Cranial meningioma with bone involvement: surgical strategies and clinical considerations

BACKGROUND

Intracranial meningioma with bone involvement and primary intraosseous meningioma is uncommon. There is currently no consensus for optimal management. This study aimed to describe the management strategy and outcomes for a 10-year illustrative cohort, and propose an algorithm to aid clinicians in selecting cranioplasty material in such patients.

METHODS

A single-centre, retrospective cohort study (January 2010-August 2021). All adult patients requiring cranial reconstruction due to meningioma with bone involvement or primary intraosseous meningioma were included. Baseline patient and meningioma characteristics, surgical strategy, and surgical morbidity were examined. Descriptive statistics were performed using SPSS v24.0. Data visualisation was performed using R v4.1.0.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were identified (mean age 56 years; SD 15) There were 19 females. Twenty-nine patients had secondary bone involvement (88%). Four had primary intraosseous meningioma (12%). Nineteen had gross total resection (GTR; 58%). Thirty had primary 'on-table' cranioplasty (91%). Cranioplasty materials included pre-fabricated polymethyl methacrylate (pPMMA) (n = 12; 36%), titanium mesh (n = 10; 30%), hand-moulded polymethyl methacrylate cement (hPMMA) (n = 4; 12%), pre-fabricated titanium plate (n = 4; 12%), hydroxyapatite (n = 2; 6%), and a single case combining titanium mesh with hPMMA cement (n = 1; 3%). Five patients required reoperation for a postoperative complication (15%).

CONCLUSION

Meningioma with bone involvement and primary intraosseous meningioma often requires cranial reconstruction, but this may not be evident prior to surgical resection. Our experience demonstrates that a wide variety of materials have been used successfully, but that pre-fabricated materials may be associated with fewer postoperative complications. Further research within this population is warranted to identify the most appropriate operative strategy.

Understanding the Pain Management Landscape within the US Bleeding Disorder Community: A Multi-Center Survey

Objectives

Pain is a known complication in persons with hemophilia (PWH) as a result of muscle and joint bleeding. Little is known regarding national Hemophilia Treatment Center (HTC) practice patterns related to pain management. The aim of this study was to: 1) Describe pain management practice patterns of HTC providers, 2) Identify gaps and areas of alignment with the CDC pain guidelines, and 3) Address educational opportunities for pain management. This survey is the first extensive description of multidisciplinary practice patterns of pain management for PWH.

Methods

This descriptive study involved physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, physical therapists, and social workers from federally funded Hemophilia Treatment Centers (HTC) eligible to complete an online survey exploring pain management practice patterns within the CDC pain guidelines.

Results

Results of this survey shed light on areas of strength and cohesiveness between HTC providers, including the following: dedication to effective pain management, utilization of non-pharmacological pain options, trial of non-opioid medications first before opioids, maintaining follow-up with patients after opioid prescription initiation, recognizing and utilizing clinically important findings before prescribing opioids, and counseling their patients regarding potential risk factors.

Conclusions

There remain opportunities to incorporate into clinical practice consistent use of tools such as formal screening questionnaires, opioid use agreements, written measurable goals, ongoing prescription monitoring, and written plans for discontinuation of opioid therapy. These results provide opportunities for improvement in education of HTC team members thus optimizing pain management in persons with bleeding disorders.

TP2-4 The impact of social deprivation upon global traumatic brain injury outcome

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of social deprivation upon global TBI outcome.

Design

The study was a prospective observational study.

Subjects

1332 consecutive adult TBI patients were recruited into the study. 131 study participants were lost within the study.

Methods

All patients were assessed by the acute TBI team at the point of their injuries. Both injury and demographic data was collated at this point including: age, gender, medical comorbidities and GCS. The measure of social deprivation used, was the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) Score. The outcome measure, conducted at 12 months post-injury, was the GOSE. Univariate analyses were conducted prior to the final Multinomial Regression, between the GOSE score and injury factors.

Results

With regard to the representation of IMD deciles, the study population and the general population are two independent groups, but the standard deviation is sufficiently similar for them to be considered pooled (equal variance)(t-test p=0.139). Within the univariate analyses statistically significant relationships were noted between IMD and GOSE (p≤0.00). There was no relationship noted between IMD and GCS at the time of injury (p=0.409), or medical co-morbidity (p=0.682). The multinominal regression revealed a significant relationship between between worsening GOSE and IMD, Age, Medical Comorbidity and GCS (p≤0.00).

Conclusions

There is a statically significant relationship between increasing social deprivation and worsening global TBI outcomes.

Cerebral microbleeds: hearing through the silence-a narrative review

OBJECTIVE

The term cerebral microbleed (CMB) refers to lesions documented as unexpected findings during computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging examination of the brain. Initially, a CMB was thought to represent hemosiderin-laden macrophages marking an area of a tiny hemorrhage. Recently, histopathologic studies have shown that the structure of a CMB can be variable. To aid in dealing with this finding and judging its clinical significance, this review addresses important aspects of a CMB, including the definition, prevalence, and incidence in various populations, end-organ damage, associated conditions, and whether any action or treatment by the clinician might be indicated.

