use of the lower dosage.

Treatment of acid-related diseases in the elderly with emphasis on the use of proton pump inhibitors

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have revolutionised the treatment of acid-related disorders, and they have also made it possible to define the spectrum of acid inhibition required for optimal treatment in each disorder. Five PPIs are now available: the older drugs, omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole, and the two newest, rabeprazole and esomeprazole. These agents have predominantly been developed in the younger adult population, and data for the elderly population are limited. Subtle differences have emerged between the old and the new PPIs in their pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and efficacy profiles. The degree of clinical relevance of these differences in the adult population is in question. However, according to this review, based on the available data for the elderly and by inference from the adult population, the differences are highly relevant in the elderly population. Studies of the pharmacokinetics of older PPIs demonstrated considerable variation in drug clearance that was reflected in a wide range of efficacy related to acid suppression with standard dosages. The newer PPIs offer several advantages over older agents, particularly in terms of rapid, profound and consistent acid inhibition. Consistent acid inhibition is particularly important in the elderly since clinical response is often difficult to judge in this patient group. An individual's cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 genotype predicts the degree of acid suppression and consequently the clinical efficacy of the PPIs. The older PPIs are predominantly metabolised by CYP2C19, with this being of more importance for omeprazole and lansoprazole than pantoprazole. The hepatic metabolism of rabeprazole is predominantly by nonenzymatic reactions and minimally by CYP-mediated reactions, which therefore confers an advantage over older PPIs in that genetic polymorphisms for CYP2C19 do not significantly influence rabeprazole clearance, clinical efficacy or potential for drug interactions. The metabolism of esomeprazole involves CYP2C19 but to a lesser extent than its predecessor omeprazole. Furthermore, esomeprazole has a more rapid onset of action and less variation in clearance rates than omeprazole. Drug clearance decreases with age independently of CYP2C19 status, exaggerating some of the differences between the PPIs and increasing the risk of drug interactions.

Meta-analysis: comparing the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in short-term use

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors have a prominent role in the management of acid-related diseases. Controlling expenses on proton pump inhibitors would yield great economic benefits for Dutch health care.

AIM

To investigate whether clinical differences in proton pump inhibitors exist.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. We identified papers in English, German, French or Dutch in which two or more proton pump inhibitors were compared under the same clinical conditions in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease or Helicobacter pylori eradication. The pooled relative risks were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.

RESULTS

Two significant differences were found in the proton pump inhibitors compared. In gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, esomeprazole 40 mg was superior to omeprazole 20 mg (relative risk, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.23). In peptic ulcer disease, pantoprazole 40 mg was superior to omeprazole 20 mg (relative risk, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.13). In Helicobacter pylori eradication, no significant differences were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Both significant differences found were in favour of the highest dose of proton pump inhibitor on a milligram basis. This indicates that the difference may be dose dependent and not proton pump inhibitor specific. Therefore, when prescribing proton pump inhibitors, arguments other than clinical efficacy, such as those related to pharmaco-economics, may be considered.

N/A

N/A

Rabeprazole is superior to omeprazole for the inhibition of peptone meal-stimulated gastric acid secretion in Helicobacter pylori-negative subjects

BACKGROUND

Peptone meal-stimulated gastric acid output is considered to be a reliable means to evaluate drug-mediated inhibition of stimulated gastric acid output, an important measure of the efficacy of the agents--such as proton pump inhibitors--used to treat acid-related disorders.

AIM

To compare the initial and overall inhibitory effects on peptone meal-stimulated gastric acid secretion of rabeprazole and omeprazole, 20 mg, in Helicobacter pylori-negative subjects on the first and eighth days of treatment.

METHODS

Healthy volunteers (n = 27) were randomized in a single-centre, double-blind, double-dummy, 2 x 2 cross-over study. Subjects received an oral dose of rabeprazole or omeprazole, 20 mg once daily, for 8 days. After a 2-4-week washout period, subjects were crossed over to receive the other medication for 8 days. Peptone meal-stimulated gastric acid secretion was measured at hours 11 and 23 at baseline and on days 1 and 8 of treatment.

