On-demand therapy in gastroesophageal reflux disease: a comparison of the early effects of single doses of fast-dissolving famotidine wafers and ranitidine tablets

A randomized open-label trial of on-demand rabeprazole vs ranitidine for patients with non-erosive reflux disease

AIM: To compare the efficacy of the proton-pump inhibitor, rabeprazole, with that of the H₂-receptor antagonist, ranitidine, as on-demand therapy for relieving symptoms associated with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD).

METHODS: This is a single center, prospective, randomized, open-label trial of on-demand therapy with rabeprazole (group A) vs ranitidine (group B) for 4 wk. Eighty-three patients who presented to the American University of Beirut Medical Center with persistent gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms and a normal upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were eligible for the study. Patients in group A (n = 44) were allowed a maximum rabeprazole dose of 20 mg twice daily, while those in group B (n = 39) were allowed a maximum ranitidine dose of 300 mg twice daily. Efficacy was assessed by patient evaluation of global symptom relief, scores of the SF-36 quality of life (QoL) questionnaires, total number of pills used, and number of medication-free days.

RESULTS: Among the 83 patients who were enrolled in the study, 76 patients (40 in the rabeprazole group and 36 in the ranitidine group) completed the 4-wk trial. Baseline characteristics were comparable between both groups. After 4 wk, there was no significant difference in the subjective global symptom relief between the rabeprazole and the ranitidine groups (71.4% vs 65.4%, respectively; P = 0.9). There were no statistically significant differences between mean cumulative scores of the SF-36 QoL questionnaire for the two study groups (rabeprazole 22.40 ± 27.53 vs ranitidine 17.28 ± 37.06; P = 0.582). There was no significant difference in the mean number of pills used (rabeprazole 35.70 ± 29.75 vs ranitidine 32.86 ± 26.98; P = 0.66). There was also no statistically significant difference in the mean number of medication-free days between both groups.

CONCLUSION: Rabeprazole has a comparable efficacy compared to ranitidine when given on-demand for the treatment of NERD. Both medications were associated with improved quality of life.

Onset of relief of symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease: post hoc analysis of two previously published studies comparing pantoprazole 20 mg once daily with nizatidine or ranitidine 150 mg twice daily

BACKGROUND

Systematic assessments of the onset of symptom relief in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This work evaluated the time interval until complete symptom relief from heartburn (including both daytime and nighttime heartburn) and acid regurgitation in patients with GERD or endoscopy-negative GERD (NERD) during the first 7 days of treatment with pantoprazole, nizatidine, or ranitidine.

METHODS

This was a post hoc reanalysis of data from 2 previously published, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group studies. Male and female patients aged >or=18 years with endoscopically proven GERD or NERD (Hetzel-Dent grade >or= [trial 1] or Savary-Miller grade 0 or 1 [trial 2]) were enrolled. Patients were required to have had reflux symptoms for the previous >or=3 months, with >or=1 symptom (ie, daytime heartburn, nighttime heartburn, or acid regurgitation) for >or=4 of the past 7 days in trial 1 or >or=1 symptom (ie, heartburn, acid eructation, or painful swallowing) of at least moderate intensity for the past 3 days in trial 2. The treatments were pantoprazole 20 mg once daily in both trials, nizatidine 150 mg BID in trial 1, or ranitidine 150 mg BID in trial 2. Presence and severity of symptoms were recorded on daily diary cards using a 4-point Likert-type scale.

RESULTS

In total, 114 patients from trial 1 and 307 patients from trial 2 were evaluable for heartburn, and 58 patients from trial l and 271 patients from trial 2 were evaluable for acid regurgitation. In both studies, there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between pantoprazole recipients and nizatidine or ranitidine recipients, with the exception of more men than women in trial 1 compared with trial 2 (P < 0.001). On day 2 of trial 1, 23 (39.0%) and 8 (14.5%) of pantoprazole and nizatidine recipients, respectively, experienced complete relief from heartburn (P < 0.01). The differences between groups remained statistically significant through day 7, when 28 (47.5%) and 8 (14.5 %) of pantoprazole and nizatidine recipients had no heartburn (P < 0.001). There were no differences in control of acid regurgitation over 7 days with pantoprazole compared with nizatidine or ranitidine, except at days 2 and 4 of trial 1, when significantly more patients receiving pantoprazole experienced relief from acid regurgitation than those receiving nizatidine (day 2: 60.6% [n = 20] vs 20.0% [n = 5], P < 0.01; day 4: 48.5% [n =16] vs 24.0% [n = 6], P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this post hoc reanalysis of data from 2 previously published clinical trials, use of pantoprazole 20 mg once daily was associated with effective early relief from heartburn and acid regurgitation among these patients with GERD and NERD; relief occurred as fast as and, in some cases, even faster than that seen with nizatidine or ranitidine.

