Randomized, parallel, double-blind comparison of the ulcer-healing effects of ilaprazole and omeprazole in the treatment of gastric and duodenal ulcers

Efficacy of Aceclofenac and Ilaprazole Combination Therapy versus Celecoxib Monotherapy for Treating NSAID-Induced Dyspepsia in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients

Background and Objectives: Dyspepsia is a common adverse event associated with the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Although proton pump and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors are potential treatment options, the optimal strategy remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with aceclofenac and ilaprazole versus celecoxib monotherapy for the treatment of dyspepsia caused by NSAID use in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Materials and Methods: This prospective, double-blind, randomized, actively controlled study was conducted at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital in South Korea from July 2020 to September 2021. The participants were randomized into one of two treatment groups: celecoxib monotherapy (control group) and combination therapy with aceclofenac and ilaprazole (test group). The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change in the Short-Form Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire (SF-LDQ) scores from baseline to treatment week 8. The secondary efficacy endpoint was the mean change in Short-Form-12 (SF-12) scores from baseline (week 0) to treatment week 8. Results: The study enrolled 140 patients who were randomly assigned to receive combination therapy with aceclofenac and, ilaprazole or celecoxib. In the per protocol set, the mean change in SF-LDQ scores from week 0 to week 8 was -0.51 ± 4.78 and 1.85 ± 6.70 in the combination therapy and celecoxib group, respectively (p = 0.054). SF-12 scores did not differ significantly between the two groups. Adverse events were reported in both groups, but there was no significant difference in incidence. Conclusions: Combination therapy with aceclofenac and ilaprazole can be a treatment option for NSAID-induced dyspepsia in some situations.

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.

The influence of different proton pump inhibitors and potassium-competitive acid blockers on indomethacin-induced small intestinal injury

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The influence of gastric acid inhibitors (GAIs) on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced enteropathy is controversial. Herein, the influences of different GAIs on NSAID-induced intestinal injury and the underlying mechanisms are clarified.

METHODS

Indomethacin (IND; 10 mg/kg/day) was administered to mice to induce small intestinal injury. Disease activity was examined macroscopically and histologically. The permeability of small intestine was evaluated by measuring plasma lipopolysaccharide levels. 16S rDNA sequencing was performed to determine the composition of intestinal flora.

RESULTS

Among the four GAIs, ilaprazole (IPZ) significantly attenuated IND-induced small intestinal injury and maintained the integrity of the mucosal barrier. Omeprazole (OPZ) and vonoprazan (VPZ) ameliorated ulceration without significant differences, while rabeprazole (RPZ) failed to protect against the injury. To explore the potential mechanism, we investigated changes in the gut microbiota mediated by GAIs. After 5-day administration, GAIs significantly altered the composition of the gut microbiota. The IND group had a significant decrease in alpha diversity compared with the control group, and this decrease was reversed by OPZ and IPZ treatment, respectively. After IPZ treatment, the community membership was more assembled in the control group than the IND group. Further, we found that Lactobacillus was significantly increased in the groups of OPZ, IPZ, and VPZ, while Bacteroides was significantly increased in the RPZ group.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicated that GAIs have different influences on the mucosal barrier, possibly by altering the composition of intestinal microbiota, and the impacts mediated by various GAIs in the IND-induced intestinal damage model seem different.

Synthesis of functionalized benzimidazoles via oxidative tandem quartic C-H aminations and cleavage of C-N and C-C bonds

Via aerobic copper-catalyzed tandem quartic C-H aminations, we herein present an unprecedented approach for the synthesis of functionalized benzimidazoles from aniline derivatives and 2-substituted cyclic amines. The cyclic amines act as the CN building blocks and are involved in the annulation reaction by cleavage of inert α-C-N and β-C-C bonds. The synthetic protocol features high selectivity, no need for specific aminating agents, mild conditions, and the use of a naturally abundant [Cu]/O₂ catalyst system.

The prolongation effect of ilaprazole-based standard triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection causes many diseases, such as peptic ulcers, gastritis and gastric cancer, and MALToma. It has been gradually accepted that all HP-infected patients should be treated because HP is regarded as an infection. Therefore, the importance of selecting the optimal treatment regimen has increased. Although the 14-day standard triple therapy (STT) is recommended in the current guidelines, prolonging treatment duration is controversial in real practice because of inconsistent results from previous data and the risk of adverse effects. Additionally, the effect of STT using ilaprazole has not been reported until now. We aimed to compare the eradication rate between 7 and 10 days STT using ilaprazole.

