Laparoscopic antireflux surgery vs esomeprazole treatment for chronic GERD: the LOTUS randomized clinical trial

CONTEXT

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic, relapsing disease with symptoms that have negative effects on daily life. Two treatment options are long-term medication or surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate optimized esomeprazole therapy vs standardized laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LARS) in patients with GERD.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The LOTUS trial, a 5-year exploratory randomized, open, parallel-group trial conducted in academic hospitals in 11 European countries between October 2001 and April 2009 among 554 patients with well-established chronic GERD who initially responded to acid suppression. A total of 372 patients (esomeprazole, n = 192; LARS, n = 180) completed 5-year follow-up. Interventions Two hundred sixty-six patients were randomly assigned to receive esomeprazole, 20 to 40 mg/d, allowing for dose adjustments; 288 were randomly assigned to undergo LARS, of whom 248 actually underwent the operation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Time to treatment failure (for LARS, defined as need for acid suppressive therapy; for esomeprazole, inadequate symptom control after dose adjustment), expressed as estimated remission rates and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Estimated remission rates at 5 years were 92% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89%-96%) in the esomeprazole group and 85% (95% CI, 81%-90%) in the LARS group (log-rank P = .048). The difference between groups was no longer statistically significant following best-case scenario modeling of the effects of study dropout. The prevalence and severity of symptoms at 5 years in the esomeprazole and LARS groups, respectively, were 16% and 8% for heartburn (P = .14), 13% and 2% for acid regurgitation (P < .001), 5% and 11% for dysphagia (P < .001), 28% and 40% for bloating (P < .001), and 40% and 57% for flatulence (P < .001). Mortality during the study was low (4 deaths in the esomeprazole group and 1 death in the LARS group) and not attributed to treatment, and the percentages of patients reporting serious adverse events were similar in the esomeprazole group (24.1%) and in the LARS group (28.6%).

CONCLUSION

This multicenter clinical trial demonstrated that with contemporary antireflux therapy for GERD, either by drug-induced acid suppression with esomeprazole or by LARS, most patients achieve and remain in remission at 5 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00251927.

Esomeprazole (40 mg) compared with lansoprazole (30 mg) in the treatment of erosive esophagitis

OBJECTIVES

Esomeprazole, the S isomer of omeprazole, has been shown to have higher healing rates of erosive esophagitis than omeprazole. This study compared esomeprazole with lansoprazole for the healing of erosive esophagitis and resolution of heartburn.

METHODS

This United States multicenter, randomized, double blind, parallel group trial was performed in 5241 adult patients (intent-to-treat population) with endoscopically documented erosive esophagitis, which was graded by severity at baseline (Los Angeles classification). Patients received 40 mg of esomeprazole (n = 2624) or 30 mg of lansoprazole (n = 2617) once daily before breakfast for up to 8 wk. The primary efficacy endpoint was healing of erosive esophagitis at week 8. Secondary assessments included proportion of patients healed at week 4, resolution of investigator-recorded heartburn, time to first and time to sustained resolution of patient diary-recorded heartburn, and proportion of heartburn-free days and nights.

RESULTS

Esomeprazole (40 mg) demonstrated significantly higher healing rates (92.6%, 95% CI = 91.5-93.6%) than lansoprazole (30 mg) (88.8%, 95% CI = 87.5-90.0%) at week 8 (p = 0.0001, life-table estimates, intent-to-treat analysis). A significant difference in healing rates favoring esomeprazole was also observed at week 4. The difference in healing rates between esomeprazole and lansoprazole increased as baseline severity of erosive esophagitis increased. Sustained resolution of heartburn occurred faster and in more patients treated with esomeprazole. Sustained resolution of nocturnal heartburn also occurred faster with esomeprazole. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Esomeprazole (40 mg) is more effective than lansoprazole (30 mg) in healing erosive esophagitis and resolving heartburn. Healing rates are consistently high with esomeprazole, irrespective of baseline disease severity.

American Lung Association Asthma Clinical Research Centers, Mastronarde JG, Anthonisen NR, Castro M, Holbrook JT, Leone FT, Teague WG, Wise RA. Efficacy of esomeprazole for treatment of poorly controlled asthma

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux is common among patients with asthma but often causes mild or no symptoms. It is not known whether treatment of gastroesophageal reflux with proton-pump inhibitors in patients who have poorly controlled asthma without symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux can substantially improve asthma control.

METHODS

In a parallel-group, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 412 participants with inadequately controlled asthma, despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, and with minimal or no symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux to receive either 40 mg of esomeprazole twice a day or matching placebo. Participants were followed for 24 weeks with the use of daily asthma diaries, spirometry performed once every 4 weeks, and questionnaires that asked about asthma symptoms. We used ambulatory pH monitoring to ascertain the presence or absence of gastroesophageal reflux in the participants. The primary outcome was the rate of episodes of poor asthma control, as assessed on the basis of entries in asthma diaries.

