Rabeprazole in treatment of acid peptic diseases: results of three placebo-controlled dose-response clinical trials in duodenal ulcer, gastric ulcer, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The Rabeprazole Study Group

Clinical outcomes of marginal ulcer bleeding compared with those of peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Marginal ulcer bleeding (MUB) is a complication that can occur following several types of surgery. However, few studies exist on it. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of MUB with those of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB).

METHODS

Between January 2013 and December 2017, 5,076 patients underwent emergent esophagogastroduodenoscopy for suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed the medical records of MUB and PUB patients and developed a propensity score matching (PSM) method to adjust for between-group differences in baseline characteristics with 1:2 ratios. Sex, age, body mass index (BMI), underlying diseases, and drugs were included as matching factors.

RESULTS

A total of 64 and 678 patients were diagnosed with MUB and PUB, respectively, on emergent esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and 62 and 124 patients with MUB and PUB, respectively, were selected after PSM. Rebleeding was significantly higher in patients with MUB than in those with PUB (57.8% vs 9.1%, p < 0.001). Mortality caused by bleeding was higher in patients with MUB than in those with PUB (4.7% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration (odds ratio [OR], 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.56; p = 0.011) after first bleeding was inversely correlated with MUB rebleeding. Large ulcer size (> 1 cm) (OR, 6.69; 95% CI, 1.95-27.94; p = 0.005) and surgery covering pancreas (OR, 3.97; 95% CI, 1.19-15.04) were independent risk factors for MUB rebleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

MUB showed a severe clinical course than PUB. Therefore, MUB should be managed more cautiously, especially for large ulcers and pancreatic surgery. Prophylactic PPI administration may be helpful in reducing rebleeding in MUB.

Rabeprazole: A comprehensive profile

Rabeprazole belongs to the class of anti-secretory drugs, with benzimidazoles substitution. These drugs induce gastric acid secretion through precise inhibition of the enzyme H⁺/K⁺-ATPase (acid or proton pump). This effect helps to treat and prevent conditions in which gastric acid directly aggravates symptoms such as duodenal and gastric ulcers. This chapter includes a comprehensive review of rabeprazole in terms of nomenclature, its physical-chemical properties, methods of preparation and ADME profiles. In addition, the chapter also includes a review of several methods for analysis of rebeprazole in its dosage forms and biological fluids.

Teprenone improves gastric mucosal injury and dyspeptic symptoms in long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug users

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a major cause of gastric mucosal lesions. In China, teprenone is frequently prescribed as a mucoprotective agent, but the literature regarding their efficacy is limited. Our purpose was to address the effects of teprenone on long-term NSAID-associated gastric mucosal lesions.

METHODS

This study examined 369 patients taking NSAIDs for at least 12 weeks. Patients without gastroduodenal ulcer and without Helicobacter pylori infection on endoscopy at baseline were randomized to receive either NSAID plus teprenone (150 mg/day) or NSAID only for 12 weeks. Lanza scores were examined using endoscopy before and after treatment, and dyspeptic symptom scores are also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients were randomized to the teprenone group (n = 74) or the control group (n = 84) for 12 weeks. Seventy-one of patients in the teprenone group and 79 of patients in the control group were analyzed finally. After treatment, the Lanza scores and dyspeptic symptom scores decreased significantly in the teprenone group while increased in the control group (P < 0.05). The changes of Lanza scores and dyspeptic symptom scores were higher in the teprenone group than in the control group (P < 0.05). For subgroup analysis, the change in Lanza scores and dyspeptic symptom scores improved significantly in the teprenone group receiving long-term low-dose aspirin treatment, as well as in the teprenone group receiving other NSAIDs treatment (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Teprenone may be an effective treatment choice of gastric mucosal injuries and dyspepsia symptoms in patients who used NSAIDs chronically without H. pylori infection or history of gastroduodenal ulcer.

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

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

The characteristics of 83 giant peptic ulcers in Chinese children: Evaluation and follow-up

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Giant peptic ulcers (GPUs) are detrimental for all patients, especially for children. However, few reports have described GPUs in children. This study aims to evaluate the characteristics of GPUs in Chinese children and to identify risk factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients at the Children's Hospital of Fudan University from April 2014 to August 2017. Patients with GPUs (>2.0 cm) were included in the study, and the clinical data, pathological characteristics and presence of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection were analyzed to evaluate the outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 19208 children underwent gastroscopic examinations, and 83 patients with GPUs were enrolled. The mean age of onset for GPU patients was 9.7 ± 3.2 years(range, 1-15). The main complaints were abdominal pain (92.7%), anemia (53%), retching (45.8%), hematochezia (21.7%) and hematemesis (16.9%). With respect to the types of GPU, 68 patients (81.9%) had duodenal ulcers, and 15 patients (18.1%) had gastric ulcers. Compared to the group <6 years of age, the group ≥6 years was more susceptible to GPU (P < 0.05). Among GPU patients, 71.1% of cases were H. pylori (*) (59/83), and 16.9% (14/83) of patients were H. pylori (-). Compared to the H. pylori (-) group, the H. pylori (*) group showed inflammatory activity, atrophy and lymphoid follicular formation in the gastric mucosa (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that GPUs are strongly associated with H. pylori infection in Chinese children. Duodenal ulcers are the main type of GPU in patients older than 6 years. Appropriate diagnosis, treatment and follow-up are necessary for children with GPUs.

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Relief in Patients Treated with Rabeprazole 20 mg versus Omeprazole 20 mg: A Meta-Analysis

Background. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted comparing the efficacy of rabeprazole 20 mg or omeprazole 20 mg once daily for patients with erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Until now, no study has synthesized all available data examining this issue. Method. Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched (through December 2012). Eligible RCTs recruited adults with erosive GERD and reported endoscopic and symptomatic relief rates at the last point of follow-up. The effect of rabeprazole versus omeprazole was reported as relative risk (RR) of relief with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results. The search identified 605 citations, and six RCTs containing 1,895 patients were eligible. Endoscopic relief rates were not significantly different between rabeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 20 mg in treatment trials of up to 8 weeks. Heartburn relief rates were significantly different between the two groups for 8-week treatment trials. Adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups for 8-week treatment trials. Conclusion. These data suggest that rabeprazole demonstrates a clinical advantage over omeprazole in symptomatic relief but no significant difference in endoscopic relief of erosive GERD for up to 8 weeks of treatment. Rabeprazole and omeprazole were both tolerated by GERD patients.