RESULTS

On days 1 and 8, rabeprazole demonstrated a significantly greater inhibition of peptone meal-stimulated gastric acid secretion compared with omeprazole at all time points (P < 0.03). Median values of steady-state inhibition on day 1 were statistically significant at hour 23 (rabeprazole 100% vs. omeprazole 74%, P < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Rabeprazole, 20 mg, demonstrated superior control of peptone meal-stimulated gastric acid secretion compared with omeprazole, 20 mg, after the first dose and after the eighth daily dose. Rabeprazole achieved a more rapid onset of acid inhibition and a greater steady-state reduction in peptone meal-stimulated gastric acid secretion.

Safety and efficacy of 7-day rabeprazole- and omeprazole-based triple therapy regimens for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori in patients with documented peptic ulcer disease

AIM

A double-blind, randomized study was designed to determine whether rabeprazole- and omeprazole-based triple therapy regimens are therapeutically equivalent in the eradication of Helicobacter pylori.

METHODS

Three hundred and forty-five patients with current or previously active peptic ulcer and a positive H. pylori urease test were randomly assigned to receive RCA, OCA, RCM or OCM twice daily for 7 days (R, rabeprazole 20 mg; O, omeprazole 20 mg; C, clarithromycin 500 mg; A, amoxicillin 1000 mg; M, metronidazole 400 mg). H. pylori eradication was documented by negative 13C-urea breath tests at 4 and 12 weeks, and was evaluated using a 2 x 2 factorial design with proton pump inhibitor and antibiotic as factors.

RESULTS

Overall eradication rates (per protocol/intention-to-treat) were 87%/77% and 85%/75% with rabeprazole and omeprazole, respectively (not significant). However, a statistical interaction between proton pump inhibitor and antibiotic was identified. RCA produced a somewhat higher eradication rate than OCA (94% vs. 84%; difference, 9.8%; 95% confidence interval, - 0.7% to + 20.4%), whereas RCM produced a lower eradication rate than OCM (79% vs. 86%; difference, 8.1%; 95% confidence interval, - 21.4% to + 5.1%). Ulcer healing rates were > 90% with H. pylori eradication. Each regimen was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Rabeprazole- and omeprazole-based triple therapy regimens are therapeutically equivalent in the eradication of H. pylori and well tolerated. The statistical interaction observed between the proton pump inhibitor and supplementary antibiotic may be due to chance.

Effects of rabeprazole, 20 mg, or esomeprazole, 20 mg, on 24-h intragastric pH and serum gastrin in healthy subjects

AIM

To compare the antisecretory effects of rabeprazole and esomeprazole in an open, randomized, two-way crossover, clinical pharmacology study.

METHODS

Twenty-four healthy subjects (14 men, 10 women; mean age 26.8 years) received rabeprazole 20 mg or esomeprazole 20 mg daily on days 1-5, with a 14-day 'wash-out'. Intragastric pH was recorded continuously, and serum gastrin measured, on days 0, 1 and 5.

RESULTS

On day 0, mean intragastric pH AUC was significantly higher before the esomeprazole than before the rabeprazole treatment in four of the five time intervals analysed. On days 1 and 5, mean intragastric pH AUC was higher after rabeprazole than esomeprazole during 5-11, 14-24 and 0-24 h after dosing. Mean pH AUC in the first 5 h after dosing on day 5 was higher after esomeprazole than rabeprazole (P=0.012). On day 1, mean per cent times pH > 3 and > 4 were significantly greater after rabeprazole than esomeprazole during 0-14, 14-24 and 0-24 h. On day 5, mean serum gastrin AUC0-4 was higher (P = 0.017) after rabeprazole than esomeprazole (335 vs. 316 pg/mL.h).

CONCLUSION

In this clinical pharmacology study, rabeprazole 20 mg daily was more effective than esomeprazole 20 mg daily in increasing intragastric pH and maintaining pH > 3 and > 4. On day 5, mean pH AUC was higher after esomeprazole than rabeprazole.