RESULTS

Episodes of poor asthma control occurred with similar frequency in the placebo and esomeprazole groups (2.3 and 2.5 events per person-year, respectively; P=0.66). There was no treatment effect with respect to individual components of the episodes of poor asthma control or with respect to secondary outcomes, including pulmonary function, airway reactivity, asthma control, symptom scores, nocturnal awakening, or quality of life. The presence of gastroesophageal reflux, which was documented by pH monitoring in 40% of participants with minimal or no symptoms, did not identify a subgroup of patients that benefited from treatment with proton-pump inhibitors. There were fewer serious adverse events among patients receiving esomeprazole than among those receiving placebo (11 vs. 17).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high prevalence of asymptomatic gastroesophageal reflux among patients with poorly controlled asthma, treatment with proton-pump inhibitors does not improve asthma control. Asymptomatic gastroesophageal reflux is not a likely cause of poorly controlled asthma. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00069823.)

Combination of a cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor and a proton-pump inhibitor for prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding in patients at very high risk: a double-blind, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Guidelines on pain management recommend that patients at risk of ulcers receive either a cyclo-oxygenase (COX 2) inhibitor or a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI). These two treatments have similar effectiveness, but they are insufficient for protection of patients at very high risk for ulcer bleeding. We aimed to test the hypothesis that in patients with previous ulcer bleeding induced by non-selective NSAIDs, combined treatment with the COX 2 inhibitor celecoxib and the PPI esomeprazole would be better than celecoxib alone for prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

441 consecutively presenting patients who were taking non-selective NSAIDs for arthritis were recruited to our single-centre, prospective, randomised, double-blind trial after admission to hospital with upper-gastrointestinal bleeding. Patients were enrolled after their ulcers had healed and a histological test for Helicobacter pylori was negative. All patients were given 200 mg celecoxib twice daily. 137 patients were randomly assigned to receive 20 mg esomeprazole twice daily (combined-treatment group), and 136 to receive a placebo (control group) for 12 months. The primary endpoint was recurrent ulcer bleeding during treatment or within 1 month of the end of treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00365313.

FINDINGS

Combination treatment was more effective than celecoxib alone for prevention of ulcer bleeding in patients at high risk. The 13-month cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint was 0% in the combined-treatment group and 12 (8.9%) in the controls (95% CI difference, 4.1 to 13.7; p=0.0004). The median follow-up was 13 months (range 0.4-13.0). Discontinuation of treatment and the incidence of adverse events were similar in the two treatment groups.

INTERPRETATION

Patients at very high risk for recurrent ulcer bleeding who need anti-inflammatory analgesics should receive combination treatment with a COX 2 inhibitor and a PPI. Our findings should encourage guideline committees to review their recommendations for patients at very high risk of recurrent ulcer bleeding.

The association between the use of proton pump inhibitors and the risk of hypomagnesemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although many case reports have described patients with proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-induced hypomagnesemia, the impact of PPI use on hypomagnesemia has not been fully clarified through comparative studies. We aimed to evaluate the association between the use of PPI and the risk of developing hypomagnesemia by conducting a systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library using the primary keywords "proton pump," "dexlansoprazole," "esomeprazole," "ilaprazole," "lansoprazole," "omeprazole," "pantoprazole," "rabeprazole," "hypomagnesemia," "hypomagnesaemia," and "magnesium." Studies were included if they evaluated the association between PPI use and hypomagnesemia and reported relative risks or odds ratios or provided data for their estimation. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Nine studies including 115,455 patients were analyzed. The median Newcastle-Ottawa quality score for the included studies was seven (range, 6-9). Among patients taking PPIs, the median proportion of patients with hypomagnesemia was 27.1% (range, 11.3-55.2%) across all included studies. Among patients not taking PPIs, the median proportion of patients with hypomagnesemia was 18.4% (range, 4.3-52.7%). On meta-analysis, pooled odds ratio for PPI use was found to be 1.775 (95% confidence interval 1.077-2.924). Significant heterogeneity was identified using Cochran's Q test (df = 7, P<0.001, I2 = 98.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

PPI use may increase the risk of hypomagnesemia. However, significant heterogeneity among the included studies prevented us from reaching a definitive conclusion.

The new proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole is effective as a maintenance therapy in GERD patients with healed erosive oesophagitis: a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

Esomeprazole, the S-isomer of omeprazole, is the first proton pump inhibitor to be developed as an optical isomer. In patients with erosive oesophagitis, esomeprazole has produced significantly greater healing rates and improved symptom resolution vs. omeprazole.

AIM

This study assesses the efficacy of esomeprazole for preventing relapse in patients with healed oesophagitis.

