Esomeprazole improves healing and symptom resolution as compared with omeprazole in reflux oesophagitis patients: a randomized controlled trial. The Esomeprazole Study Investigators

Comparative Efficacy of P-CAB vs Proton Pump Inhibitors for Grade C/D Esophagitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Los Angeles grade C/D esophagitis is a severe manifestation of gastroesophageal reflux disease that require active treatment and close follow-up. Potassium competitive acid blockers (P-CAB) are promising alternatives to proton pump inhibitors (PPI). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of P-CAB and PPI in healing grade C/D esophagitis to aid clinical decision-making.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion if efficacy of P-CAB and PPI in healing grade C/D esophagitis was reported. Pooled risk ratios and risk difference with 95% credible intervals were used to summarize estimated effect of each comparison. The benefit of treatments was ranked using the surface under the cumulative probability ranking score.

RESULTS

Of 5,876 articles identified in the database, 24 studies were eligible. Studies included incorporated 3 P-CAB (vonoprazan, tegoprazan, and keverprazan) and 6 PPI (lansoprazole, esomeprazole, omeprazole, rabeprazole extended-release (ER), pantoprazole, and dexlansoprazole). Based on the failure to achieve mucosal healing, 20 mg of vonoprazan q.d. ranked the first among PPI in initial and maintained healing of grade C/D esophagitis (surface under the cumulative probability ranking score = 0.89 and 0.87, respectively). Vonoprazan had similar risk of incurring adverse events, severe adverse events, and withdrawal to drug when compared with PPI. For those who attempted lower maintenance treatment dose, 10 mg of vonoprazan q.d. was a reasonable choice, considering its moderate efficacy and safety.

DISCUSSION

Vonoprazan has considerable efficacy in initial and maintained healing of grade C/D esophagitis compared with PPI, with moderate short-term and long-term safety.

Efficacy and safety of HIP1601 (dual delayed-release esomeprazole) 40 mg in erosive esophagitis compared to HGP1705 (delayed-release esomeprazole) 40 mg: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most effective drugs for treating acid-related disorders. However, once-daily dosing with conventional PPIs fail to fully control acid secretion over 24 h. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of HIP1601 (dual delayed-release esomeprazole) and HGP1705 (delayed-release esomeprazole) in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE).

METHODS

We enrolled 213 patients with EE randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 40 mg HIP1601 (n = 107) or HGP1705 (n = 106) once daily for 4 or 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the EE healing rate, confirmed by endoscopy up to week 8. GERD-related symptoms and treatment-emergent adverse events were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

By week 8, the estimated healing rates of EE were 97.8% and 96.8% in the HIP1601 and HGP1705 groups, respectively, with a 95% confidence interval of -4.7 to 7.2. After 4 or 8 weeks of treatment, the EE healing rate at week 4, complete resolution rate of symptoms, time to sustained resolution of symptoms, and number of rescue medications used were similar in both groups. The proportion of heartburn- and acid regurgitation-free nights by week 4 were higher in the HIP1601 group compared to the HGP1705 group, but the difference did not reach clinical significance (87.7% vs. 85.8%, P = 0.514, 87.5% vs. 85.8%, P = 0.774). The number of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of HIP1601 40 mg were comparable to those of HGP1705 40 mg for the treatment of EE and symptomatic improvement of GERD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04080726 ( https://classic.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ct2/show/NCT04080726 ), registration date: 25/10/2018.

Vonoprazan Versus Lansoprazole for Healing and Maintenance of Healing of Erosive Esophagitis: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

For decades, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been the mainstay of treatment for erosive esophagitis. The potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan provides more potent acid inhibition than PPIs, but data on its efficacy for erosive esophagitis are limited.

METHODS

Adults with erosive esophagitis were randomized to once-daily vonoprazan, 20 mg, or lansoprazole, 30 mg, for up to 8 weeks. Patients with healing were rerandomized to once-daily vonoprazan, 10 mg, vonoprazan, 20 mg, or lansoprazole, 15 mg, for 24 weeks. Primary end points, percentage with healing by week 8 endoscopy, and maintenance of healing at week 24 endoscopy, were assessed in noninferiority comparisons (noninferiority margins, 10%), with superiority analyses prespecified if noninferiority was demonstrated. Analyses of primary and secondary end points were performed using fixed-sequence testing procedures.

RESULTS

Among 1024 patients in the healing phase, vonoprazan was noninferior to lansoprazole in the primary analysis and superior on the exploratory analysis of healing (92.9 vs 84.6%; difference, 8.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.5%-12.2%). Secondary analyses showed vonoprazan was noninferior in heartburn-free days (difference, 2.7%; 95% CI, -1.6% to 7.0%), and superior in healing Los Angeles Classification Grade C/D esophagitis at week 2 (difference, 17.6%; 95% CI, 7.4%-27.4%). Among 878 patients in the maintenance phase, vonoprazan was noninferior to lansoprazole in the primary analysis and superior on the secondary analysis of maintenance of healing (20 mg vs lansoprazole: difference, 8.7%; 95% CI, 1.8%-15.5%; 10 mg vs lansoprazole: difference, 7.2%; 95% CI, 0.2%-14.1%) and secondary analysis of maintenance of healing Grade C/D esophagitis (20 mg vs lansoprazole: difference, 15.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-28.4%; 10 mg vs lansoprazole: difference, 13.3%; 95% CI, 0.02%-26.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Vonoprazan was noninferior and superior to the PPI lansoprazole in healing and maintenance of healing of erosive esophagitis. This benefit was seen predominantly in more severe erosive esophagitis. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04124926).

Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors versus vonoprazan in treatment of erosive esophagitis: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and vonoprazan are recommended as first-line therapies for erosive esophagitis (EE). However, it is uncertain how the magnitude of efficacy and safety of first-line therapy, the choice of individual PPIs or vonoprazan in the treatment of EE remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan and PPIs in healing esophageal mucosal injury in patients with EE.

METHODS

Relevant databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials of proton pump inhibitors and vonoprazan in the treatment of reflux esophagitis up to December 2021. Studies on standard-dose PPIs or vonoprazan that were published in Chinese or English and assessed healing effects in EE were included in the analysis. Stata16.0 was used to conduct a network Meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 41 literatures were included with 11,592 enrolled patients. For the endoscopic cure rate, all the PPIs and vonoprazan significantly improve compared to Placebo; Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, Ilaprazole ranked first, followed by esomeprazole, vonoprazan, pantoprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, rabeprazole and placebo therapy ranked the last. For the rate of adverse events, there was no significant difference among all the PPIs, vonoprazan, and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Ilaprazole, esomeprazole and vonoprazan have more advantages in mucosal erosion healing, there was no significant difference in the comparative safety among all interventions.

