Lansoprazole versus omeprazole in active duodenal ulcer. A double-blind, randomized, comparative study

Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors and H2 receptor antagonists in the initial non‑eradication treatment of duodenal ulcer: A network meta‑analysis

The present network meta-analysis aimed to enhance the corresponding evidence with respect to the efficacy and safety of pharmaceuticals treatments. Frequentist network meta-analysis was used. Medical literature up to November 2022 was searched for randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of these pharmaceuticals, either compared with each other or compared with placebo. With the exception of ranitidine (300 mg four times daily) and vonoprazan (20 mg once daily) having lower safety than placebo, the efficacy and safety of the remaining treatments were superior to placebo. Cimetidine (400 mg four times daily) and pantoprazole (40 mg once daily) were ranked first in terms of efficacy. The frequentist network meta-analysis shows that for cimetidine (except 400 mg once daily), famotidine, rabeprazole, ilaprazole, lansoprazole (except 7.5 mg once daily) and omeprazole (except 10 mg once daily or 30 mg once daily), the efficacy comparison between the different doses of each of the aforementioned pharmaceuticals did not indicate statistically significant differences. In conclusion, pantoprazole (40 mg once daily) was the best choice for the initial non-eradication treatment of patients with duodenal ulcer, and cimetidine (400 mg twice daily), omeprazole (20 mg once daily), lansoprazole (15 mg once daily), ilaprazole (5 mg once daily) and rabeprazole (10 mg once daily) could be used as the first choice. If the aforementioned pharmaceuticals cannot be prescribed, famotidine (40 mg twice daily) is recommended.

Pharmacological Effects and Toxicogenetic Impacts of Omeprazole: Genomic Instability and Cancer

Omeprazole (OME) is commonly used to treat gastrointestinal disorders. However, long-term use of OME can increase the risk of gastric cancer. We aimed to characterize the pharmacological effects of OME and to correlate its adverse effects and toxicogenetic risks to the genomic instability mechanisms and cancer-based on database reports. Thus, a search (till Aug 2019) was made in the PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect with relevant keywords. Based on the study objective, we included 80 clinical reports, forty-six in vitro, and 76 in vivo studies. While controversial, the findings suggest that long-term use of OME (5 to 40 mg/kg) can induce genomic instability. On the other hand, OME-mediated protective effects are well reported and related to proton pump blockade and anti-inflammatory activity through an increase in gastric flow, anti-inflammatory markers (COX-2 and interleukins) and antiapoptotic markers (caspases and BCL-2), glycoprotein expression, and neutrophil infiltration reduction. The reported adverse and toxic effects, especially in clinical studies, were atrophic gastritis, cobalamin deficiencies, homeostasis disorders, polyp development, hepatotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and genotoxicity. This study highlights that OME may induce genomic instability and increase the risk of certain types of cancer. Therefore, adequate precautions should be taken, especially in its long-term therapeutic strategies and self-medication practices.

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.

Direct comparative trials of the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcer disease

BACKGROUND

Five proton pump inhibitors are now available for use in North America. Claims of differences in the clinical efficacy of different strengths and/or agents have been made.

AIM

To identify any consistent evidence of differences in outcomes between agents or doses within this class of drugs.

METHODS

A search of the medical literature was performed in two electronic databases, and randomized controlled trials of higher quality were included in the assessment.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Thirty-two trials met our criteria. No convincing data were found to indicate that low doses of proton pump inhibitors are as effective as standard doses of proton pump inhibitors in the healing of erosive oesophagitis or in the relief of symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; however, they may be as effective as maintenance therapy for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcer disease. Differences were found between the standard doses of proton pump inhibitors with regard to the onset of symptom relief in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (lansoprazole was faster than omeprazole, and esomeprazole was faster than both lansoprazole and omeprazole) and the healing of oesophagitis (esomeprazole was superior to both omeprazole and lansoprazole). Despite these differences, there are as yet insufficient data to establish the superiority of any one agent over all others across all disease states treated with these agents.