[Evaluation of efficacy, safety and tolerability rabeprazole in treatment of acid-peptic diseases ]

BACKGROUND

Rabeprazole, a substituted benzimidazole, represents a new generation of proton pump inhibitors that has recently been approved by the FDA and European Union for treatment of acid-related diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of rabeprazole 20 mg in actual conditions of use in everyday clinical practice on subjects with diagnosis of erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease and/or gastric and/or duodenal ulcer.

PATIENTS/METHODS

A total of 171 outpatients (55% men, 45% women) with a mean age of 42.5 years were enrolled in this trial. The majority of subjects (81.0%) were Caucasians. Patients with endoscopically confirmed erosive/ulcerative gastroesophageal reflux disease (Savary-Miller classification), duodenal ulcer and/or benign gastric ulcer were eligible to receive rabeprazole 20 mg once daily for 4 to 8 weeks, depending on the diagnosis and at investigators' discretion. Patients were requested to record their symptoms in a diary card in a daily basis.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty two patients completed the study in accordance with the protocol. Reflux esophagitis was diagnosed in 78 (48.1%) patients, duodenal ulcer in 39 (24.1%) and gastric ulcer in 24 (14.8%). Eleven (6.8%) patients presented reflux esophagitis associated with duodenal ulcer and 7 (4.3%) associated with gastric ulcer. Finally, 3 (1.9%) presented both gastric and duodenal ulcer. Fifty-three percentage of patients were free of symptoms on the first day of treatment and 89.5% after a week. The healing rate was 84.4% for patients with reflux esophagitis, 90.6% for duodenal ulcer and 90.9% for gastric ulcer. The adverse effects were minimal and transitory.

CONCLUSIONS

Rabeprazole is highly effective and well tolerated in acute healing of reflux esophagitis and peptic ulcers. In addition, it provides fast symptoms relief.

Patients have treatment preferences: a multicentre, double-blind, crossover study comparing rabeprazole and omeprazole

It is increasingly common practice to change patients from one medication in a drug class to another, often as part of a general formulary change. The underlying assumption and accepted wisdom is that all compounds within a class are identical. To our knowledge, there has been no published investigation into the patients' views on such changes or on the individual medications. These views may be affected by positive side-effects, not normally sought in clinical trials, as well as negative side-effects, which are always reported. The objectives of this study were to determine whether patients whose primary symptoms were already controlled by a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) could distinguish between rabeprazole and omeprazole; to determine the incidence of positive, as well as negative, side-effects; to elicit patients' opinions on changing medication within a class, and on the importance of certain characteristics of medication. The design was a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, crossover trial, set in five general practice research centres in the UK and Ireland. 240 eligible patients were randomised to receive daily treatment, first for 4 weeks with omeprazole 20 mg/day, and then for reverse order. Each phase of 4 weeks was separately assessed by patients through questionnaires and by non-directed questioning about positive and negative side-effects. At the end of the 8 weeks, patients compared the two medications in seven treatment characteristics. Patients were further asked their attitude to changing medication within a class. Data were collected by a web-based electronic data capture system. Results showed that the majority of patients could be switched to another PPI therapy, predictably without noticeable difference in maintenance of primary symptom control. About one-quarter to one-half of patients were able to express a preference for one or other of the treatments dependent on the variable assessed. For 'absence of unwanted side-effects' and 'presence of positive side-effects' a statistically significant difference in favour of rabeprazole was detected (p = 0.0467 and p = 0.0188, respectively). In terms of the total treatment preference score, the primary outcome variable, there was no statistically significant difference between the two PPIs (p = 0.0754). This finding is mainly attributable to the two PPIs providing similar relief of primary mask the findings for the other variables assessed. However, there were numerically more patients (10 vs. 3) who reported 'marked' positive side-effects on rabeprazole. On direct questioning, patients indicated that tablets (rabeprazole) were more easily swallowed than capsules (omeprazole) (p < 0.0001), but less easily handled than capsules (p = 0.0003). These analyses may however have been confounded by the fact that the omeprazole medication had to be over-encapsulated to allow blinding for this double-dummy, blinded study. There was no difference in tolerability between rabeprazole and omeprazole, with 52.6% and 51% of patients reporting at least one adverse event, respectively. Of the patients controlled and maintained on omeprazole before the study, 33.9% reported adverse events on omeprazole during the study and seven discontinued the study for that reason. Patients thought the most important drug characteristics for treating this condition were rapid and lasting control of pain. Most (83.6%) would be willing to try an alternative medication within a drug class. In conclusion, most patients already controlled by a PPI would be willing to try another. An individual patient may have a strong preference for one PPI over another, and this difference may be important if treatment is to be long term.