Induction and maintenance of healing in erosive esophagitis in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Erosive esophagitis (EE) occurs when refluxate from the stomach causes T-lymphocyte infiltration of the esophageal mucosa, resulting in mucosal breaks. Currently, therapy with proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) is the standard treatment for EE in the United States, but few comprehensive reviews exist on the efficacy of PPIs in US populations. Here, we present the most contemporary, thorough analysis of PPI efficacy rates, and identify and characterize patient subgroups at risk for poor healing outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

We searched the literature to identify studies reporting rates of endoscopic healing and maintained healing of EE with PPI therapies in the US and found a paucity of recent evidence and real-world evidence. Twenty-two studies from 2009 and earlier were included in the final dataset.

EXPERT OPINION

Rates of EE healing with PPIs were highest after 8 weeks of treatment, with over 80% of patients in most treatment arms demonstrating endoscopic healing, compared to lower efficacy (<80%) at 4 weeks. Rates of maintained healing with PPIs at 6 and 12 months were mostly lower than 80%, although the data were limited. Symptomatic patients and those with severe EE were less likely to achieve healing. Obese patients experienced similar healing rates as non-obese patients.

Network Meta-analysis Comparing Vonoprazan and Proton Pump Inhibitors for Heartburn Symptoms in Erosive Esophagitis

GOALS

This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to assess the relative efficacy of vonoprazan and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on early heartburn symptom resolution in patients with erosive esophagitis.

BACKGROUND

Limited available data directly compare the efficacy of vonoprazan, a first-in-class potassium-competitive acid blocker, with PPIs in erosive esophagitis.

STUDY

We conducted a systematic literature review (in MEDLINE and CENTRAL) and subsequent network meta-analysis according to Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. Double-blind, randomized controlled trials in adults with erosive esophagitis treated with vonoprazan or a PPI were included in the analysis. Primary outcomes were heartburn symptom resolution rate on Day 1 and Day 7. The study was performed with all available data, using a random effects model within a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

Overall, 10 randomized controlled trials were included in the network meta-analysis. For heartburn resolution rate on Day 1 (9 of 10 trials), vonoprazan 20 mg once daily (QD) was superior to placebo (median odds ratio=16.75, 95% credible interval: 2.16-207.80). Point estimates numerically favored vonoprazan 20 mg QD over other comparators. For heartburn resolution rate on Day 7 (10 of 10 trials), vonoprazan 20 mg QD was superior to placebo and other comparators except rabeprazole 20 mg QD. Point estimates numerically favored vonoprazan 20 mg QD over rabeprazole 20 mg QD.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, vonoprazan 20 mg QD was equally effective in heartburn resolution on Day 1, and equally or more effective on Day 7 versus PPIs in adults with erosive esophagitis.

Trends in proton pump inhibitor use, reflux esophagitis, and various upper gastrointestinal symptoms from 2010 to 2019 in Japan

The increasing usage of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has been reported worldwide, but information on PPI use in East Asia is inadequate. This study aimed to examine the trends in PPI use in Japan, along with the changes in histamine H₂ receptor antagonist (H₂RA) use, disease rate of reflux esophagitis, and the prevalence of upper gastrointestinal symptoms. We analyzed 217,712 healthy subjects (127,607 men and 90,105 women; 51.4 ± 9.7 years old) participating in the health check program from 2010 to 2019. Various upper gastrointestinal symptoms were evaluated using the frequency scale for the symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (FSSG) questionnaire. Reflux esophagitis was diagnosed by esophageal erosion using the Los Angeles classification grades A, B, C, and D. From 2010 to 2019, the percentage of PPI users increased markedly from approximately 1.8% to 5.3%, whereas that of H₂RA users decreased gradually from approximately 2.5% to 1.9%. The use of all classical types of PPIs (omeprazole, lansoprazole, rabeprazole, and esomerazole) and a new type of PPI, a potassium-competitive acid blocker (vonoprazan), greatly increased during the 10 years. An upward trend in the prevalence of reflux esophagitis was observed from 2010 to 2015, but not from 2016 to 2019, indicating that the monotonic rising prevalence of reflux disease stopped in the middle of the 2010s in Japan. In contrast, various upper gastrointestinal symptoms significantly improved between 2010 and 2019. All 12 FSSG symptoms of PPI users were significantly worse than those of non-PPI users, suggesting that PPIs still cannot completely control upper gastrointestinal symptoms. In conclusion, this study revealed a significant increase in PPI use and a slight decrease in H₂RA use from 2010 to 2019. Despite a plateau in the prevalence of reflux esophagitis and considerable improvement in various upper gastrointestinal symptoms, PPI use has continued to increase in Japan.

Application of Analytical Tools and Techniques for Estimation of a Proton Pump Inhibitor (Esomeprazole Magnesium Trihydrate): A Comprehensive Review

Objective:

The application of various sophisticated analytical tools and techniques is essential for estimating an active pharmaceutical ingredient present in either biofluids or pharmaceutical dosage forms. Reporting the multiple analytical methods used to quantify esomeprazole magnesium trihydrate, a proton pump inhibitor, is the ultimate goal of this review article.

Evidence acquisition:

This article deals with a detailed discussion of different reported analytical procedures along with their pros and cons and their relevant criteria for quantifying the drug. Various analytical techniques like UV-Visible spectrophotometry, HPLC, HPTLC, hyphenated techniques, etc., are developed to assess the esomeprazole magnesium trihydrate in bulk materials, different pharmaceutical formulations, and biological matrices.

Conclusion:

Literature survey confirmed that the hyphenated techniques and chromatographic techniques are best tools for biological matrices. Spectroscopic methods like UV and visible techniques are widely used for pharmaceutical matrices. All of the reported methods are accurate, precise, cost-effective, and sensitive.

Clinical features and therapeutic responses to proton pump inhibitor in patients with severe reflux esophagitis: A multicenter prospective observational study

Background and Aim

In patients with severe erosive reflux disease (ERD; Los Angeles classification grade C/D) who do not undergo endoscopic examination, insufficient strength and duration of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy may lead to complications such as esophageal bleeding and stenosis. Therefore, to provide a safe and effective treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), we investigated the clinical features of patients with severe ERD and their responses to PPI therapy.