METHODS

PubMed Medline, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Current Contents, and Derwent Drug Files databases were searched for the keywords "microbleeds-detection-damage", "silent bleeds", "microbleeds", or "silent bleeds AND hemophilia" from 2011-2016. References of retrieved articles were also reviewed and included if applicable.

RESULTS

The published data are found primarily in the imaging literature and focus on diagnostic techniques. Some publications address relationships with diverse, co-existing clinical conditions and implications for treatment, especially in stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and antithrombotic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

It is critical for non-radiologist clinicians (primary care, internists, neurologists, hematologists) to be aware of the potential importance of the finding of a CMB, and the fact that these lesions are not always truly silent or without important clinical consequences. As additional studies appear, clinicians may be able to "hear" more clearly through the silence of the CMB and understand potential clinical implications in patients.

Cardiovascular comorbidities in a United States patient population with hemophilia A: A comprehensive chart review

PURPOSE

Previous retrospective claims database analyses reported increased prevalence and earlier onset of cardiovascular comorbidities in patients with versus without hemophilia A. A comprehensive chart review was designed to further investigate previous findings.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review study was conducted at Henry Ford Health System (Detroit, MI, USA). Baseline demographics, bleeding events, treatment parameters, coexisting diseases, hemophilia-associated events, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and prevalence of 12 cardiovascular risk factors and associated diseases were compared between hemophilia A and control cohorts. P values from a chi-square test for categorical variables and a t test for continuous variables were calculated. Because of small sample sizes (N = 0-90, most <50), statistical differences between cohorts were also assessed using absolute standardized difference.

RESULTS

Both groups were well matched by age, race, healthcare payer, and study year. The Charlson Comorbidity Index score was similar between groups. Prevalence of bleeds, hepatitis B and C, and HIV/AIDS was higher in the hemophilia cohort. Hemophilia A severity was severe, moderate, mild, or unknown in 52.7%, 10.8%, 10.8%, and 25.7% of patients, respectively. Prevalence of 12 cardiovascular risk factors and diseases was numerically higher in the control cohort, but differences were statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05) only for diabetes and hyperlipidemia. Meaningful statistical differences using standardized differences were not reached for venous and arterial thrombosis and atrial fibrillation.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective chart review did not confirm statistically significant differences in cardiovascular comorbidities and their earlier onset in hemophilia A versus controls. Results suggest numerically higher comorbidities in controls.

Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) in hemophilia A: a commentary on current status and its potential role for improving prophylaxis management in severe hemophilia A

In patients with severe hemophilia A, recurrent bleeding into joints results in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life. Prophylaxis using replacement factor products, especially when initiated early, has established benefits in terms of reducing joint bleeds and preserving joint function. Poor adherence to prophylactic regimens is a common cause for breakthrough bleeds and resultant arthropathy. Improving prophylaxis management, especially in the transitional age group, is a challenge. Here, we discuss the current status of ultrasonography (US) in hemophilia A, challenges in its wider implementation, and the potential for use of point-of-care US (POCUS) as an adjunct in the routine management of patients with hemophilia following prophylaxis regimens. Using POCUS, in which US is performed by trained hematologists and nonphysician operators (rather than comprehensive US performed by imaging specialists), specific clinical questions can be addressed in a time-efficient, user-friendly manner to promote adherence to prophylaxis and guide or modify treatment approaches. This review also discusses barriers to acceptance of POCUS as a part of routine management of patients with hemophilia, including questions related to its diagnostic accuracy, dependence on trained operators, agreement on appropriate scoring systems, and potential usefulness in patient management.

Inhibitors in haemophilia A: a perspective on clotting factor products as a potential contributing factor

INTRODUCTION

The occurrence of a neutralizing antibody in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with haemophilia A appears to be the result of an intricate interplay of both genetic and environmental factors. Recently, the type of factor VIII (FVIII) product used in the PUPs population has been implicated as a risk factor for inhibitor development.

AIM

The aim of this review was to explore in a systematic manner potential hypotheses for the product-related findings in these studies (i.e. differences in the expression system of the cell lines used to produce recombinant FVIII [rFVIII], differences in the administered antigen load or changes in clinical practice over time).

RESULTS

Review of the available clinical studies illustrates the high degree of variability for the risk of inhibitor development for the same products across different studies. Differences in cell lines or antigen load were not found to provide a reasonable explanation.

CONCLUSION

The possibility of changes in clinical practice over time and patient selection bias (i.e. the preferential use of one product over another in patients at higher risk for inhibitors) offers a potential explanation and should be carefully considered when evaluating the studies.

Steroid-sparing properties of sargramostim in patients with corticosteroid-dependent Crohn's disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study

OBJECTIVE

Although treatment with corticosteroids induces remission in Crohn's disease, prolonged exposure to corticosteroids is undesirable. This randomised clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (sargramostim), an activator of innate immunity, in corticosteroid-dependent patients with Crohn's disease.