Decreasing oesophageal acid exposure in patients with GERD: a comparison of rabeprazole and omeprazole

BACKGROUND

Rabeprazole has been shown to be more potent and faster than other proton pump inhibitors in in vitro studies and highly effective in decreasing oesophageal acid exposure in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

AIM

This study was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group comparison of three active treatment regimens utilizing two different proton pump inhibitors, or placebo, administered over 7 days in patients with GERD.

METHODS

Eighty-two patients with symptomatic GERD were given placebo, rabeprazole 10 mg b.d., rabeprazole 20 mg o.m., or omeprazole 20 mg o.m. for 7 days. Twenty-four hour oesophageal pH monitoring was performed at baseline and repeated at the conclusion of the treatment period.

RESULTS

At the end of study, the percentage time (mean +/- s.d.) with pH < 4 over a 24-h period was significantly decreased by the three active regimens but without significant difference between them (9.27 +/- 4.77; 2.53 +/- 4.27; 2.02 +/- 1.71 and 2.91 +/- 4.06 for placebo, rabeprazole 10 mg b.d., rabeprazole 20 mg o.m. and omeprazole 20 mg o.m., respectively). Acid exposure was normalized in 90% of patients treated with rabeprazole 10 mg b.d., 95% treated with rabeprazole 20 mg o.m., 78% treated with omeprazole 20 mg o.m., and only 9.5% of patients treated with placebo. Both rabeprazole and omeprazole were well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Although rabeprazole 20 mg o.m. showed greater activity numerically, this study demonstrates that rabeprazole 10 mg b.d. and 20 mg o.m. are equivalent to omeprazole 20 mg o.m. in decreasing oesophageal acid exposure.

Dyspepsia: challenges in diagnosis and selection of treatment

BACKGROUND

Despite considerable study, the pathophysiology of dyspepsia remains obscure. This and other factors have impeded development of precise and effective treatment strategies.

OBJECTIVE

This paper provides a brief review of the clinical syndrome of dyspepsia and its pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment.

METHODS

To identify articles for inclusion in this review, a search of MEDLINE was conducted using the key word dyspepsia. Because the literature on this topic is voluminous and duplicative, the search was limited primarily to literature from the last decade and to articles concerning dyspepsia in adults.

RESULTS

The symptoms of dyspepsia, which may include epigastric pain, heartburn. bloating, and early satiety, defy diagnosis in as many as 50% of patients, even after endoscopy and other appropriate studies. In the other half of patients, such causative disorders as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcer disease, cholecystitis, pancreatitis, and gastric cancer may be diagnosed. Despite controversy regarding the selection of therapy, empiric treatment is common for apparent idiopathic dyspepsia. Histamine2-receptor antagonists, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), promotility agents, and coating agents have all been used as empiric therapy for dyspeptic symptoms. With empiric treatment, subsequent management is directed by the therapeutic response. In the absence of a definitive diagnosis, treatment is usually selected on the basis of the type and severity of symptoms, a thorough history and physical examination, and factors such as age and the presence of Helicobacter pylori infection. Five PPIs are currently available--lansoprazole, omeprazole, rabeprazole, pantoprazole, and esomeprazole--all with established efficacy in GERD and other acid-mediated disorders. The PPIs can be expected to be useful in certain patients with dyspepsia, and may be prescribed for patients who are found to re- spond to potent antisecretory therapy. Patients' concern about their symptoms, practical considerations, and restrictions imposed by managed care organizations may all affect the choice between empiric therapy and early endoscopy in patients with dyspepsia.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the variety of therapeutic options available for the symptoms of dyspepsia, the many presentations of this condition and the uncertainty of the response to the currently available therapeutic options continue to pose a substantial clinical challenge.

