Low-dose lansoprazole provides greater relief of heartburn and epigastric pain than low-dose omeprazole in patients with acid-related dyspepsia

Proton pump inhibitors for functional dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

Functional dyspepsia (FD or non-ulcer dyspepsia) is defined as continuous or frequently recurring epigastric pain or discomfort for which no organic cause can be found. Acid suppressive therapy, including proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), has been proposed as a therapeutic option in FD, but its efficacy remains controversial. While PPIs are generally considered safe and well tolerated, they have been associated with adverse events, especially in the long term. For this reason, decisions on whether to initiate or continue PPI therapy should be made based on an appropriate clinical indication. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether PPI therapy provides symptomatic relief in FD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in the improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life compared to placebo, H2 receptor antagonists or prokinetics, in people with functional dyspepsia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched in the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Library (to May 2017), MEDLINE (OvidSP; to May 2017), Embase (OvidSP; to May 2017), and SIGLE grey literature (up to May 2017) and clinical trial registries; we handsearched abstracts from conferences up to May 2017. We screened non-systematic reviews, systematic reviews and guidelines to identify any additional trials. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any PPI with placebo, H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or prokinetics for the treatment of FD of at least two weeks' duration. Participants were adults (aged 16 years or greater) with an adequate diagnosis of FD (any validated criteria such as Rome I, II, III or Lancet Working Group).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and trial quality, and extracted data. We collected data on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and number of overall adverse events. Specific adverse events were beyond the scope of this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 25 RCTs from 27 papers (with 8453 participants) studying the effect of PPIs versus placebo, H2RAs or prokinetics for improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life in people with FD. Low-dose PPIs had similar efficacy as standard-dose PPIs, therefore we combined these subgroups for the analysis. PPI was more effective than placebo at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; participants = 6172; studies = 18; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11; moderate quality evidence). PPIs may have little or no effect compared with H2RAs (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04; participants = 740; studies = 2; low quality evidence), and may be slightly more effective than prokinetics (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; participants = 1033; studies = 5; NNTB 16; low quality evidence) at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD. PPIs plus prokinetics have probably little or no effect compared with PPIs alone at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.08; participants = 407; studies = 2; moderate quality evidence).There was no difference when subgrouped by Helicobacter pylori status, country of origin, or presence of reflux or Rome III subtypes. There were no differences in the number of adverse events observed between PPIs and any of the other treatments. There were fewer adverse events in the combination of PPI plus prokinetics compared to prokinetics alone (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93; participants = 407; studies = 2; moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that PPIs are effective for the treatment of FD, independent of the dose and duration of treatment compared with placebo. PPIs may be slightly more effective than prokinetics for the treatment of FD; however, the evidence is scarce. The trials evaluating PPIs versus prokinetics are difficult to interpret as they are at risk of bias. Although the effect of these drugs seems to be small, the drugs are well tolerated.

Proton pump inhibitors for functional dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

Functional dyspepsia (FD or non-ulcer dyspepsia) is defined as continuous or frequently recurring epigastric pain or discomfort for which no organic cause can be found. Acid suppressive therapy, including proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), has been proposed as a therapeutic option in FD, but its efficacy remains controversial. While PPIs are generally considered safe and well tolerated, they have been associated with adverse events, especially in the long term. For this reason, decisions on whether to initiate or continue PPI therapy should be made based on an appropriate clinical indication. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether PPI therapy provides symptomatic relief in FD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in the improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life compared to placebo, H2 receptor antagonists or prokinetics, in people with functional dyspepsia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched in the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Library (to January 2016), MEDLINE (OvidSP; to February 2016), Embase (OvidSP; to February 2016), and SIGLE grey literature (up to February 2016) and clinical trial registries; we handsearched abstracts from conferences up to February 2016. We screened non-systematic reviews, systematic reviews and guidelines to identify any additional trials. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any PPI with placebo, H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or prokinetics for the treatment of FD. Participants were adults (aged 16 years or greater) with an adequate diagnosis of FD (any validated criteria such as Rome I, II, III or Lancet Working Group).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, trial quality and extracted data. We collected data on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and number of overall adverse events. Specific adverse events were beyond the scope of this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 23 RCTs from 22 papers (with 8759 participants) studying the effect of PPIs versus placebo, H2RAs or prokinetics for improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life in people with FD. Low-dose PPIs had similar efficacy as standard-dose PPIs, therefore we combined these subgroups for the analysis. Two to eight weeks of therapy with PPI was slightly more effective than placebo at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; participants = 5968; studies = 16; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 13; moderate quality evidence). PPIs may be slightly more effective than H2RAs (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04; participants = 740; studies = 2, NNTB 13; low quality evidence), and slightly more effective than prokinetics (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.00; participants = 892; studies = 4; NNTB 20; low quality evidence) at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD. PPIs plus prokinetics were possibly slightly more effective than PPIs alone at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.08; participants = 407; studies = 2; NNTB 18; moderate quality evidence).The was no difference when subgrouped by Helicobacter pylori status, country of origin, or presence of reflux or Rome III subtypes. There were no differences in the number of adverse events observed between PPIs and any of the other treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that PPIs are effective for the treatment of FD, independent of the dose and duration of treatment compared with placebo. PPIs may be slightly more effective than H2RAs for the treatment of FD; however, the evidence is scarce. The trials evaluating PPIs versus prokinetics are difficult to interpret as they are at risk of bias. Although the effect of these drugs seems to be small, the drugs are well tolerated.