DESIGN

Patients were randomised in a 2:1 ratio, to sargramostim 6 microg/kg subcutaneously once daily or placebo for up to 22 weeks. The study consisted of (1) an adjunctive phase (weeks 1-4) in which patients received study drug plus corticosteroid therapy; (2) a forced corticosteroid tapering phase (weeks 4-14); and (3) an observation phase (4 weeks) in which patients received study drug plus prednisone < or =7.5 mg. The primary endpoint was corticosteroid-free remission (Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) < or =150) 4 weeks after corticosteroid elimination. Secondary endpoints were corticosteroid-free response (CDAI decreased by > or =100) and induction of remission in patients who reduced the dose of corticosteroid to 2.5-7.5 mg.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients were randomised to sargramostim and 42 to placebo. Significantly more sargramostim-treated patients than placebo patients achieved corticosteroid-free remission (18.6% vs 4.9%; p = 0.03). Similar differences were seen for corticosteroid-free response and in patients who tapered corticosteroids to 2.5-7.5 mg/day. Sargramostim treatment was also associated with significant improvements in health-related quality of life. Patients who received sargramostim were more likely to experience musculoskeletal pain, injection site reactions and dyspnoea.

CONCLUSIONS

Sargramostim was more effective than placebo for inducing corticosteroid-free remission in patients with Crohn's disease with corticosteroid dependence. Sargramostim may provide significant benefit in this population if these findings are confirmed.

Mass balance study of [14C] rabeprazole following oral administration in healthy subjects

The study was designed to determine the excretion balance of radiolabeled rabeprazole in urine and feces and to examine the metabolite profile in plasma, urine and feces after a single oral dose of [14C] rabeprazole, preceded by once daily dose of rabeprazole for 7 days. Six healthy subjects were enrolled in this study. The study was a single-center, open-label, multiple-dose, mass-balance study. Each subject received a single 20 mg dose of rabeprazole tablet for 7 days followed by the administration of 20 mg of [14C] rabeprazole as an oral solution after an overnight fast on Day 8. After oral dosing of [14C] rabeprazole, the mean Cmax of total radioactivity was 1,080 +/- 215 ng equivalent/ml with 0.33 +/- 0.13 hours of the mean tmax. The apparent elimination half-life of total [14C] radioactivity was 12.6 +/- 3.4 hours. The total [14C] recovery in urine and feces was 99.8 +/-0.7% by 168 hours after oral administration of [14C] rabeprazole, and mean cumulative [14C] radioactivity excreted in urine was 90.0 +/- 1.7% by 168 hours and 79.8 +/- 2.5% of the radioactivity was excreted in urine within 24 hours. Excretion via feces added to the total by 9.8%. The major radioactive component in the early plasma samples was rabeprazole, however the thioether and thioether carboxylic acid metabolites were the main radioactive components in the later plasma sample. These results support the previous finding that the substantial contribution of the non-enzymatic thioether pathway minimizes the effect of CYP2C19 polymorphism on the inter-individual variation ofplasma clearance of rabeprazole compared with other PPIs. Low levels of the sulfone metabolite were detected only in early plasma samples. No rabeprazole was detected in any urine and feces samples. The main radioactive components in urine were thioether carboxylic acid and mercapturic acid conjugate metabolites, and in the feces, the thioether carboxylic acid metabolite. The administration of [14C] rabeprazole was safe as evidenced by the lack of serious adverse events and the fact that all observed events were mild in intensity. [14C] rabeprazole was rapidly absorbed after oral administration and mostly excreted in urine.

A randomized, double-blind trial of the efficacy and safety of 10 or 20 mg rabeprazole compared with 20 mg omeprazole in the maintenance of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease over 5 years

BACKGROUND

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease has a chronic course, and often requires long-term treatment. Proton pump inhibitors are the treatment of choice for both acute and maintenance treatment, but little is known from randomized controlled trials of their effects beyond 1 year.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of two doses of rabeprazole with 20 mg omeprazole in the maintenance treatment of erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease over 5 years.

METHODS

Two hundred and forty-three patients who had previously responded to acute treatment for erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease were prospectively randomized to receive 5 years of treatment with rabeprazole (10 or 20 mg daily) or omeprazole (20 mg daily). The primary outcome measure was endoscopically confirmed relapse of erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-three patients (51%) completed all 5 years of the study, with similar completion rates in the three groups. Relapses occurred in nine of 78 (11.5%), eight of 82 (9.8%) and 11 of 83 (13.3%) patients in the rabeprazole 20 mg, rabeprazole 10 mg and omeprazole 20 mg groups, respectively. Gastric biopsy showed no evidence of any harmful effects. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Rabeprazole 10 mg, rabeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 20 mg all had similar efficacy in the maintenance treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. All three were safe and well tolerated during 5 years of treatment.