Are the orally administered proton pump inhibitors equivalent? A comparison of lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole

Four proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are currently marketed in various parts of the world, and all of these (lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole) are available for prescription use in the United States. As a therapeutic group, the PPIs are highly useful for the relief of symptoms and healing of gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastric and duodenal ulcer disease, eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection, prevention and treatment of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-associated damage, management of hypersecretory states such as Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, and care of patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, or non-ulcer dyspepsia. The pathophysiologic basis of these management benefits lies in the potent gastric acid inhibitory effects of the PPIs. There are differences between the PPIs in their pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, influence by food and antacids, clinical efficacy, and potential for drug interactions. It is not always clear whether these often subtle variations are necessarily of clinical importance. The physician's choice of one PPI over another must rest with her/his interpretation of the clinical importance of the generally small differences between PPIs, their approval for treatment of specific clinical indications within the physician's practice jurisdiction, and the strength of the evidence based on the quantity and quality of the supporting clinical trials.

The treatment of peptic ulcer disease

There is a continuation of the debate on the management of dyspepsia while the role of Helicobacter pylori in duodenal ulcer disease is being questioned with renewed vigor, specifically in the United States. The interaction of NSAIDs and H. pylori provided some interesting, if at times confusing, literature while the debate on the safety of long-term acid suppression remained unresolved. There were some interesting developments with regard to therapeutic agents during this period. A fourth proton pump inhibitor was introduced to the market while cisapride, a drug previously considered safe, was effectively withdrawn from the North American market because of safety concerns. More data on the COX-1-sparing agents became available, and their impressive gastrointestinal safety profile was confirmed. It was noted, however, that the incidence of dyspepsia, experienced by users of these drugs, may remain a problem.

Proton pump inhibitors in the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is the most common peptic acid disease in the western world and is the commonest indication for acid suppression therapy. Major advances have been made over the past 30 years in the understanding of lower oesophageal sphincter function and the mechanism of acid secretion. Developments in surgical and pharmacological therapy have paralleled these advances. Pharmacotherapy for GERD has evolved from antacids to H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) to prokinetics to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The H2RAs, while modestly effective in symptom relief and healing of GERD, are limited by pharmacological tolerance. The prokinetics (metoclopramide and cisapride) are limited by low efficacy, pharmacological tolerance and toxicity. The PPIs have emerged as the most effective therapy for symptom relief, healing and long-term maintenance. They have also proved to be remarkably safe and cost-effective in long-term therapy. This review evaluates the pharmacology, efficacy, tolerability, safety and cost-effectiveness of the four currently available PPIs, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole and rabeprazole, in the treatment of GERD.

Review article: comparison of the pharmacokinetics, acid suppression and efficacy of proton pump inhibitors

Proton pump inhibitors have dramatically influenced the management of acid-peptic disorders in recent years. They all have a broadly similar mechanism of action and are extensively metabolized in the liver via cytochromes P450 2C19 and 3A4. There is some variation in their potential for drug interactions due to differences in enzyme inhibition. Relatively few serious adverse effects have been reported for the proton pump inhibitors. Comparative studies of acid suppression suggest that lansoprazole and pantoprazole have a potency similar to that of omeprazole on a mg for mg basis; however, rabeprazole may have a greater potency than omeprazole. Lansoprazole and rabeprazole display a more rapid onset of maximal acid suppression than the other proton pump inhibitors. Comparative studies using proton pump inhibitors for the treatment of reflux oesophagitis, duodenal ulcer healing and Helicobacter pylori eradication show little overall difference in outcome between the proton pump inhibitors when used in their standard doses. Lansoprazole and rabeprazole provide earlier and better symptom relief than the other proton pump inhibitors in some studies of peptic ulcer treatment. The few studies of gastric ulcer treatment suggest that there is an advantage in using the proton pump inhibitors that have a higher standard daily dose.