Methods

Patients with GERD symptoms received PPI therapy for 4 weeks after endoscopic examination. The patients completed the Gastroesophageal reflux and dyspepsia therapeutic efficacy and satisfaction test questionnaire before and 2 or 4 weeks after PPI treatment. Patient characteristics, presence/absence of coexisting atrophic gastritis (AG) and hiatus hernia (HH), and responses to PPI therapy were compared in patients with GERD among three groups (nonerosive reflux disease, mild ERD [grade A/B], and severe ERD).

Results

The severe ERD group had a significantly higher proportion of males, higher body mass index, and longer duration of GERD morbidity. Furthermore, the severe ERD group also had a significantly lower incidence of coexisting AG and higher incidence of HH. There was no difference in the severity of GERD before PPI treatment among the three groups. Unexpectedly, the response to PPI therapy was the best in the severe ERD group.

Conclusion

Sufficient strength and period of PPI therapy are required, even if the symptoms show early improvement, when treating GERD patients without performing endoscopy, considering the possibility of severe ERD.

Vonoprazan versus proton-pump inhibitors for healing gastroesophageal reflux disease: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disease caused by reflux of gastric contents to the esophagus. Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are recommended as a first-line therapy to treat GERD. Recently, a new potassium-competitive acid blocker, vonoprazan, was launched in Japan. We aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of vonoprazan and other PPIs in healing GERD.

METHODS

We used MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to search the literature. Double-blind randomized controlled trials for PPIs and/or vonoprazan that were published in English or Japanese and assessed healing effects in adult GERD patients were included. To estimate the comparative efficacy of treatments, we performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to assess the consistency assumption.

RESULTS

Of 4001 articles identified in the database, 42 studies were eligible. One study was hand-searched and added to the analysis. For the main analysis of healing effects at 8 weeks, odds ratios (ORs) of vonoprazan (20 mg daily) to esomeprazole (20 mg), rabeprazole (20 mg), lansoprazole (30 mg), and omeprazole (20 mg) were 2.29 (95% credible interval, 0.79-7.06), 3.94 (1.15-14.03), 2.40 (0.90-6.77), and 2.71 (0.98-7.90), respectively. Subgroup analysis for patients with severe esophagitis at baseline showed significantly higher ORs for vonoprazan versus most of the comparator PPIs.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis shows that the GERD healing effect of vonoprazan is higher than that of rabeprazole (20 mg) but not higher than other PPIs. Subgroup analysis indicated that vonoprazan is more effective than most PPIs for patients with severe erosive esophagitis.

Clinical efficacy of 60-mg dexlansoprazole and 40-mg esomeprazole after 24 weeks for the on-demand treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease grades A and B: a prospective randomized trial

Purpose: Research comparing the clinical efficacy of dexlansoprazole and esomeprazole has been limited. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of single doses of dexlansoprazole (modified-release 60 mg) and esomeprazole (40 mg) after 24-week follow-up in patients with mild erosive esophagitis. Methods: We enrolled 86 adult GERD subjects, randomized in a 1:1 ratio to two sequence groups defining the order in which they received single doses of dexlansoprazole (n=43) and esomeprazole (n=43) for 8 weeks as initial treatment. Patients displaying complete symptom resolution (CSR) by the end of initial treatment (8 weeks) were switched to on-demand therapy until the end of 24 weeks. Follow-up endoscopy was performed either at the end of 24 weeks or when severe reflux symptoms occurred. Five patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 81 patients (dexlansoprazole, n=41; esomeprazole, n=40) in the per-protocol analysis. Results: The GERDQ scores at 4-, 8-, 12-, 16-, 20-, and 24-week posttreatment were less than the baseline score. The CSR, rate of symptom relapse, days to symptom resolution, sustained healing rate of erosive esophagitis, treatment failure rate, and the number of tablets taken in 24 weeks were similar in both groups. The esomeprazole group had more days with reflux symptoms than the dexlansoprazole group (37.3±37.8 vs 53.9±54.2; P=0.008). In the dexlansoprazole group, patients exhibited persistent improvement in the GERDQ score during the on-demand period (week 8 vs week 24; P<0.001) but not in the esomeprazole group (week 8 vs week 24; P=0.846). Conclusions: This study suggests that the symptom relief effect for GERD after 24 weeks was similar for dexlansoprazole and esomeprazole. Dexlansoprazole exhibited fewer days with reflux symptoms in the 24-week study period, with better persistent improvement in the GERDQ score in the on-demand period. (ClinicalTrials. gov number: NCT03128736).

Industry Payments to Physicians and Prescriptions of Brand-Name Proton-Pump Inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the association between industry payments and prescriptions of 2 brand-name proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs).

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional retrospective.

SETTING

Physicians nationwide.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We identified all physicians receiving industry payments for Dexilant and Nexium 2014-2015 from the Open Payments database. We linked this to records of prescriptions for PPIs paid for by Medicare Part D these same years and compared the proportion of prescriptions written for Dexilant and Nexium in industry-compensated vs nonindustry compensated physicians. The number and dollar amount of payments were associated with the rate of drug prescriptions.

RESULTS

We identified 254,452 physicians prescribing PPIs; 8586 and 2766 physicians received industry payments for Dexilant and Nexium, respectively. A total of 5052 of 7876 (64%) physicians compensated for Dexilant prescribed Dexilant vs 39,778 of 246,571 (16%) noncompensated physicians ( P < .001). For Nexium, 2525 of 2654 (95%) compensated physicians prescribed Nexium, compared to 123,913 of 252,067 (49%) noncompensated physicians. For both Dexilant and Nexium, there was a significant correlation between the number (ρ = 0.22, P < .001 and ρ = 0.12, P < .001) and dollar amount (ρ = 0.22, P < .001 and ρ = 0.13, P < .001) of payments and the percentage of prescriptions written for the compensated drug. Industry payments for Nexium remained associated with rate of prescription even after generic esomeprazole became available.

CONCLUSION

Both the number and dollar amount of industry payments were associated with increased prescriptions for both Dexilant and Nexium. Although unable to show causality, this study suggests that industry payments may increase physician prescriptions of costly, brand-name drugs.

Prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill Chinese patients: a randomized, double-blind study evaluating esomeprazole and cimetidine

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of esomeprazole in preventing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in critically ill Chinese patients, using cimetidine as an active comparator.