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Relief in Patients Treated with Rabeprazole 20 mg versus Omeprazole 20 mg: A Meta-Analysis

Background. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted comparing the efficacy of rabeprazole 20 mg or omeprazole 20 mg once daily for patients with erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Until now, no study has synthesized all available data examining this issue. Method. Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched (through December 2012). Eligible RCTs recruited adults with erosive GERD and reported endoscopic and symptomatic relief rates at the last point of follow-up. The effect of rabeprazole versus omeprazole was reported as relative risk (RR) of relief with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results. The search identified 605 citations, and six RCTs containing 1,895 patients were eligible. Endoscopic relief rates were not significantly different between rabeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 20 mg in treatment trials of up to 8 weeks. Heartburn relief rates were significantly different between the two groups for 8-week treatment trials. Adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups for 8-week treatment trials. Conclusion. These data suggest that rabeprazole demonstrates a clinical advantage over omeprazole in symptomatic relief but no significant difference in endoscopic relief of erosive GERD for up to 8 weeks of treatment. Rabeprazole and omeprazole were both tolerated by GERD patients.

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.

Predicting the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in patients with non-erosive reflux disease before therapy using dual-channel 24-h esophageal pH monitoring

BACKGROUND AND AIM

We aimed to determine whether reflux- and symptom-related parameters can predict the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) in non-erosive reflux disease (NERD).

METHODS

Twenty-seven NERD patients who had experienced heartburn more than once a week within the previous month were enrolled. Intraesophageal pH before therapy was measured simultaneously at 5 and 15 cm above the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) for 24 h. The PPI rabeprazole was administered at a dose of 10 mg once daily for 4 weeks. In the event that heartburn was not relieved, the dose was increased to 10 mg twice daily for an additional 2 weeks, and again to 20 mg twice daily for another 2 weeks.

RESULTS

Univariate analysis demonstrated no significant associations between any reflux- or symptom-related parameters at either site and complete heartburn relief after 4 weeks, or cumulative complete heartburn relief after 8 weeks. However, post-hoc analysis demonstrated more satisfactory heartburn relief after 4 weeks in patients with a high symptom index compared with those with a low symptom index, at 5 cm above the EGJ (P = 0.009). Cumulative satisfactory heartburn relief after 8 weeks was also greater in patients with a high total number of acid reflux episodes compared with those with a low total number of episodes, at 15 cm above the EGJ (P = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-therapeutic pH monitoring in the lower and mid-esophagus is useful for predicting the efficacy of PPI in NERD patients.

Investigation of pretreatment prediction of proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-resistant patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and the dose escalation challenge of PPIs-TORNADO study: a multicenter prospective study by the Acid-Related Symptom Research Group in Japan

BACKGROUNDS

Some non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) and reflux esophagitis (RE) patients are unresponsive to a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) at standard dose. We investigated the predictive marker of the efficacy of PPI for GERD patients including NERD and RE treated with standard and increased doses of a PPI.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (NERD and RE) were treated with rabeprazole (RPZ) 10 mg once daily for 4 weeks. The RPZ dosage was increased to 10 mg twice daily for an additional 2 weeks and again to 20 mg twice daily for another 2 weeks if heartburn was not relieved. Baseline characteristics and efficacy of RPZ were assessed on the basis of a heartburn diary and frequency scale for symptoms of GERD (FSSG).

RESULTS

Complete heartburn relief rates after 4 weeks were 42.5% (31/73) and 67.9% (19/28) in NERD and RE groups, respectively, which rose to 68.9 and 91.7% after dose escalation. Multivariate analysis revealed that parameters associated with resistance to RPZ 10 mg once daily were female, non-smoking, frequent heartburn, low score for question 4 (Q4) of the FSSG (subconsciously rubbing the chest), and high scores for Q3 (heavy stomach after meal) and Q7 (unusual sensation in the throat). Frequent heartburn and a high score for Q7 were associated with resistance to RPZ 20 mg twice daily. FSSG scores of patients resistant to RPZ were significantly higher in comparison with responders before and during treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

FSSG could predict response to a PPI for symptomatic GERD. Increase of RPZ dose is useful for treatment of GERD refractory to the standard dose of RPZ.

Endoscopic grading of gastroesophageal flap valve helps predict proton pump inhibitor response in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease

OBJECTIVE

Limited information is available on predictors of the response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Endoscopic grading of gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV) is simple and reproducible, and can provide useful information on patients with suspected reflux undergoing an endoscopy. The aim of this study was to prospectively identify predictors, including endoscopic findings such as GEFV, for PPI treatment outcomes in patients with GERD.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred and fifty consecutive patients with GERD were enrolled. All patients were treated with pantoprazole 40 mg daily for 8 weeks. Treatment response was defined as greater than 50% reduction in symptom scores between the two symptom assessments (i.e., over 4 or 8 weeks). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses between responders and non-responders were performed to identify variables predicting response to pantoprazole treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 150 consecutive patients considered for this study, 31 were excluded based on exclusion criteria and/or refusal to participate, leaving 119 eligible patients. After 4-week pantoprazole treatment, 70 of 119 (58.8%) patients were classified as responders. Patients with obesity and Helicobacter pylori infection demonstrated a higher response rate to 4-week pantoprazole treatment (odds ratio (OR) 5.28, p = 0.008; OR 3.76, p = 0.023, respectively). Patients with abnormal GEFV showed a lower response rate to 4-week treatment (OR 0.17, p = 0.016). After 8-week treatment, 86 of 119 (72.3%) patients were classified as responders. Abnormal GEFV and aspirin intake were associated with a lower response rate to 8-week treatment (OR 0.17, p = 0.021; OR 0.11, p = 0.020, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Abnormal GEFV was a significant independent factor predicting poor response to both 4-week and 8-week pantoprazole treatment. Endoscopic grading of GEFV provides useful information for predicting the response to PPI treatment in patients with GERD.