METHODS

In this 6-month US multicentre randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, 375 Helicobacter pylori-negative patients with endoscopically healed oesophagitis received esomeprazole 40 mg, 20 mg, 10 mg, or placebo once daily. The primary efficacy end-point was maintenance of healing at 6 months. Secondary end-points assessed changes in symptoms, and long-term safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

Significantly (P < 0.001) more patients remained healed with esomeprazole 40 mg (87.9%), 20 mg (78.7%), or 10 mg (54.2%), than with placebo (29.1%). Relapse, when it occurred, was later with esomeprazole. Sustained resolution of heartburn was observed in the 40 mg and 20 mg groups; there was a high correlation between absence of heartburn and maintenance of healing. Adverse effects were mild, infrequent and not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Esomeprazole is effective and well-tolerated in the maintenance of healing of erosive oesophagitis. Esomeprazole 40 mg and 20 mg offer significant clinical benefit to patients.

Esomeprazole 20 mg and lansoprazole 15 mg in maintaining healed reflux oesophagitis: Metropole study results

AIM

To compare the efficacy of esomeprazole, 20 mg once daily, vs. lansoprazole, 15 mg once daily, for the maintenance treatment of patients with healed reflux oesophagitis.

METHODS

During the initial open healing phase, 1391 patients with endoscopically verified reflux oesophagitis and a history of heartburn, with or without acid regurgitation, received esomeprazole 40 mg for 4-8 weeks. Patients who were healed (identified by endoscopy at 4 or 8 weeks) and symptom free were then randomized to receive 6 months of treatment with esomeprazole, 20 mg once daily, or lansoprazole, 15 mg once daily.

RESULTS

Esomeprazole, 20 mg once daily, maintained a significantly higher proportion of patients in remission than lansoprazole, 15 mg once daily, over 6 months [83% (95% CI, 80-86%) of esomeprazole recipients compared with 74% (95% CI, 70-78%) of lansoprazole recipients; P < 0.0001; life table estimates]. When data were analysed according to baseline Los Angeles grade classification, esomeprazole, 20 mg once daily, achieved consistently higher remission rates across all grades of disease severity, whereas the efficacy of lansoprazole decreased to a greater extent with increasing severity of reflux oesophagitis.

CONCLUSION

Esomeprazole, 20 mg once daily, is more effective than lansoprazole, 15 mg once daily, in maintaining remission in patients with healed reflux oesophagitis.

Efficacy of esomeprazole 40 mg vs. lansoprazole 30 mg for healing moderate to severe erosive oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

Secondary analyses from previous studies indicated that esomeprazole was more effective than lansoprazole and omeprazole in healing moderate or severe (Los Angeles grades C or D) erosive oesophagitis (EE).

AIM

To compare prospectively healing rates with esomeprazole vs. lansoprazole in patients with moderate to severe EE.

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial, adult patients with endoscopically confirmed moderate or severe EE received esomeprazole 40 mg (n = 498) or lansoprazole 30 mg (n = 501) once daily for up to 8 weeks. The primary end point was EE healing through week 8. Secondary assessments included investigator-assessed resolution of symptoms and safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

Time to healing was significantly different (P = 0.007), favouring esomeprazole. Estimated healing rates at week 8 were 82.4% with esomeprazole 40 mg and 77.5% with lansoprazole 30 mg. Heartburn resolved at week 4 in 72% and 64% of patients who received esomeprazole and lansoprazole, respectively (P = 0.005). Control of other GERD symptoms was similar between treatments. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

With 8 weeks' treatment, esomeprazole 40 mg once daily heals moderate to severe EE faster and in more patients, and resolves heartburn in more patients after 4 weeks of treatment, than lansoprazole 30 mg once daily.

Esomeprazole with clopidogrel reduces peptic ulcer recurrence, compared with clopidogrel alone, in patients with atherosclerosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled study to compare the combination of esomeprazole and clopidogrel vs clopidogrel alone in preventing recurrent peptic ulcers in patients with atherosclerosis and a history of peptic ulcers. We also investigated the effects of esomeprazole on the antiplatelet action of clopidogrel.

METHODS

From January 2008 to January 2010, long-term clopidogrel users with histories of peptic ulcers who did not have peptic ulcers at an initial endoscopy examination were assigned randomly to receive the combination of esomeprazole (20 mg/day, before breakfast) and clopidogrel (75 mg/day, at bedtime), or clopidogrel alone for 6 months. A follow-up endoscopy examination was performed at the end of the sixth month and whenever severe symptoms occurred. Platelet aggregation tests were performed on days 1 and 28 for 42 consecutive patients who participated in the pharmacodynamic study.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of recurrent peptic ulcer during the 6-month period was 1.2% among patients given the combination of esomeprazole and clopidogrel (n = 83) and 11.0% among patients given clopidogrel alone (n = 82) (difference, 9.8%; 95% confidence interval, 2.6%-17.0%; P = .009). In the group given the combination therapy, there were no differences in the percentages of aggregated platelets on days 1 and 28 (31.0% ± 20.5% vs 30.1% ± 16.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with atherosclerosis and a history of peptic ulcers, the combination of esomeprazole and clopidogrel reduced recurrence of peptic ulcers, compared with clopidogrel alone. Esomeprazole does not influence the action of clopidogrel on platelet aggregation.