METHODS

A pre-specified non-inferiority limit (5%) was used to compare rates of significant upper GI bleeding in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 study across 27 intensive care units in China. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability measures. Patients required mechanical ventilation and had at least one additional risk factor for stress ulcer bleeding. Patients were randomized to receive either active esomeprazole 40 mg, as a 30-min intravenous (IV) infusion twice daily, and an IV placebo cimetidine infusion or active cimetidine 50 mg/h, as a continuous infusion following an initial bolus of 300 mg, and placebo esomeprazole injections, given up to 14 days. Patients were blinded using this double-dummy technique.

RESULTS

Of 274 patients, 2.7% with esomeprazole and 4.6% with cimetidine had significant upper GI bleeding (bright red blood in the gastric tube not clearing after lavage or persistent Gastroccult-positive "coffee grounds" material). Non-inferiority of esomeprazole to cimetidine was demonstrated. The safety profiles of both drugs were similar and as expected in critically ill patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Esomeprazole is effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in critically ill Chinese patients, as demonstrated by the non-inferiority analysis using cimetidine as an active control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02157376.

Comparative effectiveness and acceptability of the FDA-licensed proton pump inhibitors for erosive esophagitis: A PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study compared the effectiveness and acceptability of all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in erosive esophagitis (EE): Dexlansoprazole 60 mg, Esomeprazole 40 mg, Esomeprazole 20 mg, Pantoprazole 40 mg, Lansoprazole 30 mg, Rabeprazole 20 mg, Omeprazole 20 mg.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Totally, 25 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met study selection criteria and were incorporated in this network meta-analysis (NMA) study.

RESULTS

For the NMA, eligible RCTs of adults with EE verified by endoscopic examination were randomly assigned to the licensed PPIs at least 4 weeks of continuous therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the endoscopic healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks. Heartburn relief rates were a secondary efficacy outcome. The rates of withdrawal were analyzed as a safety outcome. In comparison to the common comparator omeprazole 20 mg, esomeprazole 40 mg provided significantly healing rates at 4 weeks [odds ratio (OR), 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI, 1.24-1.71)] and 8 weeks [1.58 (1.29-1.92)], and improved the heartburn relief rates [1.29 (1.07-1.56)]. In comparison to lansoprazole 30 mg, esomeprazole 40 mg provided significantly healing rates at 4 weeks [1.30 (1.10-1.53)] and 8 weeks [1.37 (1.13-1.67)], and improved the heartburn relief rates [1.29 (1.03-1.62)]. In terms of acceptability, only dexlansoprazole 60 mg had significantly more all-cause discontinuation than omeprazole 20 mg [1.54 (1.03-2.29)], pantoprazole 40 mg [1.68 (1.08-2.63)], and lansoprazole 30 mg [1.38 (1.02-1.88)].

CONCLUSION

The standard-dose esomeprazole 40 mg had more superiority in mucosal erosion healing and heartburn relief. Esomeprazole 40 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg, esomeprazole 20 mg, and lansoprazole 30 mg showed more benefits in effectiveness and acceptability than other interventions.

Deracemization of a Racemic Allylic Sulfoxide Using Viedma Ripening

Despite the importance of enantiopure chiral sulfoxides, few methods exist that allow for their deracemization. Here, we show that an enantiopure sulfoxide can be produced from the corresponding racemate using Viedma ripening involving rearrangement-induced racemization. The suitable candidate for Viedma ripening was identified from a library of 24 chiral sulfoxides through X-ray structure determination. Starting from the racemic sulfoxide, an unprecedented application of a 2,3-sigmatropic rearrangement type racemization in a Viedma ripening process allowed for complete deracemization.

Is the use of esomeprazole in gastroesophageal reflux disease a cost-effective option in Poland?

OBJECTIVES

To compare the cost-effectiveness of therapy of gastroesophageal reflux disease with esomeprazole and other proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in Poland.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Studies comparing esomeprazole with other PPIs in the treatment of erosive esophagitis, non-erosive reflux disease and gastroesophageal reflux disease maintenance therapy were systematically reviewed. 9 randomized clinical trials were selected, meta-analyses were conducted. Cost data derived from Polish Ministry of Health and Pharmacies in Wroclaw.

RESULTS

In the treatment of erosive esophagitis esomeprazole was significantly more effective than other PPIs. Both for 4- and 8-week therapy respective incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values were acceptably low. Differences in effectiveness of non-erosive reflux disease therapy were not significant. The replacement of pantoprazole 20 mg with more effective esomeprazole 20 mg in the 6-month maintenance therapy was associated with a substantially high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Comparative efficacy of esomeprazole and omeprazole: Racemate to single enantiomer switch

Background

Both omeprazole and its S enantiomer (esomeprazole) have been available and used to treat  symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and conditions associated with excessive stomach acid secretion for more than a decade. Controversy exists over improved efficacy of S enantiomer (esomeprazole) over parent racemate (omeprazole). However, a comparison of the clinical outcomes of these products may reveal the rationale for switching from the racemate to single enantiomer. Since enantiomers of omeprazole are equipotent, we compared the outcomes of equal doses of each product to see if both actually differ in their efficacy’s or the reported superiority of S enantiomer is just a dose effect.

Methods

A web search was carried out for randomized controlled trials with head-to-head comparisons of omeprazole and S-omeprazole. The data were abstracted and after calculating theodd ratios (OR) for the outcomes reported in each study, the combined overall odd ratios (OR’) were estimated. The random effect inverse variance method with omeprazole as the reference (OR” = 1) was used.

Results

Out of 1171 studies, 14 were deemed eligible. There was no significant difference in the therapeutic success between omeprazole and S-omeprazole as a part of triple therapy for the treatment of H. pylori in both intention-to-treat (OR’, 1.06; CI, 0.83, 1.36; p = 0.63) as well as per-protocol analysis (OR’, 1.07; CI, 0.84, 1.36; p = 0.57). For the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, S-omeprazole was significantly but marginally superior to the racemate (OR’, 1.18; CI, 1.01, 1.38; p = 0.04). The two products were equipotent in all metrics used to assess intragastric pH except for the % patients maintaining a 24 h gastric pH above 4 (1.57; CI, 1.04, 2.381; p = 0.03).

Conclusion

The therapeutic benefit of chiral switch of omeprazole is questionable considering the substantially greater economic burden involved.

Esomeprazole for the Treatment of Erosive Esophagitis in Children: An International, Multicenter, Randomized, Parallel-Group, Double-Blind (for Dose) Study

BACKGROUND

Acid suppression with a proton pump inhibitor is standard treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease and erosive esophagitis in adults and increasingly is becoming first-line therapy for children aged 1-17 years. We evaluated endoscopic healing of erosive esophagitis with esomeprazole in young children with gastroesophageal reflux disease and described esophageal histology.