Partnership in optimizing management of reflux symptoms: a treatment algorithm for over-the-counter proton-pump inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Uncomplicated heartburn and acid regurgitation are increasingly treated and managed using over-the-counter medications. However, with over-the-counter availability of antacids, alginates, histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), consumers need guidance as to appropriate options and how to use them.

METHODS

Relevant guidelines, studies, and reviews were identified via literature searches of PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar, as well as cross-referencing from the identified papers.

RESULTS

Antacids, alginates, and H2RAs are best suited to management of occasional heartburn, taken either before provocative meals or other triggers or on demand when symptoms arise. Over-the-counter PPIs are appropriate options across the range of symptom severity/frequency typically encountered in the pharmacy, but may be particularly appropriate for treatment of those with frequent and/or very bothersome heartburn. A 2-4 week course of daily PPIs can lead to complete resolution of frequent heartburn. Counseling is important to ensure that patients understand that failure of symptoms to resolve or a rapid return of symptoms while taking a PPI is an indication to consult a doctor, whereas a return of symptoms after a period of months may be an indication for just another course of treatment. The need for effective communication and for ensuring use of the correct medication in the over-the-counter setting puts much of the responsibility for management of heartburn and acid regurgitation on the pharmacist. A proposed algorithm that details when and how to use available over-the-counter medications is presented. This algorithm also highlights alarm features and atypical symptoms indicative of other underlying conditions that should be referred directly to a physician.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a simple algorithm will empower pharmacists and consumers alike and ensure consistent and appropriate care.

Esomeprazole treatment of frequent heartburn: two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials

PURPOSE

To determine the efficacy of a 14-day regimen of esomeprazole 20 mg for the treatment of frequent heartburn in subjects who are likely to self-treat with over-the-counter medications without consulting a health care provider.

METHODS

Adults with frequent heartburn ≥ 2 days per week in the past 4 weeks were randomly assigned to 14-day double-blind treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg once daily or placebo in 2 identical multicenter studies (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01370525, NCT01370538). The primary efficacy outcome was percentage of heartburn-free 24-hour days across 14 days. Secondary efficacy outcomes included heartburn resolution, defined as heartburn ≤ 2 days over 14 days, and percentages of subjects reporting ≤ 1 day with heartburn in the first and final weeks of treatment. Subjects recorded data in daily self-assessment diaries.

RESULTS

The percentage of heartburn-free 24-hour days over 14 days was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in subjects receiving esomeprazole 20 mg compared with placebo in study 1 (N = 331; 46.13% vs. 33.07%, respectively) and study 2 (N = 320; 48.00% vs 32.75%, respectively). Significantly more subjects treated with esomeprazole 20 mg had heartburn resolution over 14 days and in the first and final weeks compared with placebo. Within the first 4 days, the proportion of subjects with heartburn-free days was significantly greater with esomeprazole 20 mg versus placebo. Treatment was generally well tolerated, with a safety pattern consistent with the known profile for esomeprazole.

CONCLUSION

A 14-day regimen of esomeprazole 20 mg once daily was effective for treating frequent heartburn in subjects who are likely to self-treat with over-the-counter medications.

PPI therapy is equally effective in well-defined non-erosive reflux disease and in reflux esophagitis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

  Symptomatic response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in patients with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) is often reported as lower than in patients with erosive reflux disease (ERD). However, the definition of NERD differs across clinical trials. This meta-analysis aims to estimate the rate of symptom relief in response to PPI in NERD patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE (1966-2010), Cochrane Comprehensive Trial Register (1997-2010) and EMBASE (1985-2010) databases were searched and manual searches from studies' references were performed. Randomized clinical trials were selected that included patients with heartburn, and analyzed the effect of short-term PPI treatment. The primary outcome of selected studies was defined as complete or partial heartburn relief. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality of selected articles. Random effects models and meta-regression were used to combine and analyze results.