Optimised empiric triple and concomitant therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication in clinical practice: the OPTRICON study

BACKGROUND

Empiric triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori should be abandoned when clarithromycin resistance rate is >15-20%. Optimisation of triple therapy (high-dose acid suppression and 14-day duration) can increase eradication rates by 10%.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of optimised triple (OPT-TRI) and nonbismuth quadruple concomitant (OPT-CON) therapies.

METHODS

Prospective multicentre study in 16 Spanish centres using triple therapy in clinical practice. In a 3-month two-phase fashion, the first 402 patients received an OPT-TRI therapy [esomeprazole (40 mg b.d.), amoxicillin (1 g b.d) and clarithromycin (500 mg b.d) for 14 days] and the last 375 patients an OPT-CON treatment [OPT-TRI therapy plus metronidazole (500 mg b.d)].

RESULTS

Seven-hundred seventy-seven consecutive patients were included (402 OPT-TRI, 375 OPT-CON). The OPT-CON therapy achieved significantly higher eradication rates in the per-protocol [82.3% (95% CI = 78-86%) vs. 93.8% (91-96%), P < 0.001] and intention-to-treat analysis [81.3% (78-86%) vs. 90.4% (87-93%), P < 0.001]. Adverse events (97% mild/moderate) were significantly more common with OPT-CON therapy (39% vs. 47%, P = 0.016), but full compliance with therapy was similar between groups (94% vs. 92%, P = 0.4). OPT-CON therapy was the only significant predictor of successful eradication (odds ratio, 2.24; 95% CI: 1.48-3.51, P < 0.001). The rate of participating centres achieving cure rates ≥ 90% favoured OPT-CON therapy (OPT-TRI 25% vs. OPT-CON 62%).

CONCLUSIONS

Empiric OPT-CON therapy achieved significantly higher cure rates (>90%) compared to OPT-TRI therapy. Addition of metronidazole to OPT-TRI therapy increased eradication rates by 10%, resulting in more mild adverse effects, but without impairing compliance with therapy.

7-day triple therapy of Helicobacter pylori infection with levofloxacin, amoxicillin, and high-dose esomeprazole in patients with known antimicrobial sensitivity

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Failed primary anti-Helicobacter pylori therapy results in a high rate of antimicrobial resistance. This necessitates a search for new regimens to cure H. pylori infection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a new levofloxacin-containing 7-day triple therapy and to compare it with that of standard French triple therapy in patients with known H. pylori susceptibility to MET (metronidazole) and CLA (clarithromycin).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty-one patients with documented antibiotic sensitivity (E-test) and an indication for anti-H. pylori treatment based on the Maastricht Consensus 2/2000 guidelines were randomized to receive either esomeprazole 2 x 40 mg, levofloxacin 2 x 500 mg, and amoxicillin 2 x 1 g for 7 days (ELA, n = 30), or esomeprazole 2 x 20 mg, clarithromycin 2 x 500 mg, and amoxicillin 2 x 1 g for 7 days (ECA, n = 31). A cure check was performed 4-6 weeks after conclusion of therapy.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients were randomized to the two treatment groups. Twenty-eight of 30 patients of the ELA group were available for per-protocol (PP) analysis, of whom 26 (92.9% CI: 76-99%; intention-to-treat [ITT] analysis 86.7% CI: 68-96%) became H. pylori negative compared with 26 of the 31 patients of the ECA group (83.9%, CI: 66-93% both PP and ITT analyses). Five patients of the ELA group showed CLA resistance, three of whom also showed MET resistance, and all five were treated successfully. Two patients with levofloxacin-resistant strains, one in each group, were cured. Both regimens were generally well tolerated with minor adverse events being seen in 15 patients (51.7%) of the ELA group and in 13 (40.6%) of the ECA group. None of the patients discontinued treatment prematurely due to adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The data of this pilot study suggest a better than 80% efficacy of the new 7-day levofloxacin triple therapy, which is within the range of the French triple therapy in patients with MET- and CLA-susceptible strains. The data suggest that the new levofloxacin triple therapy may also be an option in patients with MET- and CLA-resistant H. pylori strains.

Intragastric acid suppression and pharmacokinetics of twice-daily esomeprazole: a randomized, three-way crossover study

BACKGROUND

Patients with refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, extra-oesophageal reflux symptoms, Barrett's oesophagus, or Zollinger-Ellison syndrome may require greater acid suppression than that obtained with once-daily esomeprazole.

AIM

To assess gastric acid suppression (determined by intragastric pH) and pharmacokinetics of twice-daily vs. once-daily esomeprazole.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover study, healthy subjects received esomeprazole 40 mg once daily, 20 mg twice daily, or 40 mg twice daily for five consecutive days. Twenty-four-hour continuous ambulatory intragastric pH was recorded on day 5.