Meta-analysis: comparing the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in short-term use

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors have a prominent role in the management of acid-related diseases. Controlling expenses on proton pump inhibitors would yield great economic benefits for Dutch health care.

AIM

To investigate whether clinical differences in proton pump inhibitors exist.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. We identified papers in English, German, French or Dutch in which two or more proton pump inhibitors were compared under the same clinical conditions in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease or Helicobacter pylori eradication. The pooled relative risks were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.

RESULTS

Two significant differences were found in the proton pump inhibitors compared. In gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, esomeprazole 40 mg was superior to omeprazole 20 mg (relative risk, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.23). In peptic ulcer disease, pantoprazole 40 mg was superior to omeprazole 20 mg (relative risk, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.13). In Helicobacter pylori eradication, no significant differences were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Both significant differences found were in favour of the highest dose of proton pump inhibitor on a milligram basis. This indicates that the difference may be dose dependent and not proton pump inhibitor specific. Therefore, when prescribing proton pump inhibitors, arguments other than clinical efficacy, such as those related to pharmaco-economics, may be considered.

Patient perceptions of a proton pump inhibitor therapeutic interchange program across the continuum of care

OBJECTIVE

To determine if participation in a hospital-based proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapeutic interchange program resulted in differences in patient perceptions related to clinical and humanistic outcomes.

METHODS

A quasiexperimental repeated-measures study compared patients' perceptions in two groups (111 patients) at hospital admission, discharge, 3-4 days after discharge, and 2-3 weeks after discharge to detect differences across the continuum of care. Patient awareness of the hospital-based interchange also was examined. Clinical and quality-of-life outcomes were measured by using a condition-specific instrument modified for use with patients. Satisfaction and expectations were measured by using extent-of-agreement measures. Group 1 (60 patients) was prescribed omeprazole before admission, switched to lansoprazole during hospitalization, and discharged taking omeprazole. Group 2 (51 patients) was prescribed lansoprazole before admission and continued taking lansoprazole throughout hospitalization and after discharge. Patients who were unable to communicate or who had a substantial change in severity of illness (not attributable to gastrointestinal disorders) during the study were excluded.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between groups 1 and 2 for clinical outcomes, quality of life, extent to which expectations were met, or satisfaction at the four time periods. Nineteen (36%) of 53 surveyed patients in group 1 were not aware that their therapy had been interchanged while in the hospital.

CONCLUSION

Patient-perceived outcomes and expectations of therapy across the continuum of care were not affected by a hospital-based PPI therapeutic interchange program.

Are the orally administered proton pump inhibitors equivalent? A comparison of lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole

Four proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are currently marketed in various parts of the world, and all of these (lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole) are available for prescription use in the United States. As a therapeutic group, the PPIs are highly useful for the relief of symptoms and healing of gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastric and duodenal ulcer disease, eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection, prevention and treatment of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-associated damage, management of hypersecretory states such as Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, and care of patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, or non-ulcer dyspepsia. The pathophysiologic basis of these management benefits lies in the potent gastric acid inhibitory effects of the PPIs. There are differences between the PPIs in their pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, influence by food and antacids, clinical efficacy, and potential for drug interactions. It is not always clear whether these often subtle variations are necessarily of clinical importance. The physician's choice of one PPI over another must rest with her/his interpretation of the clinical importance of the generally small differences between PPIs, their approval for treatment of specific clinical indications within the physician's practice jurisdiction, and the strength of the evidence based on the quantity and quality of the supporting clinical trials.

Review article: comparison of the pharmacokinetics, acid suppression and efficacy of proton pump inhibitors

Proton pump inhibitors have dramatically influenced the management of acid-peptic disorders in recent years. They all have a broadly similar mechanism of action and are extensively metabolized in the liver via cytochromes P450 2C19 and 3A4. There is some variation in their potential for drug interactions due to differences in enzyme inhibition. Relatively few serious adverse effects have been reported for the proton pump inhibitors. Comparative studies of acid suppression suggest that lansoprazole and pantoprazole have a potency similar to that of omeprazole on a mg for mg basis; however, rabeprazole may have a greater potency than omeprazole. Lansoprazole and rabeprazole display a more rapid onset of maximal acid suppression than the other proton pump inhibitors. Comparative studies using proton pump inhibitors for the treatment of reflux oesophagitis, duodenal ulcer healing and Helicobacter pylori eradication show little overall difference in outcome between the proton pump inhibitors when used in their standard doses. Lansoprazole and rabeprazole provide earlier and better symptom relief than the other proton pump inhibitors in some studies of peptic ulcer treatment. The few studies of gastric ulcer treatment suggest that there is an advantage in using the proton pump inhibitors that have a higher standard daily dose.