KEY RESULTS

The pooled estimate of complete relief of heartburn after 4 weeks of PPI therapy in patients with ERD was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.74) (32 studies), vs 0.50 (0.43-0.57) (eight studies) in empirically treated patients, 0.49 (0.44-0.55) (12 studies) in patients defined as non-erosive by negative endoscopy, and 0.73 (0.69-0.77) (two studies) in patients defined as non-erosive by both negative endoscopy and a positive pH-test.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

In well-defined NERD patients, the estimated complete symptom response rate after PPI therapy is comparable to the response rate in patients with ERD. The previously reported low response rate in studies with patients classified as NERD is likely the result of inclusion of patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms that do not have reflux disease.

WITHDRAWN: Initial management strategies for dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

This review considers management strategies (combinations of initial investigation and empirical treatments) for dyspeptic patients. Dyspepsia was defined to include both epigastric pain and heartburn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability, and cost effectiveness of the following initial management strategies for patients presenting with dyspepsia (a) Initial pharmacological therapy (including endoscopy for treatment failures). (b) Early endoscopy. (c) Testing for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori )and endoscope only those positive. (d) H. pylori eradication therapy with or without prior testing.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were located through electronic searches and extensive contact with trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of dyspeptic patients presenting in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and use of resources. An individual patient data meta-analysis of health economic data was conducted

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five papers reporting 27 comparisons were found. Trials comparing proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with antacids (three trials) and histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) (three trials), early endoscopy with initial acid suppression (five trials), H. pylori test and endoscope versus usual management (three trials), H. pylori test and treat versus endoscopy (six trials), and test and treat versus acid suppression alone in H. pylori positive patients (four trials), were pooled. PPIs were significantly more effective than both H2RAs and antacids. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were; for PPI compared with antacid 0.72 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.80), PPI compared with H2RA 0.63 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.85). Results for other drug comparisons were either absent or inconclusive. Initial endoscopy was associated with a small reduction in the risk of recurrent dyspeptic symptoms compared with H. pylori test and treat (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96), but was not cost effective (mean additional cost of endoscopy US$401 (95% CI $328 to 474). Test and treat may be more effective than acid suppression alone (RR 0.59 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitor drugs (PPIs) are effective in the treatment of dyspepsia in these trials which may not adequately exclude patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The relative efficacy of histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and PPIs is uncertain. Early investigation by endoscopy or H. pylori testing may benefit some patients with dyspepsia but is not cost effective as part of an overall management strategy.

It is possible to classify non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) patients into endoscopically normal groups and minimal change groups by subjective symptoms and responsiveness to rabeprazole -- a report from a study with Japanese patients

The hypothesis that non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) patients comprise various subgroups is gaining popularity. This study was conducted to investigate the possibility of categorizing NERD patients according to symptom types and response to acid-suppressive drug rabeprazole (RPZ) 10 mg/day. NERD patients were classified as grade N (endoscopically normal), M (minimal change), or erosive GERD, and answered a 51-item, yes-or-no questionnaire pre and post-treatment. Compared to erosive GERD, clear differences existed in pretreatment prevalence of symptoms and responsiveness to RPZ in grades N and M; the results suggested stomachaches (especially at night) were significant symptoms in grade N and dysmotility-like symptoms like bloated stomach were significant in grade M while gastroesophageal reflux symptoms were significant in erosive GERD. Clinical significance of classifying NERD was indicated from different symptoms and responsiveness to PPI.

Effects of proton-pump inhibitors on functional dyspepsia: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess systematically the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in the treatment of functional dyspepsia compared with placebo and to determine if any difference in the response exists between symptom subgroups of functional dyspepsia.

METHODS

A literature search was performed through September 2005 in PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases to include randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of PPIs for the treatment of functional dyspepsia. Relative risk (RR) and relative risk reduction (RRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated under a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seven studies with a total of 3725 patients were identified. PPIs were found to be more effective than placebo for reducing symptoms in patients with functional dyspepsia (RRR, 10.3%; 95% CI, 2.7%-17.3%). The estimated number needed to treat is 14.6 (95% CI, 8.7-57.1). When stratified analyses were performed, a significant difference in the efficacy was observed only in patients with ulcer-like (RRR, 12.8%; 95% CI, 7.2%-18.1%) and reflux-like dyspepsia (RRR, 19.7%; 95% CI, 1.8%-34.3%), but not in those with dysmotility-like (RRR, 5.1%; 95% CI, -10.9% to 18.7%) and unspecified dyspepsia (RRR, -8.0%; 95% CI, -23.7% to 5.6%). The effect of H pylori on the efficacy of PPIs remains unclear. Significant heterogeneity among studies was found for the overall analysis, dysmotility-like dyspepsia, H pylori-negative subgroup, and different dose subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

PPIs are more effective than placebo for the management of patients with ulcer-like and reflux-like functional dyspepsia.