RESULTS

Esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily provided a mean of 19.2 h with intragastric pH > 4.0 (80.1% of a 24-h time period; 95% confidence interval 74.5-85.7%) vs. 14.2 h with 40 mg once daily (59.2%; 95% CI 53.7-64.7%) and 17.5 h with 20 mg twice daily (73.0%; 95% confidence interval 67.4-78.5%) in 25 subjects. Intragastric pH was maintained >4.0 for a similar percentage of time during active and sleeping periods for all doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily provides significantly greater acid suppression (number of hours in a 24-h period with pH > 4.0) than once-daily dosing and may be a reasonable consideration for patients requiring greater acid suppression for acid-related disease.

Esomeprazole 20 mg vs. pantoprazole 20 mg for maintenance therapy of healed erosive oesophagitis: results from the EXPO study

BACKGROUND

Following initial healing of erosive oesophagitis, most patients require maintenance therapy to prevent relapse.

AIM

To compare endoscopic and symptomatic remission rates over 6 months' maintenance therapy with esomeprazole or pantoprazole (both 20 mg once daily) in patients with healed erosive oesophagitis.

METHODS

Patients with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and endoscopically confirmed erosive oesophagitis at baseline were randomized to receive esomeprazole 40 mg or pantoprazole 40 mg for up to 8 weeks. Patients with healed erosive oesophagitis and free of moderate/severe heartburn and acid regurgitation at 4 weeks or, if necessary, 8 weeks entered the 6-month maintenance therapy phase of the study.

RESULTS

A total of 2766 patients (63% men; mean age 50 years) received esomeprazole 20 mg (n = 1377) or pantoprazole 20 mg (n = 1389) and comprised the intention-to-treat population. Following 6 months of treatment, the proportion of patients in endoscopic and symptomatic remission was significantly greater for those receiving esomeprazole 20 mg (87.0%) than pantoprazole 20 mg (74.9%, log-rank test P < 0.0001). Esomeprazole 20 mg produced a higher proportion of patients free of moderate to severe gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms and fewer discontinuations because of symptoms than pantoprazole 20 mg (92.2% vs. 88.5%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Esomeprazole 20 mg is more effective than pantoprazole 20 mg for maintenance therapy following initial healing of erosive oesophagitis and relief of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms.

The effect of dose and type of proton pump inhibitor use on risk of fractures and osteoporosis treatment in older Australian women: A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most prescribed medications worldwide, however, there is growing concern regarding potential negative effects on bone health. The aim was to examine the effect of dose and type of PPI use on subsequent use of osteoporosis medication and fractures in older Australian women.

METHODS

Data were included from 4432 participants (born 1921-26) in the 2002 survey of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health. Medication data were from the national pharmaceutical administrative database (2003-2012, inclusive). Fractures were sourced from linked hospital datasets available for four major States of Australia. Competing risk regression models used PPI exposure as a time-dependent covariate and either time to first osteoporosis medication prescription or fracture as the outcome, with death as a competing risk.

RESULTS

Of the 2328 PPI users and 2104 PPI non-users, 827 (36%) and 550 (26%) became users of osteoporosis medication, respectively. PPI use was associated with an increased risk of subsequent use of osteoporosis medication (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [SHR]=1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.13-1.44) and subsequent fracture (SHR=1.29, CI=1.08-1.55). Analysis with PPI categorized according to defined daily dose (DDD), showed some evidence for a dose-response effect (osteoporosis medication: <400 DDD: SHR=1.23, CI=1.06-1.42 and ≥400 DDD: SHR=1.39, CI=1.17-1.65, compared with non-users; SHRs were in the same range for fractures). Esomeprazole was the most common PPI prescribed (22.9%). Analysis by type of PPI use showed an increased subsequent risk for: (1) use of osteoporosis medication for rabeprazole (SHR=1.51, CI=1.08-2.10) and esomeprazole (SHR=1.48, CI=1.17-1.88); and (2) fractures for rabeprazole (SHR=2.06, CI=1.37-3.10). Users of multiple types of PPI also had increased risks for use of osteoporosis medication and fractures.

CONCLUSION

An appropriate benefit/risk assessment should be made when prescribing PPIs, especially for esomeprazole and rabeprazole, as osteoporosis and fracture risks were increased in this cohort of elderly females subsequent to PPI prescription.

A prospective randomized trial of esomeprazole- versus pantoprazole-based triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication

OBJECTIVE

This prospective, randomized, controlled, head-to-head study was conducted to compare the efficacies of esomeprazole- and pantoprazole-based triple therapies for Helicobacter pylori eradication.

METHODS

From January 2002 to October 2003, 200 H. pylori-infected patients were randomly assigned to undergo twice daily treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg (n = 100) or pantoprazole 40 mg (n = 100) combined with clarithromycin 500 mg and amoxicillin 1 g for 1 wk (ECA and PCA groups, respectively). Follow-up endoscopy was performed at 8 wks after the end of treatment to assess the treatment response.

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated a significantly higher eradication rate for the ECA group than for the PCA group (94%vs 82%, respectively, p= 0.009). Per-protocol analysis also showed similar results (97%vs 84%, p= 0.003). Both groups had similar frequencies of adverse events (15%vs 24%) and drug compliance (97%vs 96%). Multivariate analysis disclosed that the use of esomeprazole (OR: 1.56, 95% CI, 1.11-2.19) and good compliance 7.39 (95% CI, 1.27-42.95) were independent predictors of treatment success. Alcohol drinking was an independent predictor of eradication failure (OR: 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.54).