Lansoprazole versus omeprazole for duodenal ulcer healing and prevention of relapse: a randomized, multicenter, double-masked trial

The aim of this randomized, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group study was to compare the efficacy of lansoprazole with that of omeprazole monotherapy in duodenal ulcer healing and prevention of relapse. A total of 251 patients with duodenal ulcer were treated with either lansoprazole 30 mg/d (n = 167) or omeprazole 40 mg/d (n = 84). Patients with healed ulcers were then randomly allocated to 12 months of maintenance therapy with lansoprazole 15 mg/d (n = 74), lansoprazole 30 mg/d (n = 71), or omeprazole 20 mg/d (n = 73). Healing rates at 4 weeks (intent-to-treat analysis) were 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.2% to 97.6%) with lansoprazole and 97.5% (95% CI, 93.7% to 100%) with omeprazole; there were no significant differences between groups. Endoscopic relapse rates after 6 months were 4.5% (95% CI, 0% to 10.6%) with lansoprazole 15 mg, 0% with lansoprazole 30 mg, and 6.3% (95% CI, 1.5% to 12.5%) with omeprazole 20 mg, compared with 3.3% (95% CI, 0% to 8.2%), 0%, and 3.5% (95% CI, 0% to 8.8%), respectively, at 12 months. Again, there were no significant differences between groups. The incidence of adverse events during acute treatment was 6.0% and 7.1% in the lansoprazole and omeprazole groups, respectively; during maintenance therapy, the incidences were 12.2% (lansoprazole 15 mg), 5.6% (lansoprazole 30 mg), and 11.0% (omeprazole 20 mg). Within treatment groups, pain was significantly ameliorated after the acute phase but not after maintenance therapy (P < 0.05); no differences were observed between groups. Gastrin values increased significantly after acute therapy (P < 0.05), persisted at these increased levels during maintenance therapy, and returned to normal after 6-month follow-up. Both lansoprazole and omeprazole were highly effective and well tolerated in the treatment of duodenal ulcer; relapse rates were similar for all doses studied. Thus no additional benefit is to be gained from using a proton-pump inhibitor at a dose > 15 mg lansoprazole to prevent relapse.

Rapid effect of lansoprazole on intragastric pH: a crossover comparison with omeprazole

BACKGROUND

The time to onset of acid inhibition is considered an important factor when treating patients with reflux symptoms. This study was therefore designed to investigate the effect of 30 mg lansoprazole and 20 mg omeprazole on gastric pH after single-dose administration.

METHODS

The study was of a randomized, open-label, single-dose and two-way crossover design with a washout period of at least 7 days in between. Fifteen healthy adult male and female subjects were included. The subjects were intubated with a pH catheter. Intragastric pH was measured every 4th sec for 10 min before and during 8 h after drug administration. Blood samples, for determination of plasma concentrations of lansoprazole and omeprazole, were obtained on 10 occasions during 6 h after drug administration. The area under the curve (AUC), the elimination halflife (t1/2), and the peak concentration (Cmax) of the two drugs were calculated.

RESULTS

All subjects completed the study without major complications. The mean pH (0-8 h) after drug administration was 2.9 for lansoprazole and 2.0 for omeprazole (P = 0.0058). A pH of more than 4 was reached for the first time after 130 min with lansoprazole and after 250 min with omeprazole. AUC was 4919 +/- 2526 nmol/l x h for lansoprazole and 1352 +/- 1120 nmol/l x h for omeprazole.