Decreasing oesophageal acid exposure in patients with GERD: a comparison of rabeprazole and omeprazole

BACKGROUND

Rabeprazole has been shown to be more potent and faster than other proton pump inhibitors in in vitro studies and highly effective in decreasing oesophageal acid exposure in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

AIM

This study was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group comparison of three active treatment regimens utilizing two different proton pump inhibitors, or placebo, administered over 7 days in patients with GERD.

METHODS

Eighty-two patients with symptomatic GERD were given placebo, rabeprazole 10 mg b.d., rabeprazole 20 mg o.m., or omeprazole 20 mg o.m. for 7 days. Twenty-four hour oesophageal pH monitoring was performed at baseline and repeated at the conclusion of the treatment period.

RESULTS

At the end of study, the percentage time (mean +/- s.d.) with pH < 4 over a 24-h period was significantly decreased by the three active regimens but without significant difference between them (9.27 +/- 4.77; 2.53 +/- 4.27; 2.02 +/- 1.71 and 2.91 +/- 4.06 for placebo, rabeprazole 10 mg b.d., rabeprazole 20 mg o.m. and omeprazole 20 mg o.m., respectively). Acid exposure was normalized in 90% of patients treated with rabeprazole 10 mg b.d., 95% treated with rabeprazole 20 mg o.m., 78% treated with omeprazole 20 mg o.m., and only 9.5% of patients treated with placebo. Both rabeprazole and omeprazole were well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Although rabeprazole 20 mg o.m. showed greater activity numerically, this study demonstrates that rabeprazole 10 mg b.d. and 20 mg o.m. are equivalent to omeprazole 20 mg o.m. in decreasing oesophageal acid exposure.

Rabeprazole, 20 mg once daily or 10 mg twice daily, is equivalent to omeprazole, 20 mg once daily, in the healing of erosive gastrooesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors are the most potent pharmacologic inhibitors of gastric acid secretion currently available, and have proven effective in the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The object of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a new proton pump inhibitor, rabeprazole at two different dosages, with that of omeprazole in the healing of erosive GERD.

METHODS

Rabeprazole 20 mg once daily (QD) and 10 mg twice daily (BID) were compared with omeprazole 20 mg QD in a double-blind, multicentre, parallel group study involving 310 patients with erosive GERD. The primary efficacy endpoint was oesophageal mucosal healing determined by endoscopy. Secondary endpoints included reduction in symptoms and improvements in quality-of-life scores.

RESULTS

The healing rates between both rabeprazole groups and the omeprazole group were equivalent in both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat populations. In the per-protocol population, rabeprazole 20 mg was noted to have a numerical trend toward more rapid daytime heartburn relief. However, by 4 and 8 weeks of treatment, no significant differences were found between groups for secondary endpoints, adverse events, or laboratory abnormalities including elevation of serum gastrin levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Rabeprazole 20 mg in two different dosing schedules is as effective as omeprazole 20 mg QD with regard to efficacy and tolerability in patients with erosive GERD.

Rabeprazole versus ranitidine for the treatment of erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Raberprazole Study Group

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the proton pump inhibitor rabeprazole to that of the histamine-2 (H2)-receptor antagonist ranitidine in the treatment of erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease. The primary indicator of efficacy was the absence of esophageal erosions or ulcerations as determined by posttreatment endoscopy. Secondary indicators of efficacy included improvement in frequency and severity of daytime and nighttime heartburn.

METHODS

A total of 338 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to therapy with rabeprazole 20 mg once daily in the morning or to ranitidine 150 mg four times daily. At baseline and at 4 wk, patients underwent endoscopy for evaluation of esophageal lesions. Patients whose lesions healed by wk 4 had therapy discontinued; others remained on therapy and had repeat endoscopy at 8 wk. Also recorded at study visits were patients' ratings of heartburn symptoms and overall sense of well being, patients' reports of time lost from daily activities, antacid use, and adverse events. Serum gastrin levels were measured and argyrophil enterochromaffin-like cell histology evaluated at baseline and when the patient ended therapy.

RESULTS

At wk 4, healing was observed in 59% (98/167) of patients assigned to rabeprazole therapy, compared with 36% (60/169) of those receiving ranitidine (p < 0.001). By 8 wk, healing was seen in 87% (146/167) and 66% (112/169) of patients in the rabeprazole and ranitidine groups, respectively (p < 0.001). There were also significant differences between the two groups favoring rabeprazole with respect to resolution or improvement of heartburn symptoms and improvement in sense of well-being. No drug-related serious adverse events were seen with either therapy; fewer patients assigned to rabeprazole had treatment-emergent signs and symptoms. Serum gastrin levels increased over baseline in the rabeprazole group, but the mean value remained within normal limits.

CONCLUSIONS

Rabeprazole was superior to ranitidine in esophageal healing and symptom relief in patients with erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease, and was equally well tolerated.