WITHDRAWN: Medical treatments in the short term management of reflux oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

Oesophagitis arises when reflux of acid from the stomach into the oesophagus causes mucosal inflammation. It is a common problem and a systematic review on the optimum treatment would be useful.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), prokinetic therapy, sucralfate and placebo in healing oesophagitis or curing reflux symptoms or both. To compare adverse effects with the different treatments.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the National Research Register until December 2004 and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials assessing the healing of oesophagitis or reflux symptoms or both. Treatment involving PPIs, H2RAs, prokinetics, sucralfate and combinations either in comparison to another treatment regimen or to placebo for 2 and 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviews independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 134 trials involving 35,978 oesophagitis participants. Five RCTs evaluated standard dose of PPI versus placebo in 965 participants. There was a statistically significant benefit of taking standard dose PPI therapy compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Ten RCTs reported on the outcome for H2RA versus placebo evaluating 1241 participants. There was statistically significant benefit of taking H2RA compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.74,95% CI = 0.66 to 0.84). Three RCTs evaluated prokinetic therapy versus placebo in 198 participants. There was no statistically significant benefit of taking prokinetic therapy compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.10). Twenty six RCTs reported the outcome for PPI versus H2RA or H2RA plus prokinetics, evaluating 4032 participants. There was statistically significant benefit of taking PPI therapy compared to H2RA or H2RA plus prokinetics in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.59).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PPI therapy is the most effective therapy in oesophagitis but H2RA therapy is also superior to placebo. There is a paucity of evidence on prokinetic therapy but no evidence that it is superior to placebo.

A double-blind, controlled study comparing lafutidine with placebo and famotidine in Japanese patients with mild reflux esophagitis

PURPOSE

This randomized, double-blind, controlled study examined whether lafutidine is superior to placebo and non-inferior to famotidine in terms of healing rates as assessed by endoscopy in Japanese patients with mild reflux esophagitis. Safety and improvement in symptoms of heartburn were also assessed.

METHODS

Patients with an endoscopic diagnosis of grade A or B reflux esophagitis according to the Los Angeles classification were randomly assigned to receive lafutidine (20 mg/day), famotidine (40 mg/day), or placebo for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the 584 patients enrolled in the study, 447 were diagnosed to have grade A or B reflux esophagitis by the Endoscopic Assessment Committee. Healing rates at 8 weeks were 71.0% (115/162) in the lafutidine group, 61.4% (86/140) in the famotidine group, and 9.7% (14/145) in the placebo group. Lafutidine was thus demonstrated to be superior to placebo and non-inferior to famotidine. As compared with placebo, lafutidine significantly improved symptoms of heartburn.

CONCLUSIONS

Lafutidine has a high endoscopic healing rate and improves symptoms of heartburn in patients with mild reflux esophagitis. Lafutidine is considered a promising treatment option for mild reflux esophagitis.

Meta-analysis: the effects of placebo treatment on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

There appears to be a significant placebo response rate in clinical trials for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Little is known about the determinants and the circumstances associated with placebo response in the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

AIMS

To estimate the magnitude of the placebo response rate in randomized controlled trials for GERD and to identify factors that influence this response.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, published in English language, which included >20 patients with GERD, treated with either a proton pump inhibitor or H(2)-receptor antagonist for at least 2 weeks. Medline, Cochrane and EMBASE databases were searched, considering only studies that reported a global response for 'heartburn'.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies included 9989 patients with GERD. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for response to active treatment vs. placebo was 3.71 (95% CI: 2.78-4.96). The pooled estimate of the overall placebo response was 18.85% (range 2.94%-47.06%). Patients with erosive oesophagitis had a non-significantly lower placebo response rate than patients without it (11.87% and 18.31%, respectively; P = 0.246). Placebo response was significantly lower in studies of PPI therapy vs. studies of H(2) RAs (14.51% vs. 24.69%, respectively; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The placebo response rate in randomized controlled trials for GERD is substantial. A lower placebo response was associated with the testing of PPIs, but not the presence of erosive oesophagitis.

Systematic review: standard- and double-dose proton pump inhibitors for the healing of severe erosive oesophagitis -- a mixed treatment comparison of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has compared all European-licensed standard- and double-dose PPIs for the healing of severe erosive oesophagitis.

AIM

To compare the effectiveness of licensed doses of PPIs for healing severe erosive oesophagitis (i.e. esomeprazole 40 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg, omeprazole 20 mg and 40 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg and rabeprazole 20 mg).

METHODS

Systematic review of CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE for RCTs in patients with erosive oesophagitis (completed October 2008). Endoscopically verified healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks were extracted and re-calculated if not analysed by intention-to-treat. A mixed treatment comparison was used to combine direct treatment comparisons with indirect trial evidence while maintaining randomization. Odds ratios (OR) are reported compared to omeprazole 20 mg.

RESULTS

A total of 3021 papers were identified in the literature search; 12 were of sufficient quality to be included in the analysis. Insufficient data were available to included rabeprazole. Esomeprazole 40 mg was found to provide significantly higher healing rates at 4 weeks [OR 1.84, 95% Credible Interval (95% CrI): 1.50 to 2.22] and 8 weeks (OR 1.91, 95% CrI: 1.13 to 2.88). No other PPI investigated had significantly higher healing rates than omeprazole 20 mg.

CONCLUSION

Esomeprazole 40 mg consistently demonstrates higher healing rates compared with licensed standard- and double-dose PPIs.

Prevalence of complicated gastroesophageal reflux disease and Barrett's esophagus among racial groups in a multi-center consortium

AIMS

The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative database was used to evaluate ethnic trends in complicated reflux disease and suspected Barrett's esophagus among various racial groups.

METHODS

Endoscopic findings for procedures performed January 2000-December 2005 for any indication and for reflux-related indications were reviewed by racial group.

RESULTS

Of 280,075 procedures examined, Hispanics were the most likely to have esophagitis (Hispanic 19.6%, white 17.3%, black 15.8%, Asian/Pacific Islander 9.5%, P-value<0.0001), and white subjects were most likely to have suspected BE (white 5.0%, Hispanic 2.9%, Asian/Pacific Islander 1.8%, black 1.5%, P-value<0.0001). Endoscopies performed for reflux-related indications had similar trends for esophagitis and esophageal stricture. Among reflux/Barrett's screening procedures adjusted for age and gender, Hispanics were most likely to have esophagitis (OR=1.28, P-value<0.0001) compared to Caucasians.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate an association of suspected Barrett's esophagus and stricture with white patients and esophagitis with Hispanic patients. These findings need to be followed-up with further study.

The effect of gastroesophageal flap valve appearance on the management of patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness of anti-reflux treatment in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients classified according to esophagogastric junction morphology (Hill classification).