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted, which was divided into 2 treatment groups: the control group was 7 days of STT, and the test group was 10 days of STT. The eradication regimen was 10 mg ilaprazole, 500 mg clarithromycin, and 1000 mg amoxicillin twice daily. We included patients who were diagnosed with positive results of H pylori examination. We compared the HP eradication rate according to treatment duration, CYP2C19 subtype and endoscopic diagnosis.

RESULTS

We enrolled a total of 254 patients consisting of 127 patients in each treatment arm. The eradication rates of the control and test groups were 65.4% (82/127) and 74.8% (95/127), respectively, in the intention-to-treat analysis (P = .1). In the per-protocol analysis, 70.3% (83/118) and 82.6% (94/115) were eradicated in each group, which was statistically significant (P = .027). The CYP2C19 subtype was examined in 230 patients. The eradication rate was 79.2% (57/72), 75.4% (92/122), and 72.2% (26/36) in each group, which was not significantly different (P = .704).

CONCLUSION

Ten-day STT was more effective than 7-day STT for HP eradication. The eradication rate was not affected by the CYP2C19 genotype.

Ilaprazole Compared With Rabeprazole in the Treatment of Duodenal Ulcer: A Randomized, Double-blind, Active-controlled, Multicenter Study

GOALS

The main goal of this study was to explore the dose-effect relationship of ilaprazole.

BACKGROUND

Ilaprazole is a kind of benzimidazole proton-pump inhibitor, which was confirmed efficacious and safe in treatment of duodenal ulcer (DU). However, the dose-effect relationship of ilaprazole was not clear.

STUDY

This was a double-blind, parallel, randomized study. Patients aged above 18 years with at least one endoscopically confirmed active nonmalignant DU were treated with rabeprazole 10 mg or ilaprazole 10 mg/5 mg for 4 weeks. Healing of ulcer was determined by its resolution from active to scarring stage. Symptoms relief was evaluated using a graded score. Safety and tolerability were evaluated on basis of clinical assessments.

RESULTS

A total of 390 patients completed the study finally. Ulcers were successfully healed in 75.38%, 77.86%, and 83.72% of patients after 4-week treatment with rabeprazole 10 mg, ilaprazole 5 mg, and ilaprazole 10 mg, respectively. The 4-week healing rate difference between rabeprazole 10 mg and ilaprazole 5 mg was 2.48% (95% confidence interval: -7.79% to 12.74%) leading to accept the noninferiority hypothesis. Logistic regression model suggested that ilaprazole 10 mg was superior to ilaprazole 5 mg at week 2 (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval: 1.02, 3.59; P=0.04). Most patients (80%) became asymptomatic after treatment. At the dosages administered, the 3 drug groups exhibited similar efficacy and a similar safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Ilaprazole 5 mg is not inferior to rabeprazole 10 mg in treating DU, and a dose-effect relationship have been revealed between 5 mg and 10 mg of ilaprazole.

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.

Pharmacokinetic drug interaction and safety after coadministration of clarithromycin, amoxicillin, and ilaprazole: a randomised, open-label, one-way crossover, two parallel sequences study

Purpose

Ilaprazole, the latest proton pump inhibitor, can be used with clarithromycin and amoxicillin as a triple therapy regimen for eradicating Helicobacter pylori. The aim of this study was to evaluate pharmacokinetic drug interactions and safety profiles after coadministration of clarithromycin, amoxicillin, and ilaprazole.

Methods

A randomised, open-label, one-way crossover, two parallel sequences study was conducted in 32 healthy subjects. In part 1, the subjects received a single dose of ilaprazole 10 mg in period 1 and clarithromycin 500 mg and amoxicillin 1000 mg twice daily for 6 days in period 2. In part 2, the subjects received clarithromycin 500 mg and amoxicillin 1000 mg once in period 1 and ilaprazole 10 mg twice daily for 6 days in period 2. In both sequences, the three drugs were coadministrated once on day 5 in period 2. Pharmacokinetic evaluations of ilaprazole (part 1), and clarithromycin and amoxicillin (part 2) were conducted.