Rabeprazole produces rapid, potent, and long-acting inhibition of gastric acid secretion in subjects with Helicobacter pylori infection

AIM

To compare acid inhibiting activity and duration of action of different doses of rabeprazole, a substituted benzimidazole characterized as a highly potent and irreversible H+, K+-ATPase inhibitor, administered for 7 days to subjects infected with Helicobacter pylori.

METHODS

A total of 38 subjects (mean age 39.3 years) were enrolled in a single-centre, double-blind, randomized, crossover study. All subjects were confirmed positive for H. pylori by 14C urea breath test and ELISA serologies. Subjects were divided into two groups of 19 to receive two doses of rabeprazole, either 5 and 20 mg or 10 and 40 mg, and placebo, given in random order daily in the morning for 7 days. Peptone-stimulated acid, pH, and gastrin measurements were made for 24 h after the 1st dose and for 48 h after the 7th dose.

RESULTS

Peptone-stimulated acid secretion rates were decreased from 12.5 to 6.7, 4.0, 1.5, and 0.26 h after initial 5, 10, 20, and 40 mg doses, respectively; to 7.3, 4.3, 2.1, and 1.2 mmol/h 23 h after the initial dose; and to 2.4, 2.6, 0.6, and 0.8 mmol/h 23 h after the 7th dose. After 48 h, stimulated acid secretion had recovered less than 40% for all treatment groups compared to placebo. Median intragastric pH also increased from 2.0 with placebo to 4.9, 6.2, 6.6 and 6.9 during the 24-h period after the 7th dose of 5, 10, 20, and 40 mg. The 20 mg dose of rabeprazole produced equivalent acid inhibition to the 40 mg dose with less increase in plasma gastrin.

CONCLUSION

Rabeprazole in doses from 5 to 40 mg was a highly effective inhibitor of gastric acid secretion in subjects infected with H. pylori. The inhibition was rapid, dose-related, and long-acting, with less than 50% recovery of acid by 48 h after the 7th dose. The optimal acid inhibitory dose in these subjects appeared to be 20 mg daily, however 5 mg and 10 mg doses produced potent inhibition of gastric acid secretion.

Rabeprazole versus omeprazole in preventing relapse of erosive or ulcerative gastroesophageal reflux disease: a double-blind, multicenter, European trial. The European Rabeprazole Study Group

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic condition, with 50-80% of patients experiencing recurrence within one year of completing initial treatment. In patients with erosive GERD, proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) provide faster healing and symptom relief than do H2-receptor antagonists and have become the treatment of choice. Rabeprazole is a new PPI with demonstrated efficacy in both the acute and maintenance treatment of erosive GERD. The primary objective was to compare efficacy and tolerability of rabeprazole and omeprazole in preventing relapse of healed erosive GERD. Secondary objectives included comparison of efficacy in preventing GERD relapse symptoms and in maintaining quality of life. In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, 243 patients with healed erosive GERD were randomised to receive rabeprazole 10 mg once daily in the morning (QAM) (N = 82); rabeprazole 20 mg QAM (N = 78); or omeprazole 20 mg QAM (N = 83). Endoscopies were performed at weeks 13, 26, 39 (if clinically indicated), and 52, or when symptoms suggested recurrence. Corpus biopsies were performed at each endoscopy, and antral biopsies were performed at study entry and exit. Rabeprazole 10 mg and 20 mg QAM were equivalent to omeprazole 20 mg QAM for all efficacy parameters. At week 52, relapse rates in the intent-to-treat populations were 5%, 4%, and 5% for rabeprazole 10 mg and 20 mg and omeprazole 20 mg, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated. In conclusion, both rabeprazole 10 mg and 20 mg QAM are equivalent to omeprazole 20 mg QAM in preventing recurrence of erosive GERD.

Rabeprazole is superior to ranitidine in the management of active duodenal ulcer disease: results of a double-blind, randomized North American study

OBJECTIVE

The primary purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of rabeprazole versus ranitidine in the treatment of patients with active duodenal ulcer disease.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study enrolled 376 patients. Patients were randomly assigned to receive rabeprazole 20 mg administered once daily in the morning (q.a.m.) with matching ranitidine placebo twice daily (b.i.d.) (n = 188), or ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. with matching rabeprazole placebo q.a.m. (n = 188). Three visits were scheduled: wk 0 (baseline; days -3 to -1), wk 2 (day 15+/-3 days), and wk 4 (day 29+/-3 days). The primary efficacy response variable was defined as complete regeneration of the mucosa at the site of all ulcers identified during the study. Secondary efficacy variables included patients' ratings of frequency and severity of ulcer pain, frequency of antacid use, and improvement of overall physical well-being. Tolerability was evaluated with analyses of adverse events, laboratory evaluations, fasting serum gastrin levels, vital signs, body weight, and electrocardiograms.