RESULTS

A symptom score and endoscopic grading of gastrooesophageal flap valve appearance were determined in 49 symptomatic patients (female 26, male 23; mean age 49 years, range 21-76 years). Patients received 8 weeks of continuous rabeprazole at a daily dose of 20 mg and, upon symptom control, continued with on-demand treatment for 3 months. The mean symptom score at 8 weeks was significantly reduced in all groups. However, at the end of the on-demand therapy, patients with Hill grade IV had used more rabeprazole tablets than those in the two other groups (II: 10.86 +/- 14.52, III: 14.73 +/- 14.58, IV: 25.78 +/- 15.85; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous treatment is effective in all groups of patients with reflux disease. Grading patients according to the gastroesophageal flap valve appearance is useful as a prognostic factor, especially when on-demand therapy is considered to be an option.

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in Asia : birth of a 'new' disease?

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases in the Western world and imposes a heavy burden on society. Although its prevalence in Asia is much lower, there is evidence that this is rapidly rising in Asia. The reported population prevalence of GORD in Eastern Asia ranges from 2.5% to 6.7% for at least weekly symptoms of heartburn and/or acid regurgitation. In general, Asians tend to have a milder spectrum of the disease. Most Asian patients have non-erosive GORD; erosive oesophagitis is less commonly seen than in the Western population. Complicated GORD, such as oesophageal stricture and Barrett's oesophagus, is seldom encountered. The mechanisms of GORD may be different in the Chinese population compared with the Western population. Chest pain is the most predominant extra-oesophageal manifestation of GORD in China, whereas an association with asthma has been shown in Japanese patients. The prevalence of GORD appears to be increasing and possible factors for GORD in Asian populations include Helicobacterpylori infection, obesity and increasing dietary fat intake. The adoption of a Western lifestyle in many developing Asian countries may account for the increasing prevalence of GORD. Proton pump inhibitors remain the most effective medical treatment for GORD. GORD will undoubtedly be a great challenge to clinicians both in primary care and in gastroenterology practice in the Asia-Pacific region in the coming years.

A second-order simulation model of the cost-effectiveness of managing dyspepsia in the United States

BACKGROUND

The "gold-standard'' evidence of effectiveness for a clinical practice guideline is the randomized controlled trial (RCT), although RCTs have a limited ability to explore potential management strategies for a chronic disease where these interact over time. Modeling can be used to fill this gap, and models have become increasingly complex, with both dynamic sampling and representation of second-order uncertainty to provide more precise estimates. However, both simulation modeling and probabilistic sensitivity analysis are rarely used together. The objective of this study was to explore uncertainty in controversial areas of the 2005 American Gastroenterology Association position statement on the management of dyspepsia.

METHODS

Individual sampling model, incorporating a second-order probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

POPULATION

US adult patients presenting in primary care with dyspepsia. Interventions compared: empirical acid suppression, test and treat for Helicobacter pylori, initial endoscopy, acid suppression then endoscopy, test and treat then proton pump inhibitor (PPI) then endoscopy.

OUTCOMES

Cost-effectiveness, quality-adjusted life years, and costs in US dollars from a societal perspective, measured over a 5-year period.

DATA SOURCES

mainly Cochrane meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Endoscopy was dominated at all ages by other strategies. PPI therapy was the most cost-effective strategy in 30-year-olds with a low prevalence of H. pylori. In 60-year-olds, H. pylori test and treat was the most cost-effective option.

CONCLUSIONS

Acid suppression alone was more cost-effective than either endoscopy or H. pylori test and treat in younger dyspepsia patients with a low prevalence of infection.

Medical treatments in the short term management of reflux oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

Oesophagitis arises when reflux of acid from the stomach into the oesophagus causes mucosal inflammation. It is a common problem and a systematic review on the optimum treatment would be useful.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), prokinetic therapy, sucralfate and placebo in healing oesophagitis or curing reflux symptoms or both. To compare adverse effects with the different treatments.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the National Research Register until December 2004 and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials assessing the healing of oesophagitis or reflux symptoms or both. Treatment involving PPIs, H2RAs, prokinetics, sucralfate and combinations either in comparison to another treatment regimen or to placebo for 2 and 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviews independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 134 trials involving 35,978 oesophagitis participants. Five RCTs evaluated standard dose of PPI versus placebo in 965 participants. There was a statistically significant benefit of taking standard dose PPI therapy compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Ten RCTs reported on the outcome for H2RA versus placebo evaluating 1241 participants. There was statistically significant benefit of taking H2RA compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.74,95% CI = 0.66 to 0.84). Three RCTs evaluated prokinetic therapy versus placebo in 198 participants. There was no statistically significant benefit of taking prokinetic therapy compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.10). Twenty six RCTs reported the outcome for PPI versus H2RA or H2RA plus prokinetics, evaluating 4032 participants. There was statistically significant benefit of taking PPI therapy compared to H2RA or H2RA plus prokinetics in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.59).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PPI therapy is the most effective therapy in oesophagitis but H2RA therapy is also superior to placebo. There is a paucity of evidence on prokinetic therapy but no evidence that it is superior to placebo.

Oral rabeprazole vs. intravenous pantoprazole: a comparison of the effect on intragastric pH in healthy subjects

BACKGROUND

Intravenous pantoprazole is often administered inappropriately to hospitalized patients who can take oral medications.

AIM

To compare the antisecretory effects of oral rabeprazole and intravenous pantoprazole in healthy subjects.

METHODS

In a double-blind, double-dummy, two-way crossover study, 38 Helicobacter pylori-negative volunteers were randomized to oral rabeprazole 20 mg or intravenous pantoprazole 40 mg daily for 3 days followed, after a 14-day washout period by the comparator treatment. Intragastric pH was recorded continuously for 24 h at baseline and on days 1 and 3 of each treatment period.

RESULTS

The mean (95% CI) percentage of the 24-h recording with gastric pH >4 was higher with rabeprazole than with pantoprazole on day 1: 37.7% (30.6-44.8%) vs. 23.9% (20.0-27.8). The mean percentage times with pH >3 and >4 for all intervals assessed were greater and the median 24-h intragastric pH values were higher with rabeprazole than with pantoprazole on days 1 and 3. The mean acidity index was lower with rabeprazole on days 1 and 3.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral rabeprazole 20 mg produced greater acid suppression than intravenous pantoprazole 40 mg. Therefore, it may be an appropriate and effective alternative in patients who can take oral medication.

