Potassium-Competitive Acid Blocker Suppression of Gastric Acid in Erosive Esophagitis: Is Stronger and Longer Better?

Amoxicillin high-dose dual therapy for Helicobacter pylori primary eradication: Proton pump inhibitor and potassium-competitive acid blocker, which's better?

BACKGROUND

Effective acid suppression significantly enhances the eradication rate of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori).

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of high-dose dual therapy (HDDT) utilizing various highly potent antisecretory medications, thereby providing additional clinical guidance for H. pylori eradication.

METHODS

The study population comprised untreated H. pylori patients from three medical centers in central China. From February 10, 2024 to March 31, 2024, 439 subjects were randomly allocated to either the esomeprazole-amoxicillin (EA) or esomeprazole-amoxicillin-clarithromycin-bismuth (B-quadruple) group. Subsequently, from April 1, 2024 to May 10, 2024, 367 subjects were randomly assigned to either the vonoprazan-amoxicillin (VA) or vonoprazan-amoxicillin-clarithromycin (VAC) group. The study recorded treatment efficacy, adverse events, compliance, symptom alleviation, and associated costs.

RESULTS

EA-dual demonstrated non-inferiority to B-quadruple regimen in modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses (P < 0.025). However, the eradication rate of EA was lower than that of the B-quadruple group [70.59% vs 83.49%, 92.86% vs 98.38%, 93.94% vs 98.38%, intention-to-treat (ITT), mITT, PP respectively, P < 0.05]. In ITT, mITT, and PP analyses, VA-dual was non-inferior to VAC treatment (84.15% vs 83.15%, 96.25% vs 92.73%, 96.75% vs 93.75%, P < 0.025). No significant differences were observed in adverse events, compliance, and symptom relief between groups. VA exhibited the lowest cost. Antibiotic use within 2 years, poor compliance, and suburban residence were associated with reduced eradication efficacy (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The HDDT based on vonoprazan demonstrated non-inferiority to the VAC triple regimen, suggesting its potential as a recommended first-line treatment for H. pylori eradication. While B-quadruple therapy showed better eradication rate than EA therapy, the latter proved non-inferior in mITT and PP analyses. Notably, antibiotic use within the preceding two years, adherence to treatment protocols, and patient residence emerged as critical factors influencing eradication success.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Integrating Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers Into Clinical Practice: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update (CPU) is to summarize the available evidence and offer expert Best Practice Advice on the integration of potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) in the clinical management of foregut disorders, specifically including gastroesophageal reflux disease, Helicobacter pylori infection, and peptic ulcer disease.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Governing Board and CPU Committee to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership. This CPU expert review underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through the standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were developed based on review of the published literature and expert consensus opinion. Because formal systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Based on nonclinical factors (including cost, greater obstacles to obtaining medication, and fewer long-term safety data), clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as initial therapy for acid-related conditions in which clinical superiority has not been shown. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Based on current costs in the United States, even modest clinical superiority of P-CABs over double-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may not make P-CABs cost-effective as first-line therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as first-line therapy for patients with uninvestigated heartburn symptoms or nonerosive reflux disease. Clinicians may use P-CABs in selected patients with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Although there is currently insufficient evidence for clinicians to use P-CABs as first-line on-demand therapy for patients with heartburn symptoms who have previously responded to antisecretory therapy, their rapid onset of acid inhibition raises the possibility of their utility in this population. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as first-line therapy in patients with milder erosive esophagitis (EE) (Los Angeles classification of erosive esophagitis grade A/B EE). Clinicians may use P-CABs in selected patients with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Clinicians may use P-CABs as a therapeutic option for the healing and maintenance of healing in patients with more severe EE (Los Angeles classification of erosive esophagitis grade C/D EE). However, given the markedly higher costs of the P-CAB presently available in the United States and the lack of randomized comparisons with double-dose PPIs, it is not clear that the benefits in endoscopic outcomes over standard-dose PPIs justify the routine use of P-CABs as first-line therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Clinicians should use P-CABs in place of PPIs in eradication regimens for most patients with H pylori infection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as first-line therapy in the treatment or prophylaxis of peptic ulcer disease. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Although there is currently insufficient evidence for clinicians to use P-CABs as first-line therapy in patients with bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers and high-risk stigmata, their rapid and potent acid inhibition raises the possibility of their utility in this population.