CONCLUSION

Esomeprazole-based triple therapy demonstrated a higher eradication rate than pantoprazole-based regimen. The differences in eradiation efficacies between the two study groups may be related to the more powerful acid inhibition effect and stronger anti-H. pylori activity of esomeprazole compared to pantoprazole.

Moxifloxacin-based strategies for first-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND

Standard anti-Helicobacter pylori therapy may not achieve a satisfactory eradication rate. Fluoroquinolones, such as moxifloxacin, are safe and promising agents for H. pylori eradication.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of two 1-week moxifloxacin-based H. pylori eradication regimens with two standard treatments.

METHODS

Three hundred and twenty H. pylori-positive subjects were randomized into four groups to receive: moxifloxacin, amoxicillin, esomeprazole (Group MAE); moxifloxacin, tinidazole and esomeprazole (Group MTE); standard triple therapies with clarithromycin, amoxicillin and esomeprazole (Group CAE) or tinidazole (Group CTE) for 7 days. H. pylori status was re-assessed 6 weeks after the end of therapy by 13C urea breath test.

RESULTS

Three hundred and twenty patients completed the efficacy analysis per protocol; H. pylori eradication rate in group MTE was 90% (72 of 80) and 92% (72 of 78), in group MAE was 88% (70 of 80) and 89%, (70 of 79) in Group CAE was 73% (58 of 80) and 78% (58 of 74), and in Group CTE was 75% (60 of 80) and 79% (60 of 76), respectively, in intention-to-treat and in per protocol analyses. Eradication rates of moxifloxacin-based triple therapies were significantly higher than that observed using standard triple schemes. The incidence of side effects was significantly lower in moxifloxacin groups than in control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Seven-day moxifloxacin-based triple therapies provide optimal eradication rates with a good compliance when compared with the standard triple therapy schemes.

Esomeprazole 20 mg on-demand is more acceptable to patients than continuous lansoprazole 15 mg in the long-term maintenance of endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux patients: the COMMAND Study

BACKGROUND

Symptom relief, through adherence to appropriate maintenance therapy, is the sole objective of treatment for patients with endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of 'on-demand' treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg vs. continuous treatment with lansoprazole 15 mg daily in patients with endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

METHODS

Endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients who achieved complete resolution of heartburn after short-term (2-4 weeks) treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg (n = 774) were randomized to receive either esomeprazole 20 mg on-demand (n =311) or lansoprazole 15 mg continuous daily treatment (n = 311) for 6 months.

RESULTS

Significantly more patients were willing to continue taking esomeprazole on-demand than lansoprazole continuous therapy after 6 months (93% vs. 88%; P = 0.02). This superior outcome was achieved despite patients on esomeprazole requiring medication only 38% as often as those on lansoprazole, leading to direct cost savings of more than one-third (36%). Furthermore, patients receiving esomeprazole 20 mg on-demand were more satisfied with their treatment after 1 month compared with patients taking lansoprazole 15 mg continuously.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, esomeprazole 20 mg on-demand is more acceptable to patients and is an economically more effective treatment than lansoprazole 15 mg continuously.

Daily treatment with esomeprazole is superior to that taken on-demand for maintenance of healed erosive oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

On-demand therapy with esomeprazole is effective for long-term treatment of non-erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, but it has not been evaluated in erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

AIMS

To compare endoscopic and symptomatic remission over a 6-month period when patients with healed erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease are treated with esomeprazole 20 mg, either once daily or on-demand.

METHODS

Patients with verified erosive reflux oesophagitis of Los Angeles grades A-D were enrolled. Following 4-8 weeks treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg daily, those who were endoscopically healed and had symptom control during the last week were randomized to maintenance therapy for 6 months with esomeprazole 20 mg, taken either once daily or on-demand.

RESULTS

Of 539 enrolled patients, 494 (91%) were healed at 8 weeks and 477 were randomized to maintenance therapy with esomeprazole 20 mg, 243 once daily and 234 on-demand. After once daily treatment, 81% of patients were still in remission at 6 months, compared with only 58% who took on-demand treatment (P < 0.0001). A difference in remission was found irrespective of baseline grade of oesophagitis, but it was more pronounced for the more severe grades. There was no difference in overall symptomatic remission between the two treatments, although heartburn was significantly more prevalent in the on-demand group.

CONCLUSIONS

Once daily esomeprazole 20 mg was better than that taken on-demand for maintaining healed erosive oesophagitis, regardless of baseline Los Angeles grade.

Once-daily pantoprazole 40 mg and esomeprazole 40 mg have equivalent overall efficacy in relieving GERD-related symptoms

AIM

To compare the efficacy of pantoprazole and esomeprazole for the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease- (GERD-) related symptoms.