Results

Twenty-eight subjects completed the study. For ilaprazole, the peak concentration (C_max) slightly decreased from 479 (ilaprazole alone) to 446 ng/mL (triple therapy) [Geometric least square mean ratio (90% confidence interval), 0.93 (0.70–1.22)]. The area under the concentration-time curve from 0 h to the last measurable concentration (AUC_last) slightly increased from 3301 to 3538 μg·h/mL [1.07 (0.85–1.35)]. For clarithromycin, the C_max slightly decreased from 1.87 to 1.72 μg/mL [0.90 (0.70–1.15)], and AUC_last slightly increased from 14.6 to 16.5 μg·h/mL [1.09 (0.87–1.37)]. For amoxicillin, the C_max slightly decreased from 9.37 to 8.14 μg/mL [0.86 (0.74–1.01)], and AUC_last slightly decreased from 27.9 to 26.7 μg·h/mL [0.98 (0.83–1.16)]. These changes in the PK parameters of each drug were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

The coadministration of ilaprazole, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin was tolerable and did not cause a significant PK drug interaction. Thus, a triple therapy regimen comprising ilaprazole, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin may be an option for the eradication of H. pylori.

Clinicaltrials.govnumber: NCT02998437.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00228-018-2489-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A randomized, double blind, controlled, multi center study of Ilaparazole in the treatment of reflux esophagitis-Phase III clinical trial

AIM AND BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the main drugs for the treatment of reflux esophagitis. Phase II clinical trials showed that, compared with Esomeprazole, the new PPI Ilaparazole is great in terms of efficacy for reflux symptoms relief and curling for esophagitis. The aim of this study was to confirm suitable dose of Ilaparazole in the treatment of reflux esophagitis.

METHODS

This study used a randomized, double-blind, parallel positive drug control, multi-center design. A total of 537patients diagnosed as reflux esophagitis by gastroscopy were randomly divided into Ilaparazole group (n = 322, Ilaparazole 10 mg QD) and esomeprazole group (n = 215, Esomeprazole 40 mg QD). The patients in the two groups were treated for 8 weeks. Heartburn and reflux symptoms prior to treatment, and 2, 4 and 8 weeks after the treatment were assessed. Gastroscopy was performed after 4 weeks of treatment. Unhealed patients within 4 weeks underwent gastroscopy again at the end of 8 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 471 cases completed the treatment. In Esomeprazole and Ilaparazole groups. After 8 weeks treatment, the healing rate in Esomeprazole group and Ilaparazole group were 82.79% (94.94%) and 83.54% (92.50%), respectively. The corresponding rate difference [Ilaparazole-esomeprazole] was 0.75% (-2.44%) and the two-sided 95% CI was -5.72 to 7.22 (-6.90 to 2.01). The symptom disappearance rates for FAS (PPS) were 75.81% (82.02%) and 76.71% (80.36%) P = 0.8223 (0.7742). Adverse reactions related to the drugs were: 10.70% and 11.80%, (P = 0.7817).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of Ilaparazole (10 mg/day) in treating reflux esophagitis was similar to esomeprazole (40 mg/day). Ilaparazole (10 mg/day) can be used in the treatment of esophagitis. The clinical trial registration number of the study is NCT 02860624.

Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Safety of Multiple-Infusion Ilaprazole in Healthy Chinese Subjects

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Ilaprazole is a novel proton pump inhibitor that provides effective and long lasting inhibition of intragastric acid secretion. The objectives of this study were to investigate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of intravenous ilaprazole after multiple administrations in healthy Chinese subjects.

METHODS

This was an open-label and multiple-dose clinical study. Ten healthy Chinese subjects received 10 mg ilaprazole infusion once daily for 5 days. Helicobacter pylori status was examined. Blood samples were collected and intragastric pH was recorded for 24 h. Safety was assessed throughout the study.

RESULTS

There was no accumulation after multiple administrations. The mean steady-state half-life and clearance were comparable to those following single administration. Ilaprazole provided sustainable and significant intragastric pH control in terms of percentage time at pH >4, pH >6 within 24 h and mean 24-h pH values. The pH value within 24 h was affected by Helicobacter pylori infection in subjects with continuous infusion. Intravenous ilaprazole was safe and there were no serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous ilaprazole provided stable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics at a dose of 10 mg once daily for 5 days, and was well tolerated in healthy subjects.

Modeling the cost-effectiveness of ilaprazole versus omeprazole for the treatment of newly diagnosed duodenal ulcer patients in China

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 10 mg ilaprazole once-daily vs 20 mg omeprazole once-daily to treat newly-diagnosed duodenal ulcer patients in China.