Cost minimization of on-demand maintenance therapy with proton pump inhibitors in nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease

On-demand proton pump inhibitor maintenance therapy is one of the suggested strategies for patients with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease who achieve symptom remission after 4 weeks of continuous treatment. This review evaluates the difference in cost and quality of life of six on-demand proton pump inhibitor maintenance strategies in patients with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease. This was performed by decision analysis and Markov modeling of costs (from the perspective of the healthcare service and society) and utility up to 12 months. Median utility scores associated with each proton pump inhibitor ranged from 0.731 to 0.745 quality-adjusted life years and were not statistically different. Annual expected cost, however, was statistically different among the different drugs and the following cost-minimization ranking was obtained for median costs to the healthcare service and society, respectively: rabeprazole (euro 181, euro 295), pantoprazole (euro 223, euro 341), lansoprazole (euro 249, euro 370), omeprazole 10 mg (euro 297, euro 412), esomeprazole (euro 295, euro 419) and omeprazole 20 mg (euro 405, euro 528). Unit cost of proton pump inhibitors was the major determinant of cost to the healthcare service, while the number of productivity days lost due to symptoms was the major determinant of cost to society. In Italy, on-demand use of rabeprazole for maintenance therapy of nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease incurs the least cost in comparison with the other proton pump inhibitors evaluated.

Medical management of gastroesophageal reflux disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a common worldwide disorder. Most patients have typical symptoms of heartburn, regurgitation and exacerbation of symptoms with large meal volumes, fatty meals, recumbency or bending forward. Patients who show typical symptoms for under 10 years may be treated empirically with lifestyle and dietary modifications plus acid-suppressing medications. The recent decrease in cost, established safety and wide availability of proton pump inhibitors make them the best choice for monotherapy. Other medical therapies include antacids, H(2) receptor antagonists and prokinetic agents. Patients who have alarm symptoms or long-standing symptoms should have an esophagoscopy to evaluate for complications of reflux. Patients who do not respond to therapy should have a test to confirm the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Which has superior acid-suppressive effect, 10 mg omeprazole once daily or 20 mg famotidine twice daily? Effects of single or repeated administration in Japanese Helicobacter pylori-negative CYP2C19 extensive metabolizers

Low-dose omeprazole is superior to full-dose famotidine in maintenance therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease, whereas "on-demand" famotidine is more effective for relief of episodes of heartburn. To explain this apparent discrepancy, intragastric pH was measured for 24-hr seven times in eight Japanese Helicobacter pylori-negative cytochrome P450 2C19 extensive metabolizers; on Days 1, 8, and 15 of repeated administration of 10 mg of omeprazole once daily and of 20 mg of famotidine twice daily and before medication. During repeated administration of omeprazole, mean intragastric pH and % time that intragastric pH > 4.0 were significantly higher and became greater. With famotidine, although these parameters were significantly higher, the degrees became smaller. Consequently, acid-suppressive effect was in the order; omeprazole < famotidine on Day 1, omeprazole approximately famotidine on Day 8, and omeprazole >famotidine on Day 15. This discrepancy possibly results from the "potentiation" of acid-suppressive effect of omeprazole and the "tolerance" phenomenon in respect to famotidine.

Systematic review: the efficacy of intermittent and on-demand therapy with histamine H2-receptor antagonists or proton pump inhibitors for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients

AIM

To perform a systematic review on the efficacy of intermittent and on-demand therapy with either histamine H2-receptor antagonists or proton pump inhibitors for patients with erosive oesophagitis or symptomatic heartburn.

METHOD

We conducted randomized-controlled trials of non-continuous therapy in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria. Because of variation in outcome measures statistical pooling of results was not possible. Results were analysed qualitatively. Four studies evaluated intermittent therapy of treatment 3 days a week with omeprazole 20 mg or daily with ranitidine which were not efficacious compared to a daily proton pump inhibitor. Famotidine 10 and 20 mg, ranitidine 75 mg and cimetidine 200 mg were efficacious in five on-demand studies for relief of symptomatic heartburn episodes. In three of four studies, evaluating only non-erosive (endoscopy-negative) gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients, esomeprazole 20 and 40 mg and omeprazole 10 and 20 mg a day were efficacious using willingness to continue as an endpoint. Lansoprazole 30 mg and omeprazole 20 mg maintained symptom control in 60-70% of healed oesophagitis patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermittent proton pump inhibitor or H2-receptor antagonist therapy is not effective in maintaining control in oesophagitis patients. H2-receptor antagonists are effective for relief of heartburn episodes. On-demand proton pump inhibitor therapy may work in a proportion of non-erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients.

Patient assessment of treatment satisfaction: methods and practical issues

Measurement of treatment satisfaction in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is compromised by an insufficient conceptual foundation and poor assessment methods. The current state of the art in measuring treatment satisfaction is incomplete, and the existing measurement is insufficient. Here, the definition, conceptualisation, application, and methodological issues associated with measurement of treatment satisfaction in GORD are reviewed. Treatment satisfaction may be important for differentiating among GORD treatments, and for monitoring patient outcomes in clinical practice.