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomized, double-blind study 217 patients [intention-to-treat (ITT) population] diagnosed with endoscopically proven GERD grade B/C received pantoprazole (40 mg once daily (o.d.), n = 112] or esomeprazole (40 mg o.d/, n = 105) for 4 weeks. Patients recorded GERD-related symptoms (daytime and night-time) using diaries (daily), and/or by telephone interviews (every third day) and completed the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) questionnaire. The area under the time curve (AUC) for the sum score of GERD-related symptoms (symptom load of each patient during the treatment) and the time to reach adequate relief from GERD-related symptoms were calculated.

RESULTS

Patients reported first adequate relief from daytime GERD-related symptoms after a mean of 3.7 (pantoprazole) and 5.9 days (esomeprazole) (P = 0.034); the values for the night-time were 1.7 and 3.5 days, respectively (P = 0.012, ITT). The AUCs for the single symptoms and the sum scores were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with pantoprazole resulted in significantly faster first-time relief from daytime and night-time GERD-related symptoms than esomeprazole. Pantoprazole and esomeprazole were similar with respect to reduction of load of GERD-related symptoms.

40 mg pantoprazole and 40 mg esomeprazole are equivalent in the healing of esophageal lesions and relief from gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors are regarded as the most effective class of acid suppressive medication for gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment. There is considerable interest regarding the dose equivalence between various proton pump inhibitors.

GOALS

To compare the efficacy of pantoprazole and esomeprazole with regard to healing and relief from gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms.

STUDY

Multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease grades B/C (Los Angeles classification) received 40 mg pantoprazole daily (n = 113) or 40 mg esomeprazole daily (n = 114). Healing (endoscopy) and relief from gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms (direct questioning) were assessed at first and final visit (after 4, 6, 8, or 10 weeks of treatment).

RESULTS

Overall healing in both treatment groups was 88% of patients (intention-to-treat population), 95% (pantoprazole), and 90% (esomeprazole) (per-protocol population); statistically, this indicates "at least equivalence" between treatments. Overall relief from gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms was similar for pantoprazole (55%) and esomeprazole (51%, per-protoco). No correlation between healing and symptom relief was seen. The majority of reported adverse events were assessed as "not related" to the study drug. Pantoprazole and esomeprazole have comparably good safety and tolerability.

CONCLUSION

In patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, 40 mg pantoprazole daily and 40 mg esomeprazole daily are equally effective for healing of esophageal lesions and relieving gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms.

Empirical modified sequential therapy containing levofloxacin and high-dose esomeprazole in second-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection: a multicentre clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Sequential therapy appears to achieve a higher Helicobacter pylori eradication rate than triple therapy. We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of modified sequential therapy containing levofloxacin and high-dose esomeprazole in second-line therapy.

METHODS

Patients who failed first-line triple therapy with clarithromycin, amoxicillin and a proton pump inhibitor were eligible in this multicentre trial. Eligible patients were treated with esomeprazole 40 mg and amoxicillin 1 g for the first 5 days, followed by esomeprazole 40 mg, levofloxacin 250 mg and metronidazole 500 mg for another 5 days (all given twice daily). Eradication was confirmed with a (13)C-urea breath test 6 weeks after therapy. Drug susceptibility, presence/absence of gyrA mutation and CYP2C19 genotype were also determined.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients were enrolled. The eradication rate was 95.1% [135/142, 95% confidence interval (CI) 91.5%-98.6%] in the intention-to-treat analysis and 96.4% (133/138, 95% CI 93.3%-99.5%) in the per protocol analysis. Four patients (2.8%) failed to take at least 80% of the drugs due to adverse effects. The eradication rates were 50% (4/8) and 97.7% (43/44) in patients with and without metronidazole resistance, respectively (P = 0.001). The eradication rates were 84.6% (11/13) and 95.1% (58/61) in patients with and without gyrA mutation, respectively (P = 0.210). The eradication rates were not affected by the CYP2C19 polymorphism (P = 0.421).

CONCLUSIONS

This modified sequential therapy achieved an excellent eradication rate (>95%) in second-line treatment and the eradication rate appeared to be affected by metronidazole resistance.

Long-term outcome of microscopic esophagitis in chronic GERD patients treated with esomeprazole or laparoscopic antireflux surgery in the LOTUS trial

OBJECTIVES

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-associated changes in esophageal histology have been reported mainly after short-term medical antireflux therapy, and few individual lesions have been examined. We report detailed histological findings from the LOTUS study, at baseline and at 1 and 3 years after laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LARS) or esomeprazole treatment in patients with chronic GERD.

METHODS

LOTUS is a long-term, open, parallel-group, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted in 11 European countries that compared LARS (n=248) with esomeprazole 20-40 mg daily (n=266). Biopsies from the distal esophagus 2 cm above the Z-line and at the Z-line were taken at baseline, and 1 and 3 years. The following lesions were assessed: basal cell hyperplasia (BCH), papillary elongation (PE), intercellular space dilatations (ISDs), intraepithelial eosinophils (EOSs), neutrophils, and necrosis/erosion. A severity score (SS, range 0-2) was calculated by taking the average score of all assessable lesions.