METHODS

A decision tree model was constructed and the treatment impact was projected up to 1 year. The CYP2C19 polymorphism distribution in the Chinese population, the respective cure rates in the CYP2C19 genotype sub-groups, the impact of Duodenal Ulcer (DU) on utility value and drug-related side-effect data were obtained from the literature. The total costs of medications were calculated to estimate the treatment costs based on current drug retail prices in China. Expert surveys were conducted when published data were not available. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to gauge the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Ilaprazole, when compared with omeprazole, achieved a better overall clinical efficacy. For the overall population, ilaprazole achieved an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥132 056 per QALY gained. This is less than the WHO recommended threshold of 3-times the average GDP per capita in China (2014). Furthermore, sub-group analysis showed that ilaprazole is cost-effective in every province in CYP2C19 hetEM patients and in the most developed provinces in CYP2C19 homEM patients. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that the results are robust with 97% probability that ilaprozole is considered cost-effective when a threshold of 3-times China's average GDP per capita is considered.

LIMITATION

This study didn't have the data of ilaprazole combined with Hp eradication therapy. Caution should be taken when extrapolating these findings to DU patients with an Hp eradication therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness analysis results demonstrated that ilaprazole would be considered a cost-effective therapy, compared with omeprazole, in Chinese DU patients based on the efficacy projections in various CYP2C19 polymorphism types.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous ilaprazole in healthy subjects after single ascending doses

1. Ilaprazole is a novel proton pump inhibitor and this is the first study to investigate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of intravenous ilaprazole in healthy volunteers. 2. In this open-label, single-dose, randomized and four-period crossover study, 16 healthy Chinese subjects received ilaprazole 5, 10 or 20 mg intravenously, or 10 mg orally. Serial blood and urine samples were collected and intragastric pH was recorded within 24 h. The percentage time of intragastric pH > 6 was the major index. Safety was assessed throughout the study. 3. Plasma exposure of intravenous ilaprazole increased proportionally over the dose of 5-20 mg. Clearance and volume of distribution were independent of dose. Ilaprazole was not eliminated through urine and the absolute bioavailability was 55.2%. For the intravenous dose of 5, 10, 20 mg, and oral dose of 10 mg, the mean percentages time of intragastric pH > 6 were 47.3%, 52.8%, 68.2% and 47.5%, respectively. 4. Ilaprazole showed linear pharmacokinetics over the dose of 5-20 mg. Intravenous ilaprazole provided rapid onset of action and the potency of effect were exhibited in a dose-dependent manner. Intravenous ilaprazole was safe and well tolerated except for elevated activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and prothrombin time (PT).

The pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of oral doses of ilaprazole 10, 20 and 40 mg and esomeprazole 40 mg in healthy subjects: a randomised, open-label crossover study

BACKGROUND

Ilaprazole, a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) currently in clinical use, may provide improved acid suppression vs. other PPIs.

AIM

To compare the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles of ilaprazole and esomeprazole.

METHODS

A phase 1, randomised, open-label, single-centre, 4-period crossover study was conducted in 40 healthy volunteers. Ilaprazole 10, 20 or 40 mg or esomeprazole 40 mg was administered once daily for 5 days with ≥5-day washout intervals. Pharmacokinetic blood samples and intragastric pH measurements were collected at scheduled timepoints for 24 h after dosing on Days 1 and 5.

RESULTS

Esomeprazole 40 mg provided significantly better pH control during the initial hours (0-4 h) after a single dose, but ilaprazole (particularly 20 and 40 mg) provided significantly better pH control for the entire 24-h period and during evening and overnight hours after single and multiple doses. Increasing ilaprazole doses resulted in dose-proportional increases in peak plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve following single and multiple doses. Ilaprazole was safe and generally well tolerated; an unexpectedly high incidence of allergic eye and skin reactions were observed but were not specific to any dosing regimen. Plasma gastrin concentrations did not increase proportionately with increasing ilaprazole dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Ilaprazole provided significantly better pH control over 24 h and during evening and overnight hours compared with esomeprazole in healthy volunteers, which may translate to greater relief of night-time heartburn in the clinical setting for patients with gastric acid-related disorders.

Efficacy of ilaprazole in the treatment of duodenal ulcers: A meta-analysis

AIM: To compare the efficacy and tolerance of ilaprazole compared with other proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in the treatment of duodenal ulcer.