Evaluation of Critical Formulation Factors in the Development of a Rapidly Dispersing Captopril Oral Dosage Form

New methods of manufacture have enabled the creation of novel dosage forms with unique rapid-dispersion properties. This study combines one such technique with a statistical experimental design to develop dosage forms from captopril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor used to treat cases of hypertensive emergency. The TheriForm process, a novel microfabrication technique, was used to build the dosage forms in a layer-by-layer fashion. Three key formulation factors were chosen for the design of experiments. A modified central composite design (Box-Behnken design) was used to maximize the efficiency of the experiments. A total of 13 distinct formulations were fabricated and tested, using mannitol as the bulk excipient. In addition, three replicates of the center point were tested to assess variability and experimental error. These formulations were tested for speed of dispersion (flash time), active content, hardness, friability, and moisture absorption. Regression analysis was performed to fit data responses to quadratic equations. Excellent dose accuracy (95% to 102% of target) and content uniformity (between 1.03% to 2.84%) were observed from all experimental formulation batches. As expected, the choice of powder additive (maltitol, maltodextrin, polyvinyl pyrrolidone), level of additive (2.5% to 7.5%), and saturation level of the binder liquid (45% to 65%) were all found to be significant factors for the TheriForm process. The regression analysis suggested that a rapidly dispersing dosage form of optimal physical properties would be obtained when a powder mixture of mannitol (97.5%) and maltitol (2.5%) is used at a saturation level of 45%. In conclusion, rapidly dispersing captopril oral dosage forms were successfully fabricated and tested. A wide range of physical properties, flash time, and hardness, were determined experimentally, and the effects of key formulation factors were identified.

Pharmacokinetic comparison of fast-disintegrating and conventional tablet formulations of risperidone in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

Difficulties with and resistance to tablet-taking are common in all patient groups and can exacerbate compliance problems and undermine treatment efficacy. In recent years, rapidly dissolving oral drug formulations have been developed to overcome problems related to swallowing difficulties.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the bioequivalence of a fast-disintegrating oral tablet of risperidone and the conventional oral tablet.

METHODS

This was a randomized, open-label, 2-way crossover trial in which healthy volunteers received two 0.5-mg tablets of a fast-disintegrating oral risperidone formulation and two 0.5-mg tablets of conventional oral risperidone, each in a single administration. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis of the active moiety (risperidone + 9-hydroxy-risperidone), risperidone, and its active metabolite 9-hydroxy-risperidone were obtained during a 96-hour period after dosing. Safety assessments included monitoring of adverse events, hematology and biochemistry tests of the sampled blood, urinalysis, blood pressure measurements, and electrocardiography.

RESULTS

The bioequivalence assessment was based on pharmacokinetic and statistical analysis of data from 37 subjects who completed both treatment periods. The plasma concentration-time profiles of the active moiety, risperidone, and 9-hydroxy-risperidone were similar after intake of the 2 formulations. The fast-disintegrating tablet and the conventional tablet showed bioequivalence with respect to the active moiety, risperidone, and 9-hydroxy-risperidone. The 90% CIs for the mean treatment ratios of the log-transformed peak plasma concentration, area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) to the last quantifiable time point, and AUC extrapolated to infinity were all within the predefined equivalence range from 80% to 125%. Twenty-eight of 50 (56%) subjects originally randomized reported adverse events, with a similar incidence for both treatments. All adverse events were mild, with somnolence and headache being the most frequently reported. No clinically relevant changes were observed in physical, biochemical, hematologic, or urinalysis variables during the study.

CONCLUSION

In this study in healthy subjects, a single administration of two 0.5-mg fast-disintegrating risperidone tablets was bioequivalent to a single administration of two 0.5-mg conventional risperidone tablets.

Acid suppression in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: Why? How? How much and when?

For patients with suboptimal relief from lifestyle modifications, acid suppressive therapy remains a cornerstone of treatment for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). While a great deal of attention is focused on complications of GORD, adequate symptom relief remains an important and practical therapeutic goal. Adequate symptom relief is an achievable and easily measurable endpoint that both restores quality of life and prevents many potential complications.

On-demand and intermittent therapy for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: economic considerations

Since gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is a prevalent condition characterised by frequent relapses, long-term costs of management for this disease are high. Thus, strategies to decrease resource expenditures without impairing patient quality of life are desirable. On-demand therapy (one-dose when symptoms occur) and intermittent therapy (short course of medication when symptoms occur) are attractive since pharmaceutical expenditures may be decreased, and many patients self-employ this strategy. The purpose of this paper was to examine the economic implications of on-demand or intermittent therapy for GORD. A review of selected studies evaluating medication suitable for on-demand or intermittent administration was performed. A complete search for published studies on the cost effectiveness of on-demand or intermittent therapy for GORD was conducted, and the results discussed in detail. Antacids, alginates, topically active agents, histamine(2)-receptor antagonists, and proton pump inhibitors have all demonstrable efficacy compared with placebo when administered on-demand. Proton pump inhibitors constitute the most effective pharmacological means to treat GORD. Although step-up strategies initially using less potent medication may decrease resource use, cost-effectiveness analysis illustrates that on-demand or intermittent therapy with proton pump inhibitors may be reasonable options. Further work that defines quality of life and patient preferences associated with GORD may allow for proper allocation of resources for the management of this condition.