Rabeprazole is superior to ranitidine in the management of active duodenal ulcer disease: results of a double-blind, randomized North American study

OBJECTIVE

The primary purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of rabeprazole versus ranitidine in the treatment of patients with active duodenal ulcer disease.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study enrolled 376 patients. Patients were randomly assigned to receive rabeprazole 20 mg administered once daily in the morning (q.a.m.) with matching ranitidine placebo twice daily (b.i.d.) (n = 188), or ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. with matching rabeprazole placebo q.a.m. (n = 188). Three visits were scheduled: wk 0 (baseline; days -3 to -1), wk 2 (day 15+/-3 days), and wk 4 (day 29+/-3 days). The primary efficacy response variable was defined as complete regeneration of the mucosa at the site of all ulcers identified during the study. Secondary efficacy variables included patients' ratings of frequency and severity of ulcer pain, frequency of antacid use, and improvement of overall physical well-being. Tolerability was evaluated with analyses of adverse events, laboratory evaluations, fasting serum gastrin levels, vital signs, body weight, and electrocardiograms.

RESULTS

Up to 4 wk of treatment with rabeprazole 20 mg q.a.m. produced significantly greater healing rates, compared to treatment with ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. (83% vs 73%; p = 0.017). Significant differences between treatment groups were also observed for secondary efficacy indices. At wk 2, rabeprazole was more likely than ranitidine to produce complete resolution of duodenal ulcer pain (39% vs 25%; p = 0.006), improvement in duodenal ulcer nighttime pain severity (76% vs 65%; p = 0.044), and improvement in overall well-being (55% vs 41%; p = 0.009). At wk 4, the proportion of patients with normalization of overall well-being was significantly higher in the rabeprazole group than in the ranitidine group (45% vs 29%; p = 0.003). Rabeprazole was safe and well tolerated in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with active duodenal ulcer disease, rabeprazole 20 mg q.a.m. is superior to ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. in healing, resolving ulcer pain frequency, improving nighttime pain severity, and improving overall well-being. Rabeprazole is an effective and well-tolerated alternative treatment for patients with active duodenal ulcer disease.

A comparison of rabeprazole, lansoprazole, and ranitidine for improving preoperative gastric fluid property in adults undergoing elective surgery

Acid aspiration syndrome at the induction of anesthesia is still a potentially life-threatening complication. Its severity is affected by both pH and volume of the gastric juice that is aspirated. We compared the effects of rabeprazole (a new proton pump inhibitor), lansoprazole, and ranitidine on gastric fluid properties in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded fashion in 180 adult patients undergoing elective surgery. Patients were divided into six groups (n = 30 in each) according to their premedication. Patients in each group received placebo-rabeprazole (PLA-RAB), rabeprazole-placebo (RAB-PLA), rabeprazole-rabeprazole (RAB-RAB), lansoprazole-lansoprazole (LAN-LAN), placebo-ranitidine (PLA-RAN), or placebo-placebo (PLA-PLA) for the first-second medication. Each dose of the study drug was 20 mg for rabeprazole, 30 mg for lansoprazole, and 150 mg for ranitidine. The first medication was given orally at 9:00 PM on the day before surgery and the second at 5:30 AM on the day of surgery. Each patient fasted overnight and took the drug with 20 mL of water. After tracheal intubation, gastric fluid was aspirated via an orogastric tube, and the volume and pH of the aspirate was measured. Preoperative gastric fluid acidity and volume were improved by the study drugs in the following order: PLA-RAN (pH 5.3, volume 0.10 mL/kg), RAB-RAB, LAN-LAN, PLA-RAB, and RAB-PLA (pH 3.8, volume 0.22 mL/kg). The proportion of patients at risk of acid aspiration syndrome according to the traditional criteria (pH < 2.5 and volume > 0.4 mL/kg) was minimized in Groups RAB-RAB and PLA-RAN (0%). We concluded that a single morning dose of ranitidine rather than two doses (bedtime and morning) of rabeprazole was the most effective premedicant to control gastric fluid properties and to minimize the risk of aspiration pneumonitis.

IMPLICATIONS

Acid aspiration syndrome at the induction of anesthesia is rare but still a potentially life-threatening complication. We compared rabeprazole, lansoprazole, and ranitidine for reduction of preoperative gastric fluid acidity and volume in elective surgery and found that a combination of bedtime and morning doses of rabeprazole, or a morning dose of ranitidine, similarly minimized the variables. In adult patients who are at risk of aspirating gastric contents, improvement of gastric fluid environment by rabeprazole can reasonably be anticipated to provide protection against pneumonitis should regurgitation and aspiration of gastric contents occur.