CONCLUSION

Single-dose administration of 30 mg lansoprazole is followed by a rapid absorption of the drug and hence a more efficient acid suppression than after single-dose administration of 20 mg omeprazole in healthy volunteers.

Eradication of Helicobacter pylori with lansoprazole, roxithromycin and metronidazole--an open pilot study

BACKGROUND

The most extensively studied Helicobacter pylori eradication regimen comprises omeprazole, clarithromycin and metronidazole. Macrolide antibiotics other than clarithromycin should achieve similar efficacy, but they have not yet been thoroughly tested.

AIM

To determine the efficacy and safety of a triple therapy regimen using lansoprazole, roxithromycin, and metronidazole on the basis of multicentre outpatient care in an open pilot study.

METHODS

163 patients with duodenal ulcer and proven H. pylori infection received lansoprazole 30 mg b.d., roxithromycin 300 mg b.d. and metronidazole 500 mg b.d. for 7 days followed by another 7 days of lansoprazole 30 mg once daily. H. pylori status was determined by urease quick test, histology, microbiology and 13C-urea breath test before starting and at least 4 weeks after completing treatment.

RESULTS

150 patients were available for evaluation; H. pylori was successfully eradicated in 84.7% (127/ 150) as determined by urease quick test, 78.0% (117/150) by histology, 81.3% (109/134) by 13C-urea breath test; and in 75.3% (113/150), at least two tests were negative. Side-effects were reported in 34 patients (most commonly diarrhoea and changes in liver function tests), in two cases the study medication was interrupted. Prior to treatment, 23% of the H. pylori isolates were resistant against metronidazole and 3.4% against roxithromycin. After unsuccessful treatment, 84% of the isolates were resistant against metronidazole and 21% against roxithromycin. Primary resistance to metronidazole increased the chance of treatment failure approximately sevenfold (7% vs. 53%).

CONCLUSIONS

For H. pylori eradication, the combination of lansoprazole, roxithromycin and metronidazole proved to be as safe as other current triple therapy regimens, while a comparison of efficacy rates yet remains to be assessed in prospective controlled trials. The metronidazole-resistant H. pylori is not rare in Germany and, in the present study, has strongly influenced treatment success.

Proton pump inhibitors. Pharmacology and rationale for use in gastrointestinal disorders

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are drugs which irreversibly inhibit proton pump (H+/K+ ATPase) function and are the most potent gastric acid-suppressing agents in clinical use. There is now a substantial body of evidence showing improved efficacy of PPIs over the histamine H2 receptor antagonists and other drugs in acid-related disorders. Omeprazole 20 mg/day, lansoprazole 30 mg/day, pantoprazole 40 mg/day or rabeprazole 20 mg/day for 2 to 4 weeks are more effective than standard doses of H2-receptor antagonists in healing duodenal and gastric ulcers. Patients with gastric ulcers should receive standard doses of PPIs as for duodenal ulcers but for a longer time period (4 to 8 weeks). There is no conclusive evidence to support the use of a particular PPI over another for either duodenal or gastric ulcer healing. For Helicobacter pylori-positive duodenal ulceration, a combination of a PPI and 2 antibacterials will eradicate H. pylori in over 90% of cases and significantly reduce ulcer recurrence. Patients with H. pylori-positive gastric ulcers should be managed similarly. PPIs also have efficacy advantages over ranitidine and misoprostol and are better tolerated than misoprostol in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In endoscopically proven gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, standard daily doses of the PPIs are more effective than H2-receptor antagonists for healing, and patients should receive a 4 to 8 week course of treatment. For severe reflux, with ulceration and/or stricture formation, a higher dose regimen (omeprazole 40 mg, lansoprazole 60 mg, pantoprazole 80 mg or rabeprazole 40 mg daily) appears to yield better healing rates. There is little evidence that PPIs lead to resolution of Barrett's oesophagus or a reduction of subsequent adenocarcinoma development, but PPIs are indicated in healing of any associated ulceration. In Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, PPIs have become the treatment of choice for the management of gastric acid hypersecretion.

