Stronger inhibition of gastric acid secretion by lafutidine, a novel H2 receptor antagonist, than by the proton pump inhibitor lansoprazole

Lafutidine 10 mg versus Rabeprazole 20 mg in the Treatment of Patients with Heartburn-Dominant Uninvestigated Dyspepsia: A Randomized, Multicentric Trial

Background. Empirical therapy with antisecretory agents like PPIs and H2RAs has long been the traditional approach in the initial management of uninvestigated dyspepsia. Aim. The objective of the study was to examine relief of dyspepsia with lafutidine, a second-generation H(2)-RA, and rabeprazole and to compare their efficacy. Methods. This was a randomized, open, comparative trial in adult uninvestigated dyspeptic patients, who had at least moderate severity of symptoms, defined as a score of ≥4 on a 7-point global overall symptom (GOS) scale, and were randomized to receive once daily either lafutidine 10 mg or rabeprazole 20 mg for 4 weeks. Results. A total of 236 patients were enrolled, out of which 194 patients were included in the analysis. At the end of week 4, a significant difference was observed for symptom relief (lafutidine 89.90% versus rabeprazole 65.26%, P < .01) and symptom resolution (lafutidine 70.71% versus rabeprazole 25.26%, P < .01). Both the drugs were well tolerated. Conclusion. Both lafutidine and rabeprazole provide symptom relief in patients with heartburn-dominant uninvestigated dyspepsia. The present study confirms the appropriateness of lafutidine as an empiric treatment and superior efficacy for primary care practice patients with dyspepsia.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

An open-label, randomized, cross-over bioequivalence study of lafutidine 10 mg under fasting condition

AIM: To assess the relative bioavailability and pharmacokinetic properties of two formulations (test and reference) of Lafutidine 10 mg.

METHODS: The study was performed as an open label, randomized, two-way, two-period, two-treatment, single dose cross-over bioequivalence study, under non-fed condition to compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of the lafutidine formulation manufactured by Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., India using an indigenously developed active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and the commercially available Stogra^® formulation, of UCB Japan Co., Ltd., Japan. The two treatments were separated by a wash-out period of 5 d. After an overnight fasting period of 10 h, the subjects were administered either the test or the reference medication as per the randomization schedule. Blood samples were collected at intervals up to 24 h, as per the approved protocol. Concentrations of lafutidine in plasma were analyzed by a validated liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method, and a non-compartmental model was used for pharmacokinetic analysis. The pharmacokinetic parameters were subjected to a 4-way ANOVA accounting for sequence, subjects, period and treatment. Statistical significance was evaluated at 95% confidence level (P ≥ 0.05).

RESULTS: The mean (± SD) values of the pharmacokinetic parameters (test vs reference) were C_max (265.15 ± 49.84 ng/mL vs 246.79 ± 29.30 ng/mL, P < 0.05), Area under the curve (AUC)_(0-t) (1033.13 ± 298.74 ng.h/mL vs 952.93 ± 244.07 ng.h/mL, P < 0.05), AUC_(0-∞) (1047.61 ± 301.22 ng.h/mL vs 964.21 ± 246.45 ng.h/mL, P < 0.05), and t_½(1.92 ± 0.94 h vs 2.05 ± 1.01 h, P < 0.05). The 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the test/reference ratio of mean C_max, AUC_(0-t), and AUC_(0-∞) were within the acceptable range of 80.00 to 125.00. The mean times (± SD) to attain maximal plasma concentration (t_max) of lafutidine were 0.95 ± 0.24 h vs 1.01 ± 0.29 h (P < 0.05) for the test and the reference formulations respectively. Both the formulations were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION: In summary, this study has demonstrated the bioequivalence of the two formulations of lafutidine 10 mg. Hence it can be concluded that the two formulations can be used interchangeably in clinical settings.