METHODS: An electronic database search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane controlled trials register, Web of Science, PubMed, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (updated to July 2013), and manual searches were conducted. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and tolerance of ilaprazole and other PPIs in the treatment of duodenal ulcers was performed.

RESULTS: Five articles involving 1481 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed no difference in the 4-wk healing rate between ilaprazole and other PPIs [89.7% vs 87.0%; relative risk (RR) = 1.02; 95%CI: 0.98-1.06; Z = 1.00; P = 0.32]. The results did not change in the sensitivity analyses. The meta-analysis indicated that the adverse effect rate in the ilaprazole group was lower than that in the control group, but the difference was not significant (9.7% vs 13.0%; RR = 0.81; 95%CI: 0.60-1.07; Z = 1.47; P = 0.14).

CONCLUSION: Ilaprazole is a highly effective and safe PPI in the treatment of duodenal ulcers. Ilaprazole can be recommended as a therapy for acid-related disorders, especially in Asian populations.

The pharmacokinetics of ilaprazole for gastro-esophageal reflux treatment

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 20% of the Western population is affected by gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). To date, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) represent the mainstay of GERD medical treatment. However, despite their undoubted benefit, about 40% of GERD patients display an inadequate response to these drugs. Recently, a new PPI, ilaprazole , at oral doses of 10 mg has shown higher suppression of gastric acid secretion, more prolonged plasma half-life, and similar safety compared to 20 mg omeprazole.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an update on the following points: pharmacokinetic profile and metabolism of ilaprazole in relation to its pharmacodynamic properties; comparative data on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ilaprazole with currently available PPIs; and implications for studies on the therapeutic efficacy of ilaprazole in GERD.

EXPERT OPINION

Different studies show that ilaprazole, a benzimidazole derivative, has an extended plasma half-life in comparison with all other approved PPIs. In addition, ilaprazole metabolism is not significantly influenced by CYP2C19, compared to the available PPIs. Furthermore, the pharmacological characteristics of ilaprazole confer theoretical advantages that are expected to translate into an improved acid control, particularly at night time. However, studies comparing the clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ilaprazole with those of second-generation PPIs are insufficient. Moreover, further investigations assessing the efficacy of ilaprazole in the management of GERD are required. In healthy volunteers, as well as in patients with gastric or duodenal ulcers, ilaprazole has not shown clinically relevant changes in hematology and biochemistry testing, nor significant treatment-related adverse symptoms.

Pharmacokinetic interactions between ilaprazole and clarithromycin following ilaprazole, clarithromycin and amoxicillin triple therapy

AIM

To investigate the drug interactions between ilaprazole, a new proton pump inhibitor, and clarithromycin following ilaprazole, clarithromycin and amoxicillin combination therapy.

METHODS

Twelve healthy Chinese volunteers were recruited in a randomized, open-label, 3-period crossover study. All subjects were administered ilaprazole (5 mg), clarithromycin (500 mg) or a triple therapy, including ilaprazole (5 mg), clarithromycin (500 mg) and amoxicillin (1 g), twice daily for 6 consecutive days. On the 7th day, the drugs were given once, and blood samples were collected and analyzed using a well-validated HPLC/MS/MS method.

RESULTS

Following the triple therapy, the peak concentration (C(max)) and the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 h to 12 h (AUC(0→12)) of ilaprazole were significantly decreased, as compared with the single medication group (C(max):1025.0±319.6 vs 1452.3±324.6 ng/mL; AUC(0→12): 9777.7±3789.8 vs 11363.1±3442.0 ng·h/mL). Similar changes were found for ilaprazole sulfone (C(max): 5.9±0.5 vs 9.3±1.7 ng/mL; AUC(0→12): 201.4±32.1 vs 277.1±66.2 ng·h/mL). The triple therapy significantly elevated the C(max) of clarithromycin (3161.5±702.2 vs 2541.9±476.2 ng/mL).

CONCLUSION

The H pylori eradication therapy with clarithromycin, amoxicillin and ilaprazole may cause pharmacokinetic interactions that decrease the amount of ilaprazole and its metabolites and elevate that of clarithromycin.

Acid inhibition effect of ilaprazole on Helicobacter pylori-negative healthy volunteers: an open randomized cross-over study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects and safety of different doses of ilaprazole on healthy volunteers without a Helicobacter pylori infection.