Acid-inhibitory effects of omeprazole and lansoprazole in Helicobacter pylori-negative healthy subjects

BACKGROUND

Omeprazole 20 mg once daily (o.d.) and lansoprazole 30 mg o.d. have similar acid-inhibitory effects in healthy Helicobacter pylori-positive subjects. However, little is known about the acid-inhibitory effects of the o.d. and twice daily (b.d.) doses in H. pylori-negative subjects.

AIM

To compare the decrease in gastric acidity of omeprazole 20 mg (o.d. and b.d.) with lansoprazole 30 mg (o.d. and b.d.) in healthy H. pylori-negative subjects on day 6-7 of dosing.

METHODS

A randomized, investigator-blind, crossover study design was used. Intragastric pH was measured continuously with glass electrodes positioned in the gastric corpus. Sixteen H. pylori-negative subjects, whose intragastric acidity fell below pH 4 for 70% of a 24-h baseline period. were entered in the study.

RESULTS

Both dosing regimens of omeprazole and lansoprazole significantly increased median gastric pH and percentages of time above pH 4 during the entire 24-h period, night- and daytime, compared to baseline. There were no significant differences in median gastric pH values or time above pH thresholds 3, 4 and 5 between the o.d. dosing regimens. During the night the percentage of time spent above pH 3 and 4 was significantly higher with omeprazole 20 mg b.d. than with lansoprazole 30 mg b.d.

CONCLUSIONS

This comparative study demonstrates that daily doses of omeprazole 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg are equally effective in raising intragastric pH in H. pylori-negative subjects on day 6 of dosing. During the night, omeprazole 20 mg b.d. provides superior gastric acid suppression compared to lansoprazole 30 mg b.d.

Lansoprazole. An update of its pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy in the management of acid-related disorders

Lansoprazole is a proton pump inhibitor that reduces gastric acid secretion. It has proved effective in combination regimens for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori and as monotherapy to heal and relieve symptoms of gastric or duodenal ulcers and gastro-oesophageal reflux. After initial healing, it may be used to prevent recurrence of oesophageal erosions or peptic ulcers in patients in whom H. pylori is not the major cause of ulceration and to reduce basal acid output in patients with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. Usual dosages are 15 to 60 mg/day, although dosages of < or = 180 mg/day have been used in patients with hypersecretory states. In patients with duodenal or gastric ulcer, short term lansoprazole monotherapy was similar to omeprazole and superior to histamine H2 receptor antagonists in achieving healing rates > 90%. Lansoprazole was as effective a component of H. pylori eradication regimens as omeprazole, tripotassium dicitrato bismuthate (colloidal bismuth subcitrate) or ranitidine. Lansoprazole was superior to ranitidine in symptom relief and healing of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and tended to relieve symptoms more rapidly than omeprazole, although initial healing was similar. As maintenance treatment, lansoprazole was similar to omeprazole and superior to ranitidine in relieving symptoms and preventing relapse. Lansoprazole was also superior to ranitidine in healing and relieving symptoms of oesophageal erosions associated with Barrett's oesophagus; healing was maintained for a mean of 2.9 years in > or = 70% of patients. Lansoprazole was also superior to ranitidine in prophylaxis of redilatation of oesophageal strictures. After > or = 4 years of use in patients with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, lansoprazole 60 to 180 mg/day effectively controlled basal acid output. Dosages may be reduced in some patients once healing and symptom relief has been achieved. Preliminary studies of lansoprazole in patients at risk of aspiration pneumonia or stress ulcers show promise. Although studies show lansoprazole is potentially effective in treating gastrointestinal bleeding, future studies should assess patients' H. pylori status. Lansoprazole has been well tolerated in clinical trials, with headache, diarrhoea, dizziness and nausea appearing to be the most common adverse effects. Tolerability of lansoprazole does not deteriorate with age and the drug is well tolerated in long term use (< or = 4 years) in patients with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome or reflux disease. Thus, lansoprazole is an important alternative to omeprazole and H2 receptor antagonists in acid-related disorders. In addition to its efficacy in healing or maintenance treatment, it may provide more effective symptom relief than other comparator agents.