METHODS

Children aged 1-11 years with endoscopically or histologically confirmed gastroesophageal reflux disease were randomized to esomeprazole 5 or 10 mg daily (< 20 kg) or 10 or 20 mg daily (≥ 20 kg) for 8 weeks. Patients with erosive esophagitis underwent an endoscopy after 8 weeks to assess healing of erosions.

RESULTS

Of 109 patients, 49% had erosive esophagitis and 51% had histologic evidence of reflux esophagitis without erosive esophagitis. Of the 45 patients who had erosive esophagitis and underwent follow-up endoscopy, 89% experienced erosion resolution. Dilation of intercellular space was reported in 24% of patients with histologic examination.

CONCLUSIONS

Esomeprazole (0.2-1.0 mg/kg) effectively heals macroscopic and microscopic erosive esophagitis in this pediatric population with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dilation of intercellular space may be an important histologic marker of erosive esophagitis in children.

Healing of Erosive Esophagitis and Improvement of Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease After Esomeprazole Treatment in Children 12 to 36 Months Old

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate erosive esophagitis healing and symptom improvement with once-daily esomeprazole in children ages 12 to 36 months with endoscopically or histologically proven gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from children ages 12 to 36 months were included in a post-hoc analysis of an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, and double-blind by dose strata study of patients ages 1 to 11 years with endoscopically or histologically confirmed GERD. Children were randomized to receive esomeprazole 5 or 10 mg once daily. Patients underwent endoscopy and, if required, mucosal biopsy at baseline. Patients who had erosive esophagitis (graded using the Los Angeles classification system) at baseline underwent a follow-up endoscopy at final study visit to assess healing of erosive esophagitis. Investigators scored severity of GERD symptoms at baseline and every 2 weeks using the Physician Global Assessment.

RESULTS

Thirty-one of 109 primary study patients ages 12 to 36 months were included in the post hoc analysis. At baseline, 15 patients (48.4%) had erosive esophagitis, underwent follow-up endoscopy, and were healed after 8 weeks of esomeprazole treatment. Of the 19 patients with moderate-to-severe baseline Physician Global Assessment symptom scores, 84.2% had lower scores by the final visit. Following esomeprazole treatment, GERD symptoms were significantly improved from baseline to final visit (P ≤ 0.0018).

CONCLUSIONS

Esomeprazole 5 or 10 mg may be used to successfully treat erosive esophagitis and symptoms of GERD in children as young as 1 year. Moreover, although not yet validated in pediatric patients, the Los Angeles classification system was useful in grading erosive esophagitis in children ages 12 to 36 months.

Management of reflux esophagitis: does the choice of proton pump inhibitor matter?

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the treatment of choice for reflux esophagitis (RE). The effectiveness of PPIs throughout RE management, from healing to maintenance, has not been fully studied.

AIM

To compare esomeprazole with lansoprazole or pantoprazole for RE management using a management model.

METHODS

Data from six studies comparing esomeprazole with lansoprazole or pantoprazole for healing (4-8 weeks) or maintenance of healing (6 months) of RE were incorporated into hypothetical management models to determine the proportion of patients in endoscopic remission after sequential healing and maintenance therapy, assuming that patients received the same PPI throughout. The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve one more patient in remission with esomeprazole vs. other PPIs was estimated. The hypothetical model was validated using results from the EXPO study, which compared esomeprazole with pantoprazole for RE healing and maintenance.

RESULTS

Overall, esomeprazole 40 mg produced higher rates of healing (life-table estimates) than lansoprazole 30 mg (82.4-92.6% vs. 77.5-88.8%; p < 0.01) or pantoprazole 40 mg (95.5% vs. 92.0%; p < 0.001) and higher rates of endoscopic and symptomatic remission at 6 months than lansoprazole (83.0-84.8% vs. 74.0-75.9%; p < 0.001; life-table estimates) or pantoprazole (70.9% vs. 59.6%; p < 0.0001; observed rates). In the hypothetical management model, the NNT for esomeprazole was 9 vs. lansoprazole and 8 vs. pantoprazole. The actual NNT for esomeprazole vs. pantoprazole in the EXPO study was 9 (95% confidence interval: 6; 16).

CONCLUSIONS

In this management model, esomeprazole was more effective than either lansoprazole or pantoprazole for maintaining remission after sequential healing and 6 months' maintenance therapy for RE.

[Gastro-esophageal reflux and chronic respiratory diseases]

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) frequently occurs in association with chronic respiratory diseases although the casual link is not always clear. Several pathophysiological and experimental factors are considered to support a role for GERD in respiratory disease. Conversely, respiratory diseases and bronchodilator treatment can themselves exacerbate GERD. When cough or severe asthma is being investigated, GERD does not need to be systematically looked for and a therapeutic test with proton pump inhibitors is not always recommended. pH impedance monitoring is now the reference diagnostic tool to detect non acid reflux, a form of reflux for which proton pump inhibitor treatment is ineffective. Recent data have shown a potential role of GERD in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and bronchiolitis obliterans following lung transplantation, leading to discussions about the place of surgery in this context. However, studies using pH impedance monitoring are still needed to better understand and manage the association between GERD and chronic respiratory diseases.

Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of esomeprazole in gastroesophageal reflux disease and Helicobacter pylori infection

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most widely used classes of drugs. However, the quantum clinical benefit of newer and more expensive PPIs over the older generation PPIs remains uncertain. This meta-analysis sought to assess the clinical and safety profiles of esomeprazole versus omeprazole at pharmacologically equivalent doses in healing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcer disease and eradicating Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing esomeprazole with omeprazole at all doses up to February 2015. Trials were assessed by two reviewers for eligibility according to predefined study inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model, and heterogeneity in the estimated effects was investigated using meta-regression. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the findings.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fifteen trials were included and none of which compared esomeprazole with omeprazole in peptic ulcer disease. The included studies had not evaluated esomeprazole 20 mg versus omeprazole 40 mg. In GERD, esomeprazole 40 mg (relative risk (RR) = 1·07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·02 to 1·12) and 20 mg (RR=1·04; 95% CI 1·01 to 1·08) significantly improved esophagitis healing when compared with omeprazole 20 mg at week 8. The corresponding numbers needed to treat were 17 and 30, respectively. No significant difference was observed between esomeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 20 mg at week 4. In H. pylori eradication, there was no difference in the treatment effects between esomeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 20 mg (RR = 1·01;95% CI 0·96 to 1·05). Their safety profiles were comparable.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Esomeprazole demonstrated better esophagitis healing rate in patients with GERD than omeprazole at week 8. However, this clinical advantage diminished when both drugs were given at the same doses at week 4. Superiority of esomeprazole was not observed in the H. pylori eradication rates.