Identification of the time-point which gives a plasma rabeprazole concentration that adequately reflects the area under the concentration-time curve

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether a simple formula using limited blood samples can predict the area under the plasma rabeprazole concentration-time curve (AUC) in co-administration with CYP inhibitors.

METHODS

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study design in three phases was conducted at intervals of 2 weeks. Twenty-one healthy Japanese volunteers, including three CYP2C19 genotype groups, took a single oral 20-mg dose of rabeprazole after three 6-day pretreatments, i.e., clarithromycin 800 mg/day, fluvoxamine 50 mg/day, and placebo. Prediction formulas of the AUC were derived from pharmacokinetics data of 21 subjects in three phases using multiple linear regression analysis. Ten blood samples were collected over 24 h to calculate AUC. Plasma concentrations of rabeprazole was measured by an HPLC-assay (l.l.q.=1 ng/ml).

RESULTS

The AUC was based on all the data sets (n=63). The linear regression using two points (C3 and C6) could predict AUC(0-infinity) precisely, irrespective of CYP2C19 genotypes and CYP inhibitors (AUC(0-infinity)=1.39xC3+7.17xC6+344.14, r (2)=0.825, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated that the AUC of rabeprazole can be estimated by the simple formula using two-point concentrations. This formula can be more accurate for the prediction of AUC estimation than that reflected by CYP2C19 genotypes without any determination, even if there are significant differences for the CYP2C19 genotypes. Therefore, this prediction formula might be useful to evaluate whether CYP2C19 genotypes really reflects the curative effect of rabeprazole.

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease refers to reflux of gastric contents into the oesophagus leading to oesophagitis, reflux symptoms sufficient to impair quality of life, or long-term complications. Transient relaxation of the lower oesophageal sphincter is believed to be the primary mechanism of the disease although the underlying cause remains uncertain. Obesity and smoking are weakly associated with the disease and genetic factors might be important. A negative association with Helicobacter pylori exists, but eradication of H pylori does not seem to cause reflux disease. Diagnosis is imprecise as there is no gold standard. Reflux symptoms are helpful in diagnosis but they lack sensitivity. Ambulatory oesophageal pH monitoring also seems to be insensitive despite high specificity. Empirical acid suppression with a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) has reasonable sensitivity but poor specificity. Some evidence suggests that once patients develop the disease, severity is determined early and patients seem to continue with that phenotype long term. Unfortunately, most patients do not respond to life-style advice and require further therapy. H2 receptor antagonists and PPIs are better than placebo in oesophagitis, with a number needed to treat of five and two, respectively. In non-erosive reflux disease, acid suppression is better than placebo but the response rate is lower. Most patients need long-term treatment because the disease usually relapses. The role of endoscopic therapy is uncertain. Anti-reflux surgery is probably as effective as PPI therapy although there is a low operative mortality and morbidity.

Efficacy of rabeprazole in the treatment of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease

The purpose of this study was to assess the rapidity of symptom relief and 4-week efficacy of rabeprazole 20 mg in patients with moderately severe nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease. Data were analyzed from 2 similarly designed, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, U.S. trials. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, patients (N = 261) were randomized to 4 weeks of rabeprazole 20 mg once daily or placebo. Patients kept symptom diaries and scored symptom severity. Median time to first 24-hour heartburn-free interval was 3.5 days for the rabeprazole group compared with 19.5 days for the placebo group (P < or = .0002). Complete heartburn relief at week 4 was 32% with rabeprazole and 3.8% with placebo (P < or = .001). Rabeprazole also significantly improved other GERD-associated symptoms (e.g., regurgitation, belching, early satiety) by week 4 compared with placebo (P < or = .05). Rabeprazole provides fast and potent relief from heartburn and other symptoms of nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux 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.

Rabeprazole is equivalent to omeprazole in the treatment of erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. A randomised, double-blind, comparative study of rabeprazole and omeprazole 20 mg in acute treatment of reflux oesophagitis, followed by a maintenance open-label, low-dose therapy with rabeprazole

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown similar effects of rabeprazole and omeprazole, when used at the same dose in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis. However, such studies have been conducted as superiority studies but interpreted as equivalence ones.

AIM

To properly assess the comparative efficacy of rabeprazole and omeprazole in inducing complete endoscopic healing and symptom relief in patients with reflux oesophagitis.

METHODS

Patients (n=560) with Savary-Miller grade I-III reflux oesophagitis were randomised in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion to rabeprazole or omeprazole 20 mg once daily for 4-8 weeks. Then, patients endoscopically healed and symptomatically relieved were openly maintained with rabeprazole 10 mg or 2x10 mg once daily (in the event of clinical and/or endoscopic relapse) for a maximum of 48 weeks.

RESULTS

After 4-8 weeks of treatment, healing (primary end-point) was observed in 228/233 (97.9%) patients in the rabeprazole group and in 231/237 (97.5%) in the omeprazole one (equivalence effect demonstrated by p<0.0001 at Blackwelder test and an upper confidence limit at 97.5% of 0.023). However, rabeprazole was faster in inducing heartburn relief than omeprazole (2.8+/-0.2 versus 4.7+/-0.5 days of therapy to reach the first day with satisfactory heartburn relief, p=0.0045 at log-rank test). In the maintenance phase, 15.2% of patients had an endoscopic and/or clinical relapse.

CONCLUSION

Rabeprazole is equivalent to omeprazole in healing reflux oesophagitis, but shows a faster activity on reflux symptoms in the early treatment phase.

Head-to-head comparison of H2-receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors in the treatment of erosive esophagitis: a meta-analysis

AIM

To systematically evaluate the efficacy of H(2)-receptor antagonists (H(2)RAs) and proton pump inhibitors in healing erosive esophagitis (EE).

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases to include randomized controlled head-to-head comparative trials evaluating the efficacy of H(2)RAs or proton pump inhibitors in healing EE. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated under a random-effects model.

RESULTS

RRs of cumulative healing rates for each comparison at 8 wk were: high dose vs standard dose H(2)RAs, 1.17 (95%CI, 1.02-1.33); standard dose proton pump inhibitors vs standard dose H(2)RAs, 1.59 (95%CI, 1.44-1.75); standard dose other proton pump inhibitors vs standard dose omeprazole, 1.06 (95%CI, 0.98-1.06). Proton pump inhibitors produced consistently greater healing rates than H(2)RAs of all doses across all grades of esophagitis, including patients refractory to H(2)RAs. Healing rates achieved with standard dose omeprazole were similar to those with other proton pump inhibitors in all grades of esophagitis.