Efficacy and Safety of Potassium-competitive Acid Blockers Versus Proton Pump Inhibitors in Treating Erosive Esophagitis: A Meta-analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in treating erosive esophagitis (EE).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched using predefined search terms up to January 2024. Relevant randomized controlled trials were included. The outcoming were the EE healing rate and treatment-related adverse events incidence.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials involving 4012 patients were included. Patients receiving P-CAB exhibited a significantly better overall healing rate compared with PPI at week 2 [risk ratio (RR) = 1.06], but no statistical difference was observed at week 4 and week 8. Subgroup analysis revealed that P-CAB demonstrated a higher healing rate for patients with Los Angeles (LA) grade C/D, regardless of the assessment at week 2 (RR = 1.17), week 4 (RR = 1.10), or week 8 (RR = 1.08). However, no significant difference was found between PPI and P-CAB for patients with LA grade A/B at week 2, week 4, or week 8. Furthermore, patients treated with P-CAB had lower recurrence rates during maintenance therapy compared with PPI (RR = 0.79). In terms of safety, P-CAB was associated with a lower incidence of headache compared with PPI (RR = 0.32), with no statistical difference found in any treatment-related adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

P-CAB was found to be safe and effective for EE treatment compared with PPI, particularly in 2-week short-term treatment, severe EE (LA grade C/D) treatment, or maintenance therapy. Limitations such as potential heterogeneity among included trials should be considered in the interpretation of these findings.

Pharmacologic Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), swallowed topical corticosteroids (STSs), and dupilumab are highly effective therapies for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis. Shared decision-making informs the choice of therapy and factors such as ease of use, safety, cost, and efficacy should be addressed. PPIs are the most common medication utilized early in the disease course; however, for nonresponders, STSs are an excellent alternative. Dupilumab is unlikely to replace PPIs or STSs as first-line therapy, except in highly specific circumstances. Identification of novel biologic pathways and the development of small molecules may lead to a wider range of treatment options in the future.

A Comparative Pharmacokinetic Study of Fexuprazan 10 mg: Demonstrating Bioequivalence with the Reference Formulation and Evaluating Steady State

Fexuprazan is a potassium-competitive acid blocker approved for treating gastric-acid-related diseases. Although the effectiveness of the recent formulation fexuprazan 10 mg has been demonstrated in Phase 3 clinical trials, data on the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of administering fexuprazan 10 mg twice daily at a 12 h interval are lacking. Moreover, it is imperative to ensure the bioequivalence of the new formulation with the previously approved 40 mg formulation. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of the single- and multiple-dose oral administration of fexuprazan 10 mg tablets in healthy participants (Part 1) and investigated their bioequivalence with 40 mg tablets (Part 2). Part 1 comprised a single- and multiple-dose, one-sequence, two-period design and eight participants, while Part 2 comprised a single-dose, 2 × 2 crossover design and 24 participants. In Part 1, in Periods 1 and 2, participants received single and multiple doses (twice daily) of fexuprazan 10 mg, respectively. The maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC0-12h) of the multiple-dose participants was approximately double that of the single-dose participants. In Part 2, the geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for Cmax and AUC from zero to the time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUClast) of the use of four fexuprazan 10 mg tablets to those of one fexuprazan 40 mg tablet were 1.0290 (0.9352-1.1321) and 1.0290 (0.9476-1.1174), respectively, meeting the bioequivalence criteria. Favorable PKs were observed after single and multiple administrations of one fexuprazan 10 mg tablet, and four fexuprazan 10 mg tablets were pharmacokinetically equivalent to one fexuprazan 40 mg tablet.

On-therapy impedance-pH monitoring can efficiently characterize PPI-refractory GERD and support treatment escalation

BACKGROUND

On-therapy impedance-pH monitoring is recommended in patients with documented GERD and PPI-refractory heartburn in order to establish whether the unremitting symptom is reflux-related or not.

AIMS

To define on-PPI cut-offs of impedance-pH metrics allowing proper interpretation of on-therapy impedance-pH monitoring.

METHODS

Blinded expert review of impedance-pH tracings performed during double-dosage PPI, prospectively collected from 150 GERD patients with PPI-refractory heartburn and 45 GERD patients with PPI-responsive heartburn but persisting extra-esophageal symptoms. Acid exposure time (AET), number of total refluxes (TRs), post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index, and mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) were assessed. On-PPI cut-offs were defined and evaluated with ROC analysis and the area under curve (AUC).

RESULTS

All the four impedance-pH metrics significantly differed between PPI-refractory and PPI-responsive heartburn cases. At ROC analysis, AUC was 0.73 for AET, 0.75 for TRs, 0.81 for PSPW index, and 0.71 for MNBI; best cut-offs were ≥1.7% for AET, ≥45 for TRs, ≤36% for PSPW index, and ≤ 1847 Ω for MNBI; AUC of such cut-offs was 0.66, 0.71, 0.73, and 0.68, respectively. Analysis of PSPW index and MNBI added to assessment of AET and TRs significantly increased the yield of on-therapy impedance-pH monitoring in the PPI-refractory cohort (97% vs. 83%, p < 0.0001). Notably, suboptimal acid suppression as shown by AET ≥1.7% was detected in 43% of 150 PPI-refractory cases.

CONCLUSIONS

We have defined on-PPI cut-offs of impedance-pH metrics by which comprehensive assessment of impedance-pH tracings, including analysis of PSPW index and MNBI can efficiently characterize PPI-refractory GERD and support treatment escalation.