RESULTS

Up to 4 wk of treatment with rabeprazole 20 mg q.a.m. produced significantly greater healing rates, compared to treatment with ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. (83% vs 73%; p = 0.017). Significant differences between treatment groups were also observed for secondary efficacy indices. At wk 2, rabeprazole was more likely than ranitidine to produce complete resolution of duodenal ulcer pain (39% vs 25%; p = 0.006), improvement in duodenal ulcer nighttime pain severity (76% vs 65%; p = 0.044), and improvement in overall well-being (55% vs 41%; p = 0.009). At wk 4, the proportion of patients with normalization of overall well-being was significantly higher in the rabeprazole group than in the ranitidine group (45% vs 29%; p = 0.003). Rabeprazole was safe and well tolerated in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with active duodenal ulcer disease, rabeprazole 20 mg q.a.m. is superior to ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. in healing, resolving ulcer pain frequency, improving nighttime pain severity, and improving overall well-being. Rabeprazole is an effective and well-tolerated alternative treatment for patients with active duodenal ulcer disease.

Review article: rabeprazole's profile in patients with gastrointestinal diseases

The selection of agents to treat patients with acid-related gastrointestinal diseases requires knowledge of their efficacy, tolerability, and ease of dosing among individuals with differing disease severities and other baseline characteristics. The efficacy and favourable benefit-risk profile of rabeprazole, a new proton pump inhibitor, has been demonstrated in controlled clinical trials of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), duodenal ulcers, and gastric ulcers. In comparative trials, rabeprazole is at least as effective as omeprazole for the treatment of GERD, duodenal ulcers, and gastric ulcers, and it is superior to histamine2-receptor antagonists for the treatment of GERD and duodenal ulcers. Its once-daily dosing regimen and low potential for interaction with drugs metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system make it a particularly attractive option for the treatment of acid-related diseases among older individuals. Rabeprazole is likely to be a valuable new addition to its class in treating patients with acid-related gastrointestinal diseases given its efficacy in acid suppression, high healing rates, rapid symptom relief, and convenient dosing.

Rabeprazole: pharmacokinetics and tolerability in patients with stable, end-stage renal failure

The authors compare the pharmacokinetic profiles, safety, and tolerability of rabeprazole, a new proton pump inhibitor (PPI), in healthy volunteers and in subjects with stable, end-stage renal failure. This single-center, open-label trial included two groups of subjects: 10 healthy males with 24-hour creatinine clearance > or = 90 mL/min/m2 and 10 males with renal failure (24-hour creatinine clearance < or = 5 mL/min/m2) receiving hemodialytic therapy. Normal subjects received a single, oral 20 mg rabeprazole dose. Those with renal failure received a 20 mg dose of rabeprazole on the day after hemodialysis and a second dose after a 2-week washout period during dialysis. Blood samples were drawn before and up to 24 hours after rabeprazole administration for determination of plasma rabeprazole concentrations by high-performance liquid chromatography. Safety and tolerability of rabeprazole were determined by reporting adverse events and comparing vital signs, ECG, physical examinations, and clinical laboratory tests before and during treatment. Comparison of pharmacokinetic results from healthy volunteers with those from subjects with renal failure indicated no clinically significant differences between groups. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences between any pharmacokinetic parameters recorded during or after hemodialysis. Rabeprazole was well tolerated by both groups. Only two drug-related adverse events were reported, and there were no significant treatment-emergent changes in vital signs or ECG. Treatment-emergent changes in hematologic and clinical chemistry parameters were observed for a few subjects in each group and generally represented only slight deviations from the normal range. These results indicate that no dosage adjustment of rabeprazole is required in patients with renal dysfunction. These findings and the well-documented clinical efficacy of this new PPI in patients with gastric ulcers, duodenal ulcers, or gastroesophageal reflux disease support rabeprazole's use in the treatment of patients with acid peptic disorders.

Review article: drug interactions with agents used to treat acid-related diseases

Patients with acid-related diseases often need to take multiple medications. Treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection often includes either a histamine type 2 (H2)-receptor antagonist or a proton pump (H+,K(+)-ATPase) inhibitor (proton pump inhibitor), administered in conjunction with one or more antimicrobials. Also, treatment for acid-related diseases often requires extended therapy during which many concomitant medications may be administered for concurrent disease states. Polypharmacy may be the result, particularly in elderly patients, who are at increased risk for both acid-related and many other diseases. Thus, it is important to understand the potential for clinically significant drug-drug interactions in this setting. H2-receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors can influence the pharmacokinetic profiles of other commonly administered medications by elevating intragastric pH, which can alter drug absorption, and by interacting with the cytochrome P (CYP) 450 enzyme system, which can affect drug metabolism and clearance. Such interactions are particularly important when they affect the pharmacokinetics of drugs with narrow therapeutic ranges (e.g. warfarin, digoxin). In these cases, drug-drug interactions can result in significant toxicity and even death. There are marked differences among H2-receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors in their potential for such interactions. The oldest drugs in each class, cimetidine and omeprazole, respectively, have the greatest potential to alter CYP activity and change the pharmacokinetics of other drugs. The most recently developed H2-receptor antagonist, famotidine, and the newer proton pump inhibitors, rabeprazole and pantoprazole, are much less likely to induce or inhibit CYP and thereby change the metabolism of other medications. These differences are important when choosing medications for the safe treatment of patients with acid-related diseases.