Initial management strategies for dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

This review considers management strategies (combinations of initial investigation and empirical treatments) for dyspeptic patients. Dyspepsia was defined to include both epigastric pain and heartburn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability, and cost effectiveness of the following initial management strategies for patients presenting with dyspepsia: (a) Initial pharmacological therapy (including endoscopy for treatment failures). (b) Early endoscopy. (c) Testing for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori )and endoscope only those positive. (d) H. pylori eradication therapy with or without prior testing.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were located through electronic searches and extensive contact with trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of dyspeptic patients presenting in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and use of resources. An individual patient data meta-analysis of health economic data was conducted

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five papers reporting 27 comparisons were found. Trials comparing proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with antacids (three trials) and histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) (three trials), early endoscopy with initial acid suppression (five trials), H. pylori test and endoscope versus usual management (three trials), H. pylori test and treat versus endoscopy (six trials), and test and treat versus acid suppression alone in H. pylori positive patients (four trials), were pooled. PPIs were significantly more effective than both H2RAs and antacids. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were; for PPI compared with antacid 0.72 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.80), PPI compared with H2RA 0.63 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.85). Results for other drug comparisons were either absent or inconclusive. Initial endoscopy was associated with a small reduction in the risk of recurrent dyspeptic symptoms compared with H. pylori test and treat (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96), but was not cost effective (mean additional cost of endoscopy US$401 (95% CI $328 to 474). Test and treat may be more effective than acid suppression alone (RR 0.59 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitor drugs (PPIs) are effective in the treatment of dyspepsia in these trials which may not adequately exclude patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The relative efficacy of histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and PPIs is uncertain. Early investigation by endoscopy or H. pylori testing may benefit some patients with dyspepsia but is not cost effective as part of an overall management strategy.

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.

Management of dyspepsia

Proper management of uninvestigated dyspepsia is a challenging task for any clinician. Efficient and cost-effective management of such patients requires careful history taking and awareness of the available options.

Lansoprazole: an update of its place in the management of acid-related disorders

Lansoprazole is an inhibitor of gastric acid secretion and also exhibits antibacterial activity against Helicobacter pylori in vitro. Current therapy for peptic ulcer disease focuses on the eradication of H. pylori infection with maintenance therapy indicated in those patients who are not cured of H. pylori and those with ulcers resistant to healing. Lansoprazole 30 mg combined with amoxicillin 1g, clarithromycin 250 or 500mg, or metronidazole 400 mg twice daily was associated with eradication rates ranging from 71 to 94%, and ulcer healing rates were generally >80% in well designed studies. In addition, it was as effective as omeprazole- or rabeprazole-based regimens which included these antimicrobial agents. Maintenance therapy with lansoprazole 30 mg/day was significantly more effective than either placebo or ranitidine in preventing ulcer relapse. Importantly, preliminary data suggest that lansoprazole-based eradication therapy is effective in children and the elderly. In the short-term treatment of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), lansoprazole 15, 30 or 60 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo, ranitidine 300 mg/day or cisapride 40 mg/day and similar in efficacy to pantoprazole 40 mg/day in terms of healing of oesophagitis. Lansoprazole 30 mg/day, omeprazole 20 mg/day and pantoprazole 40 mg/day all provided similar symptom relief in these patients. In patients with healed oesophagitis. 12-month maintenance therapy with lansoprazole 15 or 30 mg/day prevented recurrence and was similar to or more effective than omeprazole 10 or 20 mg/day. Available data in patients with NSAID-related disorders or acid-related dyspepsia suggest that lansoprazole is effective in these patients in terms of the prevention of NSAID-related gastrointestinal complications, ulcer healing and symptom relief. Meta-analytic data and postmarketing surveillance in >30,000 patients indicate that lansoprazole is well tolerated both as monotherapy and in combination with antimicrobial agents. After lansoprazole monotherapy commonly reported adverse events included dose-dependent diarrhoea, nausea/vomiting, headache and abdominal pain. After short-term treatment in patients with peptic ulcer, GORD, dyspepsia and gastritis the incidence of adverse events associated with lansoprazole was generally < or = 5%. Similar adverse events were seen in long-term trials, although the incidence was generally higher (< or = 10%). When lansoprazole was administered in combination with amoxicillin, clarithromycin or metronidazole adverse events included diarrhoea, headache and taste disturbance. In conclusion, lansoprazole-based triple therapy is an effective treatment option for the eradication of H. pylori infection in patients with peptic ulcer disease. Preliminary data suggest it may have an important role in the management of this infection in children and the elderly. In the short-term management of GORD, lansoprazole monotherapy offers a more effective alternative to histamine H2-receptor antagonists and initial data indicate that it is an effective short-term treatment option in children and adolescents. In adults lansoprazole maintenance therapy is also an established treatment option for the long-term management of this chronic disease. Lansoprazole has a role in the treatment and prevention of NSAID-related ulcers and the treatment of acid-related dyspepsia; however, further studies are needed to confirm its place in these indications. Lansoprazole has emerged as a useful and well tolerated treatment option in the management of acid-related disorders.

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.