CONCLUSION

H(2)RAs are less effective for treating patients with erosive esophagitis, especially in those with severe forms of esophagitis. Standard dose proton pump inhibitors are significantly more effective than H(2)RAs in healing esophagitis of all grades. Proton pump inhibitors given at the recommended dose are equally effective for healing esophagitis.

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.

Review of rabeprazole in the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is an increasing health problem in developed countries and is associated with enormous costs in terms of reduced quality of life, loss of productivity, health expenses and mortality. The gastrointestinal disease with the highest annual direct costs in the US (in the year 2000) was GERD (9.3 billion US dollars). GERD is primarily a motility disorder of the oesophagus, however, there are no available promotility drugs on the market. The main symptoms are heartburn and acid regurgitation arising from the reflux of gastric acid, which is the only factor at present suited for pharmacological intervention. The proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) give optimal benefit in the treatment of GERD. The sales of PPIs in the year 2002 amounted to 12 billion US dollars in North America and 4 billion US dollars in Europe and the sales have been increasing by > 10% annually. This paper reviews the use of PPIs in the treatment of GERD with particular focus on one of the newer agents, rabeprazole.

Potent Gastric Acid Inhibition in Helicobacter pylori Eradication

At present, antisecretory drugs--foremost among them the proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)--represent a keystone in Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy. The present article shall first compare the role of PPIs as compared with histamine H2 receptor antagonists, both of them in the role of antibiotic-associated antisecretory therapy, and shall then address the contribution of each of the various PPIs that have been developed until the present time to the H. pylori eradication therapies. In summary, it may be concluded that PPIs are more effective overall than H2 receptor antagonists when the two groups of antisecretory drugs are given at the usual standard doses together with antibiotics with the intention of eradicating H. pylori infection. However, all PPIs (omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, and esomeprazole) are equivalent when given together with two antibiotics to cure the infection.

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

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

Effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors in nonerosive reflux disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Little information is available about the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in patients with nonerosive reflux disease (NERD). We aimed to synthesize available data and determine the effectiveness of PPIs on symptom resolution in patients with NERD.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature identified studies reporting the effects of PPIs in patients with NERD. Heartburn resolution data were pooled across studies. The effectiveness of PPI therapy in inducing complete heartburn resolution was compared in patients with NERD vs. erosive esophagitis (EE).

RESULTS

Seven trials evaluating heartburn resolution in NERD were identified. Higher proportions of patients reported achieving sufficient heartburn resolution compared with complete heartburn resolution. The effect of PPIs on sufficient heartburn resolution was observed sooner than was complete heartburn resolution. Therapeutic gain of PPI therapy over placebo ranged from 30% to 35% for sufficient heartburn control and from 25% to 30% for complete heartburn control. Pooled response rates at 4 weeks were significantly higher for patients with EE compared with NERD (56% vs. 37%, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

PPIs provide a more modest therapeutic gain in patients with NERD as compared with those with EE. A trend in increased therapeutic gain for NERD patients was shown throughout the 4 weeks, suggesting that 4 weeks of follow-up evaluation may be insufficient to show full therapeutic gain in this patient population.

Six-month trial of on-demand rabeprazole 10 mg maintains symptom relief in patients with non-erosive reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Compliance studies have shown that patients with reflux symptoms generally take their medication only when experiencing these symptoms.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of on-demand rabeprazole maintenance therapy in patients with non-erosive reflux disease.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, withdrawal study compared 6 months of on-demand treatment with rabeprazole 10 mg vs. placebo. Adults with a history of reflux symptoms, a negative endoscopy, and > or = 3 days of moderate to very severe heartburn in the 7 days before enrollment (N = 535) entered 4 weeks of open-label, acute treatment with rabeprazole 10 mg once daily. Patients with complete symptom relief then entered the on-demand phase. The primary end-point was discontinuation due to lack of heartburn control during the on-demand phase.

RESULTS

Eighty-three percent (432 of 523) of patients reported complete symptom relief at the end of the acute phase. During on-demand treatment, rates of discontinuation because of inadequate heartburn control were 20% (28 of 139) for placebo vs. 6% (16 of 279) for rabeprazole (P < 0.00001). Antacid use was twofold higher in the placebo group vs. the rabeprazole group (P = 0.0009).

CONCLUSIONS

Rabeprazole 10 mg once daily is highly effective in acute symptom relief and as on-demand long-term maintenance therapy in non-erosive reflux disease patients.

Rabeprazole 10 mg twice daily is superior to 20 mg once daily for night-time gastric acid suppression

BACKGROUND

Insufficient acid suppression is one of the main causes of proton pump inhibitor-refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

AIM

To achieve more potent and long-lasting acid suppression, different dosage regimens of rabeprazole were compared in relation to the CYP2C19 genotype status.

METHODS

In a cross-over study, 18 healthy Helicobacter pylori-negative males (six homozygous extensive metabolizers, six heterozygous extensive metabolizers and six poor metabolizers) were given rabeprazole 10 mg once daily, 20 mg once daily or 10 mg twice daily, or water only (baseline data), for 7 days each. On day 7 of each regimen, 24-h intragastric pH-metry was performed.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in median pH values and pH>4 holding time ratios between rabeprazole 10 mg once daily and 20 mg once daily. However, with rabeprazole 10 mg twice daily, these parameters were significantly higher than those with 20 mg once daily. The potency of acid suppression by rabeprazole was influenced by the CYP2C19 genotype status. The differences were somewhat significant but not large. The incidence of nocturnal acid breakthrough was lowest with rabeprazole 10 mg twice daily.

CONCLUSIONS

Rabeprazole 10 mg twice daily, not 20 mg once daily, should be administered to achieve more potent and long-lasting acid suppression.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Reductions in symptom distress reported by patients with moderately severe, nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease treated with rabeprazole

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is characterized by heartburn and related symptoms that are distressing to patients and interfere with everyday functioning and well-being. A measure of symptom distress, the GERD Symptom Assessment Scale (GSAS), was included in two randomized, placebo-controlled trials of rabeprazole among patients with nonerosive GERD. The age (mean +/- SD) of the 223 patients was 43.5 +/- 11.9 years, and most were female (67%) and Caucasian (78%). Significantly greater reductions in symptom distress were observed among patients receiving rabeprazole 20 mg daily for 4 weeks relative to those receiving placebo (-0.62 vs -0.36, P < 0.0001). The magnitude of this treatment difference was comparable to the differences observed between levels of overall symptom improvement on the patient global rating (0.2 and 0.3 points; P < 0.0001). In conclusion, reducing symptom distress is an important goal of therapeutic interventions for GERD. Rabeprazole significantly reduced the distress associated with a broad range of GERD symptoms, and the magnitude of this effect was meaningful to patients.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Systematic review: Rabeprazole-based therapies in Helicobacter pylori eradication

AIM

To perform a systematic review of the efficacy of rabeprazole-based therapies in Helicobacter pylori eradication, and to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of rabeprazole and other proton pump inhibitors when co-prescribed with antibiotics.