Rabeprazole: pharmacokinetics in patients with stable, compensated cirrhosis

This single-center, open-label study was undertaken to compare the tolerability and pharmacokinetic profiles of rabeprazole, a new proton-pump inhibitor (PPI), in healthy volunteers and in subjects with chronic cirrhosis. Thirteen healthy men and 10 men with stable, compensated cirrhosis documented by biopsy or liver/spleen scan received a single 20-mg rabeprazole dose. Blood samples were drawn before and up to 24 hours after drug administration for the determination of plasma rabeprazole concentrations using high-performance liquid chromatography. Adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiograms, physical findings, and clinical laboratory test results were monitored before and during treatment to determine how rabeprazole was tolerated. Chronic liver disease substantially altered the pharmacokinetic profile of rabeprazole. The maximum rabeprazole concentration (+/- SD) in subjects with cirrhosis (635+/-199 ng/mL) was approximately 50% higher than that in the healthy volunteers (401+/-246 ng/mL), and both area under the curve and elimination half-life were increased by approximately 100%. Oral clearance in subjects with cirrhosis was 38% of that in the healthy volunteers. Rabeprazole was well tolerated by both groups. Three subjects reported a total of 5 clinical adverse events that were judged as definitely or possibly related to rabeprazole treatment. Some minor changes in laboratory values were judged to be clinically insignificant. In patients with mild-to-moderate liver dysfunction, clearance of this PPI, as with other members of the class, was markedly reduced and plasma levels were increased. Although caution is always warranted in patients with severe liver disease, drug accumulation is unlikely with rabeprazole 20 mg once daily, and dose adjustment does not appear to be indicated in patients with mild-to-moderate liver dysfunction.

Comparison of rabeprazole 20 mg versus omeprazole 20 mg in the treatment of active duodenal ulcer: a European multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Rabeprazole sodium is the newest member of a class of substituted benzimidazole molecules known as proton pump inhibitors. Other proton pump inhibitors have been shown to be effective in healing active duodenal ulcer.

METHOD

This randomized, double-blind, multicentre study, conducted at 25 European sites, compared the efficacy and tolerability of rabeprazole and omeprazole in patients with active duodenal ulcers. One hundred and two patients with active duodenal ulcer received rabeprazole 20 mg and 103 patients omeprazole 20 mg once daily for 2 or 4 weeks, with ulcer healing monitored by endoscopy.

RESULTS

After 2 weeks, complete ulcer healing was documented in 69% of patients given rabeprazole 20 mg and in 62% of patients given omeprazole 20 mg (N.S.). After 4 weeks, healing rates were 98% in the rabeprazole group and 93% in the omeprazole group (P = 0.083). Rabeprazole-treated patients had significantly greater improvement in daytime pain symptom relief than those treated with omeprazole at the conclusion of the study (P = 0.038). Both drugs were well tolerated over the 4-week treatment period. Mean changes from baseline to end-point in fasting serum gastrin were significantly greater in the rabeprazole group, but at end-point mean values were well within normal limits for both groups. No clinically meaningful changes or other between-group differences were observed in laboratory parameters.

CONCLUSION

In this study, rabeprazole produced healing rates equivalent to omeprazole at weeks 2 and 4, and provided significantly greater improvement in daytime pain. Both treatments were well tolerated.

Double-blind comparison [correction of Double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison] of rabeprazole 20 mg vs. omeprazole 20 mg in the treatment of erosive or ulcerative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The European Rabeprazole Study Group

BACKGROUND

Rabeprazole sodium is the most recent member of a class of substituted benzimidazole molecules known as proton pump inhibitors. Other proton pump inhibitors have been shown to be effective in healing oesophagitis.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre study, conducted at 27 European sites, the efficacy and safety of rabeprazole and omeprazole were compared in patients with erosive or ulcerative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD).100 patients received rabeprazole 20 mg, and 102 patients omeprazole 20 mg once daily for 4 or 8 weeks, with healing monitored by endoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall GERD healing rates observed and evaluated at weeks 4 and 8 were equivalent. Four-week healing rates for rabeprazole and omeprazole were 81%-81% and 92%-94% for 8-week healing. Rabeprazole-treated patients had similar relief of the frequency and intensity of heartburn to those treated with omeprazole. Both drugs were well tolerated over the 8-week treatment period. Mean changes in fasting serum gastrin were comparable. No significant differences in laboratory parameters were seen. Biopsies for argyrophil ECL cell histology at the end-point revealed a similar distributions of hyperplasia grades to those at baseline in both groups. Biopsies of body and antral mucosa for other parameters were similar between treatments for Helicobacter pylori colonization, presence or degree of inflammation, atrophy or intestinal metaplasia at the end-point.