The effect of antireflux treatment on the frequency of awakenings from sleep in patients with Gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Up to half of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients report having heartburn that awakens them from sleep during the night. Recumbent-awake and conscious awakenings from sleep during the night are commonly associated with acid reflux events. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of esomeprazole 40 mg once daily on nighttime acid reflux, frequency of conscious awakenings associated with acid reflux and the recumbent-awake period.

METHODS

Patients with heartburn and/or regurgitation at least three times a week were eligible for this study. All patients underwent upper endoscopy and were evaluated by demographic, Epworth Sleepiness scale, Berlin and GERD symptom checklist questionnaires. Subjects then underwent esophageal pH testing concomitantly with an actigraphy. All subjects were given esomeprazole 40 mg once daily for 7 days and completed a daily symptom record diary. On day 7, subjects repeated the pH test with actigraphy.

KEY RESULTS

Twenty patients (mean age of 48.95 ± 18.69, age range 20-81 years) were enrolled. Esophageal acid exposure parameters, during recumbent-awake, recumbent-asleep, and conscious awakenings were significantly improved on last day of treatment as compared to baseline (p < 0.05). However, the frequency and duration of conscious awakenings and duration of recumbent-awake period did not improve as compared to baseline (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

While esomeprazole significantly reduced esophageal acid exposure during conscious awakenings and recumbent-awake and asleep periods, it did not decrease the number and duration of conscious awakening or duration of recumbent-awake period.

Payments, promotion, and the purple pill

Understanding competition in the US drug market requires knowing how sensitive demand is to prices. The relevant prices for insured consumers are copayments. There are many studies of copayment elasticity in the health literature, but they are of limited applicability for studies of competition. Because of a paucity of data, such studies typically control for neither competitor copayment nor advertising. Whereas previous studies examined copayment sensitivity when copayments for branded drugs move in unison, this study examines copayment sensitivity when copayments diverge. This study uses unique panel data of insurance copayments and utilization for 77 insurance groups, as well as data on advertising. The results indicate that demand can be much more sensitive to copayment than previously recognized. Manufacturers selling drugs with higher copayments than branded competitors can lose substantial market share. Manufacturers can offset the loss of demand by increasing advertising to physicians, but it is costly.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of esomeprazole for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease

INTRODUCTION

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used for the treatment of acid-related diseases such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). They are recommended by the American College of Gastroenterology for healing erosive esophagitis (EO) and as long-term treatment in patients with healed EO. The available PPIs differ somewhat in their pharmacokinetics and clinical properties, but whether these differences are of clinical relevance is a matter of debate. Some safety concerns have been raised with the use of PPIs, mostly an increased incidence of infectious diseases such as community-acquired pneumonia or Clostridium difficile diarrhea.

AREAS COVERED

This article explores the results of clinical studies on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of esomeprazole , as well as on its clinical efficacy to manage patients with GERD.

EXPERT OPINION

GERD is a public health concern as its worldwide incidence and associated complications are increasing alongside the exponentially increasing problem of obesity. PPIs are the first pharmacological option because of their efficacy and overall positive risk-to-benefit ratio. Improved efficacy with the use of stereospecific isomers of PPIs, such as esomeprazole, has not yet been convincingly demonstrated. Nevertheless, because of individual experience with former treatment, some patients may report better symptom control when treated with a specific PPI rather than with others.

The effect of Helicobacter pylori infection and eradication in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: A parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to resolve controversy regarding the effects of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy and H. pylori infection in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

DESIGN

A randomized, double-blind, multicentre trial was performed in patients presenting with reflux symptoms. H. pylori-positive patients were randomized to receive either antibiotics or placebo for 7 days. H. pylori-negative patient controls received placebo. All received esomeprazole 20 mg b.d. for 7 days, followed by 40 mg o.d. to complete an 8-week course, and were followed up for 32 weeks by telephone.

RESULTS

In this study, 198/589 (34%) patients were H. pylori-positive and 113 H. pylori-negative patients served as controls. Baseline endoscopy revealed 63% Los Angeles grade 0A and 37% Los Angeles grade BCD oesophagitis with no difference between patient groups. Symptom improvement on esomeprazole was seen in 89%. H. pylori eradication was successful in 82%. H. pylori eradication had no effect on symptomatic relapse (hazard ratio 1.15, 95% CI 0.74-1.8; p = 0.5). Overall, H. pylori-positive patients had a lower probability of relapse compared to H. pylori-negative controls (hazard ratio 0.6, 95% CI 0.43-0.85; p = 0.004). Relapse hazard was modulated also by oesophagitis grade (BCD vs. 0A, hazard ratio 2.1, 95% CI 1.5-3.0).

CONCLUSION

Relapse of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms after a course of high dose acid suppression took longer for H. pylori-positive patients than H. pylori-negative controls; however eradication therapy had no effect on the risk of relapse; ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT00574925.

Changes in the quality of life of patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux after treatment

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

To assess changes in the symptoms and quality of life (QOL) of patients diagnosed with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) after proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective study.

METHODS

One hundred eighty patients diagnosed with LPR were evaluated. All patients were prescribed Lansoprazole (15 mg) twice daily for 12 weeks. The Reflux Symptom Index (RSI), Reflux Finding Score (RFS), Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey version 2.0 (SF-36), and LPR-health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were collected from each patient at the initial visit and at 4- and 12-week follow-up visits.

RESULTS

Significant improvement was observed in RSI and RFS scores after treatment. The LPR-HRQOL score also showed gradual improvement after PPI treatment in the voice, cough, throat clearing, swallowing, and overall impact of acid reflux. Although each domain of the SF-36 had a low score at the baseline visit, seven domains of the SF-36 had improved, except for the physical functioning domain.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that RSI, RFS, and most categories in the LPR-HRQOL and SF-36 improved 12 weeks after initiating PPI treatments. These findings indicate that PPI treatment for 3 months could improve the QOL of patients diagnosed with LPR.

Randomised clinical trial: daily pantoprazole magnesium 40 mg vs. esomeprazole 40 mg for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, assessed by endoscopy and symptoms

BACKGROUND

Pantoprazole magnesium (pantoprazole-Mg) may display extended inhibition of the proton pump with the potential for improved clinical efficacy in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

AIM

To compare the efficacy of pantoprazole-Mg and esomeprazole in GERD.