The proton-pump inhibitors: similarities and differences

OBJECTIVE

This paper examines the clinical pharmacology of the proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and briefly reviews some comparative studies of these agents.

BACKGROUND

PPIs have emerged as the treatment of choice for acid-related diseases, including gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and peptic ulcer disease. Although these drugs-omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole-share a common structure (all are substituted benzimidazoles) and mode of action (inhibition of H+,K+-adenosine triphosphatase [ATPase]), each differs somewhat in its clinical pharmacology.

RESULTS

In comparative clinical trials found in MEDLINE, PPIs administered once daily produced endoscopic evidence of healing in >90% of patients with duodenal ulcer after 4 weeks of treatment, in >90% of those with gastric ulcer after 6 weeks of treatment, and in >90% of those with ulcerative or erosive GERD after 8 weeks of treatment. Maintenance therapy with daily doses of a PPI has been shown to be an effective means of preventing GERD relapse. PPIs also inhibit the growth of Helicobacter pylori, now recognized as an important factor in peptic ulcer disease, and, when administered in combination with antibiotics, provide the best treatment for eradication of the bacterium. Rabeprazole has a more rapid onset of H+,K+-ATPase inhibition than the other PPIs and, compared with omeprazole, a greater effect on intragastric pH after the first dose. Omeprazole and lansoprazole have a greater potential for drug-drug interactions than do pantoprazole and rabeprazole.

CONCLUSION

Although the individual PPIs have similar efficacy in many cases, differences between them should be considered when choosing a treatment regimen.

Review article: rabeprazole's tolerability profile in clinical trials

Rabeprazole is a new member of a class of substituted benzimidazole drugs known as proton pump inhibitors. Comparative trials have demonstrated that it is at least as effective as omeprazole for the treatment of gastrooesophageal reflux disease (GERD), duodenal ulcers, or gastric ulcers. It is significantly more effective than histamine2-receptor antagonists for acid suppression, GERD healing and pain relief, and duodenal ulcer healing and pain relief. Adverse events reported during clinical trials provide an important indication of a medication's tolerability. We demonstrate that rabeprazole has a favourable adverse events profile. It is well tolerated in placebo-controlled studies and comparative trials with omeprazole and H2-receptor antagonists. Moreover, no dose adjustments are required for special populations, such as the elderly or patients with renal or mild-to-moderate hepatic disease. Adverse events data from clinical trials support the use of rabeprazole as a treatment for acid-related diseases.

Rabeprazole: a review of its use in acid-related gastrointestinal disorders

Rabeprazole is an inhibitor of the gastric proton pump. It causes dose-dependent inhibition of acid secretion and has a more rapid onset of action than omeprazole. Duodenal ulcers healed faster after treatment with rabeprazole 20 or 40 mg/day than placebo or ranitidine 150 mg 4 times daily and at a generally similar rate to omeprazole 20 mg/day in patients with duodenal ulcers; rabeprazole was similar or superior to these agents in relieving symptoms. Rabeprazole 20 and 40 mg/day healed gastric ulcers faster than placebo, and rabeprazole 20 mg/day healed ulcers at a similar healing rate, to omeprazole 20 mg/day in well controlled 6-week studies. Gastric ulcer symptom relief with rabeprazole was similar or superior to that provided by omeprazole or placebo. In 8-week studies in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), rabeprazole 10, 20 and 40 mg/day were more effective than placebo, rabeprazole 20 mg/day was more effective than ranitidine 150 mg twice daily, and rabeprazole 20 mg/day was similar in efficacy to omeprazole 20 mg/day. Symptom relief with rabeprazole in 8-week trials in patients with GERD was superior to that provided by placebo, and similar to ranitidine or omeprazole. Rabeprazole was similar to omeprazole and superior to placebo in both maintenance of healing and prevention of symptoms in patients with healed GERD in 1-year studies. One-week triple therapy with rabeprazole 20 mg twice daily plus 2 antibacterial agents achieved > or = 90% Helicobacter pylori eradication, but, as would be expected, a regimen of rabeprazole 20 mg twice daily plus 1 antibacterial agent was less successful. The drug was as effective as omeprazole and lansoprazole as part of triple therapy for H. pylori eradication. Rabeprazole successfully reduced acid output to target levels and prevented further pathological changes in 10 patients with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. Usual dosages of rabeprazole are 20 mg/day for 4 weeks to treat duodenal ulcers, 6 weeks for gastric ulcers and 8 weeks for GERD, although some patients with duodenal ulcer may respond to a 10 mg/day dosage. For long term maintenance of GERD healing, 10 or 20 mg daily doses are adequate. Patients with hypersecretory states may need individualised dosages starting at 60 mg/day. The drug was well tolerated in clinical trials, with headache, rash, infection, diarrhoea and flu syndrome as the most common adverse events. In conclusion, rabeprazole appears to be a well tolerated proton pump inhibitor with a rapid onset of action and a low potential for drug interactions. The drug may be used to achieve healing and the relief of symptoms of duodenal ulcer, gastric ulcer and GERD, maintain GERD healing, and can form part of effective regimens to eradicate H. pylori.