RESULTS

All lesions were more severe on Z-line biopsies than at 2 cm, and almost all improved significantly from baseline to 1 and 3 years. The average SS (from 2 cm to Z-line) changed from 0.95 to 0.57 (1 year) and to 0.49 (3 years) on esomeprazole, and from 0.91 to 0.56 (1 year) and to 0.52 (3 years) after LARS (P<0.001 for both treatments at 1 and 3 years, with no significant difference between treatments). The proportions of patients with severe histological changes decreased from approximately 50% at baseline to 11% at 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Both continuous esomeprazole treatment and laparoscopic fundoplication are associated with significant and similar overall improvement in microscopic esophagitis after 1 year that is maintained at 3 years.

Rabeprazole vs esomeprazole in non-erosive gastro-esophageal reflux disease: A randomized, double-blind study in urban Asia

AIM: Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is becoming increasingly common in Asia. Data on the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in patients with non-erosive GERD (NERD) in Asia is lacking. This double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of rabeprazole with esomeprazole in relief of symptoms in patients with NERD.

METHODS: One hundred and thirty-four patients with reflux symptoms of NERD and normal endoscopy were randomized to receive rabeprazole 10 mg or esomeprazole 20 mg once daily for 4 wk. Symptoms were recorded in a diary and changes in severity of symptoms noted.

RESULTS: At 4 wk of treatment, rabeprazole 10 mg and esomeprazole 20 mg were comparable with regards to the primary endpoint of time to achieve 24-h symptom-free interval for heartburn 8.5 d vs 9 d and regurgitation 6 d vs 7.5 d. Rabeprazole and esomeprazole were also similarly efficacious in term of patient’s global evaluation with 96% of patients on rabeprazole and 87.9% of patients on esomeprazole, reporting that symptoms improved (P = NS). Satisfactory relief of day- and night-time symptoms was achieved in 98% of patients receiving rabeprazole and 81.4% of patients receiving esomeprazole. Adverse events were comparable in both groups (P = NS).

CONCLUSION: Rabeprazole 10 mg has a similar efficacy and safety profile in Asians with NERD as esomeprazole 20 mg. Further study is necessary to investigate whether the small differences between the two drugs seen in this study are related to the improved pharmacodynamic properties of rabeprazole. Both drugs were well tolerated.

Potential costs of inappropriate use of proton pump inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly overused in hospitalized patients. The objectives of this study were to determine the extent of their inappropriate initiation in patients with low risk for gastrointestinal hemorrhage, factors associated with their continuation on discharge and potential cost of this trend.

METHODS

Retrospective examination of patients with low risk for gastrointestinal hemorrhage admitted to a tertiary-care teaching hospital over a 3-month period who received esomeprazole. The following information was collected: age, gender, PPI status (de novo or continued) and admitting diagnoses. Additional information collected from the de novo subgroup included indication for PPI, number of days on PPI and continuation of the drug on discharge. The cost of the medication was obtained from pharmacy records.

RESULTS

Four hundred nine patients were admitted during the study period and 204 (49.9%) received PPI de novo. Among these, 155 patients (76%) had an inappropriate indication for PPI. Of these, 62 (40%) patients were continued on PPI on discharge. Older age was a significant predictor of continuation of PPI at discharge. The estimated cost of the inpatient and outpatient inappropriate use of PPI was $12,272 and $59,272, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PPIs are overused in the majority of hospitalized patients with low risk for gastrointestinal bleeding and this practice gets perpetuated at discharge, especially in older patients. The cost of this phenomenon is alarming.

Clinical trial: healing of NSAID-associated gastric ulcers in patients continuing NSAID therapy - a randomized study comparing ranitidine with esomeprazole

BACKGROUND

The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) is associated with an increased risk of gastric ulcer (GU) development.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial compared endoscopic healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks after treatment with oral esomeprazole 40 or 20 mg once daily, or ranitidine 150 mg twice daily, in patients with 1 baseline GU > or = 5 mm but no GUs or duodenal ulcers >25 mm in diameter who received continued cyclooxygenase-2-selective or non-selective NSAID therapies. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients in each treatment group who had no GUs at week 8.

RESULTS

Four hundred and forty patients were randomized to treatment. At week 8, GU healing rates (95% CI) with esomeprazole 40 mg, esomeprazole 20 mg and ranitidine were 85.7 (79.8-91.7)%, 84.8 (78.8-90.8)% and 76.3 (69.2-83.3)%, respectively; between-group differences were not statistically significant. Week-4 GU healing rates were 70.7 (62.9-78.4)% and 72.5 (65.0-79.9)% with esomeprazole 40 and 20 mg, respectively, and were significantly higher (P < 0.01 for both doses) than those with ranitidine [55.4 (47.1-63.7)%].

CONCLUSION

In patients who require continued NSAID therapy, GU healing rates at 8 weeks numerically favoured esomeprazole but were not significantly different from ranitidine.