METHODS

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (Los Angeles grades A-D) patients were randomised to 4 weeks of treatment with pantoprazole-Mg (n = 290) or esomeprazole (n = 288), both 40 mg once daily, in this multicentre (14 Brazilian sites in 9 cities), double-blind study, with an additional 4 weeks' treatment in nonresponding patients. Severity of oesophagitis (at endoscopy) and GERD-related symptoms (ReQuest-GI) were assessed. The primary end point was the proportion of patients in complete remission (ReQuest-GI score <1.73 plus endoscopic healing) at week 4.

RESULTS

Complete remission occurred in 61% of patients in each treatment group at 4 weeks (primary endpoint) and in 81% and 79% of patients in the pantoprazole-Mg and esomeprazole groups at 8 weeks, with no significant differences. Mucosal healing rates were high and not significantly different. At 8 weeks, symptom relief with pantoprazole-Mg was significantly greater than that with esomeprazole (91.6% vs. 86.0%, P = 0.0370) because of continued improvement in symptoms with pantoprazole-Mg from week 4 to week 8 (P = 0.0206).

CONCLUSIONS

Pantoprazole-Mg 40 mg was at least as effective as esomeprazole 40 mg for complete remission and the mucosal healing rate was high. Symptom relief with pantoprazole-Mg continued to improve from 4 to 8 weeks and was greater than that with esomeprazole at week 8, suggesting an extended period of treatment effect (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01132638).

Proton pump inhibitor for non-erosive reflux disease: A meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy, safety and influential factors of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for non-erosive reflux disease (NERD).

METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched up to April 2013 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that probed into the efficacy, safety and influential factors of PPI treatment for NERD. The rates of symptomatic relief and adverse events were measured as the outcomes. After RCT selection, assessment and data collection, the pooled RRs and 95%CI were calculated. This meta-analysis was performed using the Stata 12.0 software (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, United States). The level of evidence was estimated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.

RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs including 6072 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results of the meta-analysis showed that PPI treatment was significantly superior to H₂ receptor antagonists (H₂RA) treatment (RR = 1.629, 95%CI: 1.422-1.867, P = 0.000) and placebo (RR = 1.903, 95%CI: 1.573-2.302, P = 0.000) for the symptomatic relief of NERD. However, there were no obvious differences between PPI and H₂RA (RR = 0.928, 95%CI: 0.776-1.110, P = 0.414) or PPI and the placebo (RR = 1.000, 95%CI: 0.896-1.116, P = 0.997) regarding the rate of adverse events. The overall rate of symptomatic relief of PPI against NERD was 51.4% (95%CI: 0.433-0.595, P = 0.000), and relief was influenced by hiatal hernia (P = 0.030). The adverse rate of PPI against NERD was 21.0% (95%CI: 0.152-0.208, P = 0.000), and was affected by hiatal hernia (P = 0.081) and drinking (P = 0.053).

CONCLUSION: PPI overmatched H₂RA on symptomatic relief rate but not on adverse rate for NERD. Its relief rate and adverse rate were influenced by hiatal hernia and drinking.

Managing peptic ulcer and gastroesophageal reflux disease in elderly Chinese patients--focus on esomeprazole

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are not uncommon in elderly patients. Clinical presentations of these acid-related disorders may be atypical in the geriatric population. Older individuals are at increased risk for poor outcomes in complicated PUD and for development of GERD complications. Multiple risk factors (eg, Helicobacter pylori [HP], use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], aspirin) contribute to the development of PUD. Recent data has shown that HP-negative, NSAID-negative idiopathic peptic ulcers are on the rise and carry a higher risk of recurrent ulcer bleeding and mortality. Effective management of PUD in the geriatric population relies on identification and modification of treatable risk factors. Elderly patients with GERD often require long-term acid suppressive therapy. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) including esomeprazole are effective in the treatment of reflux esophagitis, maintenance of GERD symptomatic control, and management of PUD as well as its complications. Potential safety concerns of long-term PPI use have been reported in the literature. Clinicians should balance the risks and benefits before committing elderly patients to long-term PPI therapy.

Obesity does not affect treatment outcomes with proton pump inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Obesity is associated with increased risk of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

GOAL

To evaluate the effect of obesity on symptom resolution in patients with nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) and healing rates in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE).

METHODS

Two post hoc analyses were performed. Analyses included pooled data from randomized, double-blind, multicenter studies of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in GERD patients.

RESULTS

Analysis 1 included 704 patients with NERD receiving esomeprazole 20 mg, esomeprazole 40 mg, or placebo. Analysis 2 included 11,027 patients with EE receiving esomeprazole 40 mg, omeprazole 20 mg, or lansoprazole 30 mg. For NERD patients, no significant association between baseline heartburn severity and body mass index (BMI) was observed. In EE patients, overweight (BMI 25 to <35 kg/m) and obese (BMI ≥35 kg/m) patients had significantly higher rates of Los Angeles (LA) grade C or D EE than patients with BMI <25 kg/m (P<0.0001). Percentages of PPI-treated patients who achieved heartburn resolution or EE healing within a given LA grade were similar across BMI categories. Heartburn resolution was significantly associated with treatment (esomeprazole vs. placebo), increasing age, and for men versus women (all P≤0.0284). EE healing was significantly associated with PPI treatment (esomeprazole and lansoprazole vs. omeprazole), increasing age, race, presence of a hiatal hernia, and lower LA grade at baseline (all P≤0.0183).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with GERD, high BMI was associated with more severe EE at baseline. However, during PPI treatment, BMI is not a significant independent predictor of heartburn resolution or EE healing.

Rabeprazole and esomeprazole in mild-to-moderate erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease: A comparative study of efficacy and safety

Objective:

To compare the efficacy and safety of rabeprazole and esomeprazole in mild-to-moderate erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

Materials and Methods:

A randomized, single-blinded, outdoor-based clinical study was conducted on 60 patients of mild-to-moderate erosive GERD. After baseline clinical assessment and investigations, rabeprazole (40 mg) was prescribed to 30 patients and esomeprazole (40 mg) to another 30 patients for 4 weeks. The efficacy variables were change in GERD symptom scoring, endoscopic findings, and Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) scoring over 4 weeks.