METHODS

Studies evaluating rabeprazole plus antibiotics were considered. Only randomized trials comparing rabeprazole and other proton pump inhibitors with antibiotics, and differing only in the proton pump inhibitor, were included in the meta-analysis. Electronic and manual bibliographic searches were conducted. The percentage (weighted mean) of successful eradication was calculated. Meta-analysis was performed by combining the odds ratios (OR) of the individual studies.

RESULTS

The eradication rates were as follows: 14-day rabeprazole-amoxicillin, 73%; rabeprazole-amoxicillin-clarithromycin for 3, 5, 7 and 10 days, 44%, 72%, 78% and 75%, respectively; low-dose rabeprazole (20 mg/day), amoxicillin and clarithromycin for 7 days, 81%; high-dose rabeprazole (40 mg/day), amoxicillin and clarithromycin for 7 days, 75%; 7-day rabeprazole-clarithromycin-nitroimidazole, 85%. Twelve comparative studies were included in the meta-analysis. The eradication rate with rabeprazole plus antibiotics was 79%; it was 77% with other proton pump inhibitors (OR = 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.42). Sub-analysis comparing rabeprazole at low doses (10 mg b.d.) with other proton pump inhibitors at standard doses (omeprazole 20 mg b.d. or lansoprazole 30 mg b.d.) showed no differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Rabeprazole achieves similar H. pylori eradication rates to omeprazole and lansoprazole when co-prescribed with antibiotics. Low doses of rabeprazole (10 mg b.d.), when administered with two antibiotics, may be sufficient to eradicate H. pylori infection.

Rabeprazole improves health-related quality of life in patients with erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of rabeprazole 20 mg once a day on patient-reported health-related quality of life in routine clinical practice. Patients with erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease participating in an open-label, 8-week study completed the SF-36 Health Survey before and after treatment with rabeprazole. For all SF-36 scales, there was a statistically significant (p < or = 0.007) improvement in mean scores from baseline to week 8. Improvements in each of the subscales, except for physical functioning, general health, and mental health, were at least 5% in magnitude, a level considered clinically meaningful. Furthermore, while baseline scores were significantly poorer than general United States population scores, follow-up scores for four of the subscales (role limitations due to physical problems, social functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, and mental health) were comparable to general population scores. In conclusion, rabeprazole significantly improved health-related quality of life in erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease patients and restored social functioning and emotional well-being to levels comparable to those observed in the United States general population.

Are proton pump inhibitors the first choice for acute treatment of gastric ulcers? A meta analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Gastric ulcers are a frequent problem in the United States. Proton pump inhibitors have been shown to increase healing rates and improve clinical symptoms. The objective of this study is to compare gastric ulcer healing rates for patients treated with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (omeprazole, rabeprazole, pantoprazole, or lansoprazole), an histamine 2- receptor antagonist (ranitidine) or placebo.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify randomized, controlled clinical trials that included a PPI in at least one treatment arm and assessed the gastric ulcer healing rates endoscopically. The healing rates were estimated for each treatment at specific time points, and Rate Ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for each trial.

RESULTS

Sixteen trials met the inclusion criteria: four compared a PPI versus placebo, nine compared a PPI versus ranitidine (no trials of rabeprazole versus ranitidine met the inclusion criteria), and three compared a newer PPI (lansoprazole, pantoprazole or rabeprazole) versus omeprazole. In relation to ranitidine, the pooled RR of PPIs (lansoprazole, omeprazole and pantoprazole) was 1.33 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.42) at four weeks. In each trial, greater improvement in the studied clinical symptoms was found with the newer PPIs (rabeprazole, pantoprazole and lansoprazole) when compared to omeprazole.

CONCLUSION

In this study treatment with PPIs resulted in higher healing rates than ranitidine or placebo. This evidence suggests that the first choice for gastric ulcer treatment for the greater relief of symptoms is one of the newer PPIs.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Rabeprazole in nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Clinical results to date suggest that antisecretory therapy may be less effective in providing symptom relief for patients with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) than for patients with erosive disease. This study was carried out to assess the efficacy and rapidity of once-daily rabeprazole (10 mg or 20 mg) in relieving symptoms in endoscopically negative patients with moderately severe GERD symptoms and to evaluate the safety of these doses over 4 wk.

METHODS

This placebo-controlled, double blind study enrolled 203 men and women with moderately severe symptoms of GERD. After a 2-wk, single-blind placebo run-in phase, patients were randomized to receive 10 mg or 20 mg of rabeprazole or placebo once daily for 4 wk.

RESULTS

Rabeprazole rapidly and effectively relieved heartburn, with significant improvements on day 1 of dosing. It also improved most other GERD-related symptoms, including regurgitation, belching, bloating, early satiety, and nausea. Both rabeprazole doses were significantly superior to the placebo with respect to time to the first 24-h heartburn-free interval (2.5 and 4.5 days for 10 mg and 20 mg of rabeprazole, respectively, vs 21.5 days for the placebo) and first daytime or nighttime heartburn-free interval (1.5-3 days for rabeprazole groups vs 12.5-15 days for the placebo), as well as to percentage of time patients were heartburn-free and free of antacid use. Both rabeprazole doses were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these findings and prior studies, rabeprazole reliably relieves GI symptoms equally well in both nonerosive GERD and erosive GERD.

A randomized, double-blind, comparative study of standard-dose rabeprazole and high-dose omeprazole in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Rabeprazole has a faster onset of antisecretory action than omeprazole, and it is of interest to determine whether this translates into faster symptom relief in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

AIMS

To assess the relief from heartburn after 3 days of treatment with standard-dose rabeprazole or high-dose omeprazole (primary end-point). Secondary end-points included the decrease in score for other symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, healing rates and quantification of antacid use.