METHODS

A total of 12 healthy Chinese volunteers were enrolled and divided into four groups randomly, with a 5-day treatment of oral ilaprazole 5mg, 10mg and 20mg or omeprazole 20mg, respectively. After an interval of a 14-day washout phase, each was switched to another dose group and eventually completed all four regimens. The percentage time of intragastric pH>4 was the major index. The polymorphisms of the metabolic enzyme CYP2C19 in these volunteers were also detected.

RESULTS

The percentage time of intragastric pH>4 in the ilaprazole 5, 10 and 20mg groups were 80.4%, 88.1% and 91.0%, respectively, during the first 24h, compared to that of the 20mg omeprazole group (76.6%, P>0.05). Ilaprazole 20mg provided a significant higher mean 24-h pH than that of the same dose of omeprazole both on Day 1 (7.78 vs 6.67, P<0.01) and Day 5 (7.95 vs 7.44, P<0.05). No CYP2C19-dependent difference or obvious adverse effect were found in any ilaprazole groups.

CONCLUSION

Low dose ilaprazole offers a gastric acid inhibition comparable to a routine dose of omeprazole, and further investigations in patients with acid-associated diseases are needed.

Ilaprazole for the treatment of duodenal ulcer: a randomized, double-blind and controlled phase III trial

OBJECTIVE

The new proton pump inhibitor (PPI), ilaprazole performed better at the dose of 10 mg/d relative to 5 or 20 mg/d in a previous phase II trial. A larger phase III trial was carried out to confirm the efficacy and safety of ilaprazole (10 mg/d) compared with omeprazole (20 mg/d) and provide some characteristics of the relationship between ilaprazole metabolism and CYP2C19 for later studies.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients with at least one endoscopically diagnosed active duodenal ulcer (DU) were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, positive controlled trial and then assigned randomly to the ilaprazole group (10 mg/d) or the omeprazole group (20 mg/d) with a sample allocation ratio 2:1. The course of treatment was 4 weeks.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00952978.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was endoscopically diagnosed ulcer healing rate at week 4. Symptom relief was evaluated as a secondary endpoint by graded scores. Safety and tolerability were evaluated on basis of clinical assessments. In addition, blood samples were collected at baseline for CYP2C19 genotypes identification.

RESULTS

Efficacy analyses were based on 494 patients. At week 4, the ulcer healing rates were 93.0% in ilaprazole group and 90.8% in omeprazole group (rate difference: 2.2%; 95% confidence interval: -2.8% to 7.2%). No obvious variation of healing rate on different CYP2C19 genotypes was found in ilaprazole group. The majority of patients (>80%) became asymptomatic after treatment. Incidences of adverse drug reactions were similar between ilaprazole group and omeprazole group (8.5% vs. 11.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Ilaprazole (10 mg/d) is as effective as omeprazole (20 mg/d) in the treatment of DU with similar side effects. The efficacy of ilaprazole is not affected by CYP2C19 polymorphisms.

Effect of CYP2C19 genetic polymorphism on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a new proton pump inhibitor, ilaprazole

It is well known that the CYP2C19 genetic polymorphism influences the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), but no report has addressed the effects on ilaprazole, a newly developed PPI. To investigate the effects of the CYP2C19 genetic polymorphism on the disposition and pharmacodynamics of ilaprazole, multiple doses of once-daily 10 mg ilaprazole were repeatedly administered for 7 days to 27 healthy Korean participants, comprising 9 homozygous CYP2C19 extensive metabolizers (homo EMs), 10 heterozygous EMs (hetero EMs), and 8 homozygous poor metabolizers (PMs). The plasma concentration and pharmacodynamic response were measured in the last dose interval. Each genotype group was matched for gender and thus was composed of 4 male and 4 female participants when the analysis was conducted. The pharmacokinetic parameters estimated from the plasma concentrations of ilaprazole and its metabolite ilaprazole sulfone, the serum gastrin level, and the 24-hour intragastric pH were compared among the CYP2C19 genotype groups. No statistically significant differences in the maximum plasma concentration at steady state(C(ss,max)) and the area under the concentration-time curve from zero to 24 hours (AUC(τ)) of ilaprazole and ilaprazole sulfone were observed among the homo EM, hetero EM, and PM CYP2C19 genotypes. In addition, the mean 24-hour intragastric pH, the percentage of time at pH >4, and the AUC(τ) of serum gastrin showed no significant differences among the CYP2C19 genotype groups. The data suggests that the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ilaprazole are not significantly influenced by the CYP2C19 genetic polymorphism in healthy participants.