Result:

Heartburn, acid regurgitation, and overall GERD symptom scoring (P = 0.01) were significantly decreased with rabeprazole in comparison to esomeprazole. The comparative study of all five domains of the QOLARD questionnaire including overall scoring revealed a statistically significant improvement in the rabeprazole group. Endoscopic findings in the rabeprazole group showed an absolute improvement of 30% and relative improvement of 55% over esomeprazole. Both the drugs were well tolerated having no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects.

Conclusion:

Rabeprazole (40 mg) is a better choice for mild-to-moderate GERD compared with esomeprazole (40 mg) because of its better efficacy and safety profile.

Management of reflux-related symptoms

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease develops when the reflux of gastric contents into the oesophagus results in troublesome symptoms and/or complications [1]. Refluxate contains predominantly acid which causes tissue injury at oesophageal and extra-oesophageal sites. It is one of the commonest gastrointestinal diagnosis worlds over. It is associated with chronic symptoms, reduced QOL, significant cost and serious complications. Goals of therapy are to provide symptom relief, heal oesophagitis and prevent long-term complications. Therapeutic measures are directed at reducing the noxiousness of the refluxate; reducing the gastro-oesophageal reflux; enhancing clearance; protecting the mucosa; reducing the mucosal sensitivity and improving healing. Acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors remains the cornerstone of therapy. Recent studies have resulted in better understanding of disease and relative efficacies of various strategies. This has paved way for a better evidence based approach. The therapy however needs to be individualized depending upon the clinical profile, disease severity, the dominant pathophysiological mechanism, cost, availability and individual preferences.

Emerging therapeutic options in GERD

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a prevalent problem resulting in a high level of healthcare consultation and expenditure in the Western World. Although standard medical therapy (in the form of proton pump inhibitor drugs) is effective in the majority of cases, there remains a significant proportion who are refractory to treatment. In addition, surgical therapy (in the form of laparoscopic fundoplication) is not always effective, and in some can be associated with significant side-effects, particularly gas-bloat, flatulence and dysphagia. As such there remains an unmet need in GERD to develop new therapies for refractory cases, and to develop alternatives to fundoplication with fewer side-effects. This article discusses the current state of pharmacological and non-pharmacological emerging therapies for GERD.

Full-thickness gastroplication for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: short-term results of a feasibility clinical trial

This was a prospective study that evaluates subjective and objective patient parameters 3 months after full-thickness gastroplication. Forty-one patients with documented gastroesophageal reflux disease and persistent symptoms despite medical treatment, without radiologic visible hiatal hernia, were enrolled in the study and underwent endoscopic full-thickness gastroplication with one or more plicator implants. Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index, symptoms typically related to reflux, gas bloat, and bowel dysfunction and esophageal manometry, and impedance-pH monitoring were performed at baseline and 3 months after the procedure. The mean Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index score, and general and reflux-specific scores improved significantly (P<0.01), and gas bloat-specific symptom scores and bowel dysfunction-specific symptom scores were reduced (P<0.05) on follow-up. The numbers of total, acid, proximal, upright, and recumbent reflux episodes were all reduced (P<0.01). Manometric data remained almost unchanged. DeMeester score reduced nonsignificantly (P<0.098). 21.6% of the patients were on proton-pump inhibitor medication on a daily basis after the procedure. There was only 1 postprocedure incident (bleeding) that required intervention. In conclusion, endoscopic full-thickness plication is a safe and well-tolerated procedure that significantly improves quality of life and eliminates gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms in the majority of patients, without side effects seen after laparoscopic fundoplication.

Challenges in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease in infants and children

INTRODUCTION

The diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is challenging. The wide variation in symptoms is a major reason for the controversies. Since the expression of GERD varies from nonerosive reflux disease over Barrett's esophagus to chronic respiratory disease, it is clear that not one investigation technique will provide an answer in all situations.

AREAS COVERED

Relevant literature published in PubMed and CINAHL and recent guidelines were collected and reviewed. Diagnostic tests were evaluated by the following criteria: ability to confirm a diagnosis, to exclude other diagnoses with similar presentation, to detect complications, to predict disease severity.

EXPERT OPINION

Multiple intraluminal impedance (MII) is extensively evaluated in recent years, but other new techniques and measurements were also developed, mainly to diagnose extra-esophageal symptoms. Although evidence for a "relation" between GER and extra-esophageal symptoms is demonstrated, the "causality" between both is not proven. MII measures in a reliable reproducible way non-acid or weakly acid reflux. However, as long as medical therapeutic options are limited to anti-acid medications, MII lacks therapeutic implications, and therefore clinical impact. Since investigations for GER are invasive or cause irradiation, normal ranges cannot be established. As a consequence, the "old" techniques remain the standard diagnostic tools: barium meal for anatomy, endoscopy for esophagitis, and pH monitoring to demonstrate a time relation between (acid) GER and symptoms. MII provides more information than pH monitoring, but is more expensive and has limited therapeutic impact as long as drugs are mainly "anti-acid."

Current perspectives in NSAID-induced gastropathy

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most highly prescribed drugs in the world. Their analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic actions may be beneficial; however, they are associated with severe side effects including gastrointestinal injury and peptic ulceration. Though several approaches for limiting these side effects have been adopted, like the use of COX-2 specific drugs, comedication of acid suppressants like proton pump inhibitors and prostaglandin analogs, these alternatives have limitations in terms of efficacy and side effects. In this paper, the mechanism of action of NSAIDs and their critical gastrointestinal complications have been reviewed. This paper also provides the information on different preventive measures prescribed to minimize such adverse effects and analyses the new suggested strategies for development of novel drugs to maintain the anti-inflammatory functions of NSAIDs along with effective gastrointestinal protection.

Novel pharmaceutical approaches to reflux disease

Acid suppression, with proton pump inhibitors (PPI), is the mainstay of therapy for reflux disease; despite this, symptoms and injury persist in many patients. Novel approaches have focused on (1) augmenting acid suppression with reformulated current PPIs, new PPIs or new acid pump blockers and (2) preventing reflux with reflux inhibitors. Other strategies to reduce reflux, improve gastric emptying or esophageal clearance, protect the mucosa, or reduce esophageal sensitivity are under investigation alone or in combination with PPIs; however, novel approaches face significant challenges. The safety and efficacy of current PPIs hamper demonstration of clinical superiority for new acid suppressants, and the multifactorial etiology of reflux disease means that monotherapy using a non-acid suppressant is unlikely to match PPI therapy while combination therapy will be superior only if susceptible patients can be identified reliably. Advances will come, not from a 'one size fits all' approach but rather from novel pharmaceuticals allied to novel investigations to permit targeted, personalized reflux therapy.

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.