METHODS

Patients with endoscopically confirmed erosive oesophagitis were randomized to receive 4 weeks of double-blind treatment with rabeprazole (20 mg) or omeprazole (40 mg). Patients who were not healed after 4 weeks received a further 4 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-four patients were screened, 251 patients were randomized and 230 patients completed the trial. The numbers of patients with relief from heartburn on day 4 were similar in the two groups (84% for rabeprazole; 95% confidence interval, 76-90%; 83% for omeprazole; 95% confidence interval, 75-89%). There were no significant differences between the treatments in the relief from other gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms or in healing rates. The number of reports of severe heartburn during the first 3 days was higher in the omeprazole group (daytime heartburn: 4.7% for rabeprazole vs. 10.3% for omeprazole, P=0.005; night-time heartburn: 4.7% for rabeprazole vs. 9.8% for omeprazole, P=0.01; statistical comparisons defined post hoc).

CONCLUSIONS

Standard-dose rabeprazole was as effective as high-dose omeprazole in relieving symptoms by day 4 of treatment and in healing oesophageal lesions, but had a faster onset of action in patients with severe heartburn. This suggests that the improved pharmacological properties of rabeprazole translate into a clinically relevant advantage.

Review article: rabeprazole-based therapy in Helicobacter pylori eradication

Rabeprazole's favourable pharmacodynamic profile is a result of its rapid onset and its 24-h control of gastric parietal secretion. These qualities, and its antimicrobial properties, make it particularly effective in the treatment of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), which is a short course of treatment compared to other conditions treated with proton pump inhibitors. Recently completed trials in combination with amoxicillin, clarithromycin and metronidazole for 7 days achieved high eradication of H. pylori. An additional study assessing the efficacy of combined rabeprazole and antibiotic treatments of 3, 7, and 10 days' duration vs. FDA-approved 10-day omeprazole triple therapy is under way to address the possibility of shorter duration therapies in the USA.

Onset of symptom relief with rabeprazole: a community-based, open-label assessment of patients with erosive oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

In numerous clinical trials, proton pump inhibitors have demonstrated potent acid suppression and healing of erosive oesophagitis, as well as successful symptom relief for the entire spectrum of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

AIM

The 'Future of Acid Suppression Therapy' (FAST) trial evaluated, in actual clinical practice, the timing of symptom relief, changes in symptom severity, health-related quality of life and safety in endoscopically confirmed erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease treated with rabeprazole.

METHODS

This open-label, multicentre study enrolled 2579 patients to receive rabeprazole treatment using 20 mg once daily for 8 weeks. Between two clinical visits (at enrollment and week 8), patients used an interactive voice response system to rate gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms. Subgroup analyses of efficacy were conducted for gender, age, Hetzel-Dent grade, presence of Barrett's oesophagus and for patients reporting previously ineffective symptom relief with omeprazole or lansoprazole.

RESULTS

On day 1, rabeprazole significantly decreased daytime and night-time heartburn severity, regurgitation and belching. Complete relief of daytime and night-time heartburn was achieved in 64.0% and 69.2% of symptomatic patients, respectively, on day 1, and in 81.1% and 85.7% of patients, respectively, on day 7. Patients with moderate or severe heartburn symptoms at baseline achieved an even greater degree of satisfactory symptom relief (none or mild) from day 1 onwards. The median time to satisfactory heartburn relief was 2 days. Subgroup analyses showed no consistent differences in efficacy compared to the overall population treated. Health-related quality of life in patients was significantly lower than that of the US general population and improved significantly after 8 weeks of rabeprazole therapy. Rabeprazole was well tolerated, with headache as the most common adverse event, reported by less than 2% of the study population.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, open-label trial, rabeprazole rapidly and effectively relieved gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms in most patients with erosive oesophagitis. Substantial symptom relief was noted on day 1; improvement continued over the first week and at week 4. By week 8, the health-related quality of life had also improved vs. baseline.

Rabeprazole: an update of its use in acid-related disorders

Rabeprazole is an inhibitor of the gastric proton pump. It causes dose-dependent inhibition of acid secretion. In 8-week studies, among patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), rabeprazole 20 mg/day or 10mg twice daily was as effective as omeprazole and superior to ranitidine in the healing of GORD. Symptom relief with rabeprazole was superior to that provided by placebo and ranitidine and similar to omeprazole. In long-term trials rabeprazole 10 mg/day was similar to omeprazole 20 mg/day in a 2-year study and superior to placebo in 1-year studies, in both the maintenance of healing and prevention of symptoms in patients with healed GORD. In nonerosive GORD, 4-week studies have shown rabeprazole to be more effective than placebo in relieving heartburn and various other gastrointestinal symptoms. Data among patients with Barrett's oesophagus suggest rabeprazole 20 mg/day may be more effective than placebo in maintaining healing of associated oesophagitis after 1 year of treatment. One-week triple Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy with rabeprazole plus clarithromycin and amoxicillin achieved eradication rates of > or =85%. Rabeprazole is as effective as omeprazole and lansoprazole when included as part of a triple-therapy regimen for the eradication of H. pylori. Eradication rates of >90% were achieved when rabeprazole 20 to 40 mg/day was included as part of a quadruple eradication regimen. As monotherapy for peptic ulcer healing and symptom relief, 4- to 8-week studies have shown rabeprazole 10 to 40 mg/day to be superior to placebo and ranitidine and have similar efficacy to omeprazole. Preliminary 1-year data among 16 patients with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome suggest rabeprazole 60 to 120 mg/day can resolve and prevent the recurrence of symptoms and endoscopic lesions associated with this condition. In clinical trials of up to 2 years' duration the tolerability of rabeprazole is similar to that of placebo, ranitidine and omeprazole. Common adverse events assigned to rabeprazole have been diarrhoea, headache, rhinitis, nausea, pharyngitis and abdominal pain. Histological changes and increases in serum gastrin levels were unremarkable and typical of proton pump inhibitors. No dosage adjustment is necessary in renal and mild to moderate hepatic impairment.

CONCLUSION

Rabeprazole is a well tolerated proton pump inhibitor. It has proven efficacy in healing, symptom relief and prevention of relapse of peptic ulcers and GORD and can form part of effective H. pylori eradication regimens. It is an important alternative to H(2) antagonists and an additional treatment option to other proton pump inhibitors in the management of acid-related disorders.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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