Review article: rabeprazole's profile in patients with gastrointestinal diseases

The selection of agents to treat patients with acid-related gastrointestinal diseases requires knowledge of their efficacy, tolerability, and ease of dosing among individuals with differing disease severities and other baseline characteristics. The efficacy and favourable benefit-risk profile of rabeprazole, a new proton pump inhibitor, has been demonstrated in controlled clinical trials of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), duodenal ulcers, and gastric ulcers. In comparative trials, rabeprazole is at least as effective as omeprazole for the treatment of GERD, duodenal ulcers, and gastric ulcers, and it is superior to histamine2-receptor antagonists for the treatment of GERD and duodenal ulcers. Its once-daily dosing regimen and low potential for interaction with drugs metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system make it a particularly attractive option for the treatment of acid-related diseases among older individuals. Rabeprazole is likely to be a valuable new addition to its class in treating patients with acid-related gastrointestinal diseases given its efficacy in acid suppression, high healing rates, rapid symptom relief, and convenient dosing.

Rabeprazole: pharmacokinetics and tolerability in patients with stable, end-stage renal failure

The authors compare the pharmacokinetic profiles, safety, and tolerability of rabeprazole, a new proton pump inhibitor (PPI), in healthy volunteers and in subjects with stable, end-stage renal failure. This single-center, open-label trial included two groups of subjects: 10 healthy males with 24-hour creatinine clearance > or = 90 mL/min/m2 and 10 males with renal failure (24-hour creatinine clearance < or = 5 mL/min/m2) receiving hemodialytic therapy. Normal subjects received a single, oral 20 mg rabeprazole dose. Those with renal failure received a 20 mg dose of rabeprazole on the day after hemodialysis and a second dose after a 2-week washout period during dialysis. Blood samples were drawn before and up to 24 hours after rabeprazole administration for determination of plasma rabeprazole concentrations by high-performance liquid chromatography. Safety and tolerability of rabeprazole were determined by reporting adverse events and comparing vital signs, ECG, physical examinations, and clinical laboratory tests before and during treatment. Comparison of pharmacokinetic results from healthy volunteers with those from subjects with renal failure indicated no clinically significant differences between groups. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences between any pharmacokinetic parameters recorded during or after hemodialysis. Rabeprazole was well tolerated by both groups. Only two drug-related adverse events were reported, and there were no significant treatment-emergent changes in vital signs or ECG. Treatment-emergent changes in hematologic and clinical chemistry parameters were observed for a few subjects in each group and generally represented only slight deviations from the normal range. These results indicate that no dosage adjustment of rabeprazole is required in patients with renal dysfunction. These findings and the well-documented clinical efficacy of this new PPI in patients with gastric ulcers, duodenal ulcers, or gastroesophageal reflux disease support rabeprazole's use in the treatment of patients with acid peptic disorders.