CONCLUSION

In this study, GERD healing rates following rabeprazole 20 mg once daily were equivalent to those obtained with omeprazole 20 mg once daily. Both treatments resulted in a comparable relief of the frequency and intensity of heartburn associated with this disease, and both were well tolerated.

Comparison of rabeprazole 20 mg vs. omeprazole 20 mg in the treatment of active gastric ulcer--a European multicentre study. The European Rabeprazole Study Group

BACKGROUND

Rabeprazole sodium is the newest member of a class of substituted benzimidazole molecules known as proton pump inhibitors. Other proton pump inhibitors have been shown to be effective in healing active, benign gastric ulcers.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, multicentre study, conducted at 25 European sites, rabeprazole and omeprazole were compared in patients with active gastric ulcers. Two hundred and twenty-seven patients with active benign gastric ulcer were randomized to receive either rabeprazole 20 mg (n = 113) or omeprazole 20 mg (n = 114) once daily for 3 or 6 weeks, with healing monitored by endoscopy.

RESULTS

After 3 weeks, complete healing (ITT analysis) was documented in 58% of patients given rabeprazole and 61% in patients given omeprazole (N.S.). After 6 weeks the healing rates were identical in both groups at 91%. Rabeprazole-treated patients had numerically greater symptom relief at all 12 points of comparison. The differences significantly favoured rabeprazole at week 3 for daytime pain improvement (P = 0.023) and at week 6 for pain frequency (P = 0.006) and complete resolution of night pain (P = 0.022). Both drugs were well-tolerated over the 6-week treatment course. Mean changes from baseline to end-point in fasting serum gastrin were comparable. No significant differences in laboratory parameters were seen.

CONCLUSION

In this study, rabeprazole produced healing rates comparable to omeprazole at weeks 3 and 6, but provided more consistent and occasionally significantly superior symptom improvement. Both treatments were well-tolerated.

An ascending single-dose safety and tolerance study of an oral formulation of rabeprazole (E3810)

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors such as omeprazole produce a long-lasting inhibition of gastric acid secretion associated with significant increases in plasma gastrin. Rabeprazole (E3810) is a new substituted benzimidazole H+,K+ ATPase inhibitor. It acts as an irreversible, non-competitive inhibitor of the H+,K+ ATPase and preliminary studies demonstrate that rabeprazole produces a potent and long-lasting inhibition of gastric acid secretion and a low level of hypergastrinaemia.

AIM

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed to further examine the effects of different single doses of rabeprazole on gastric acid secretion and serum gastrin.

METHODS

In this study, four groups of 10 healthy, non-smoking Helicobacter pylori-negative men (mean age 22.5 +/- 3.9 years) received single oral doses of 10, 20, 30 and 40 mg of rabeprazole. Two of the 10 volunteers in each group received placebo as part of the double-blind study design. All volunteers who entered into the study had a normal gastric acid secretory capacity as evaluated by pentagastrin challenge. Prior to administration of the first dose of test drug, volunteers underwent an inpatient 24-h measurement of baseline intragastric pH. One week later, volunteers received the test drug and again underwent an inpatient 24-h measurement of intragastric pH. During both periods, plasma samples were collected at specified intervals over 48 h and were sent for analysis of rabeprazole and gastrin levels.

RESULTS

Administration of rabeprazole resulted in a dose-dependent increase in the duration and extent of intragastric pH elevation. The response among all volunteers receiving drug was significantly different from placebo, with greater acid inhibition occurring in the 30 and 40 mg groups. In addition, there was also a dose-related increase in plasma gastrin. The pharmacokinetics of rabeprazole were similar to those of other proton pump inhibitors with a t1/2 of between 0.7 and 1.0 h. There were no clinically significant effects on patient laboratory tests or serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that rabeprazole is as potent as omeprazole and lansoprazole in inhibiting gastric acid secretion.

Rabeprazole in treatment of acid peptic diseases: results of three placebo-controlled dose-response clinical trials in duodenal ulcer, gastric ulcer, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The Rabeprazole Study Group

Rabeprazole, a new proton pump inhibitor, was studied in patients with acid-peptic-related diseases (duodenal ulcer, gastric ulcer, GERD) in three placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trials. Men and women over the age of 18 were enrolled if the presence of an active duodenal or gastric ulcer or erosive or ulcerative esophagitis was confirmed on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were randomly allocated to either placebo or rabeprazole 20 mg or 40 mg in the duodenal and gastric ulcer protocols or to placebo or rabeprazole 10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg in the GERD protocol. All doses of rabeprazole in all three studies were statistically significantly superior to placebo in healing acid-related lesions. There were no treatment differences between the rabeprazole doses in healing active peptic lesions. The incidence of positive [13C]urea breath test for H. pylori was 53% in patients with duodenal or gastric ulcers. H. pylori status was not effected by treatment with rabeprazole.

Effects of oral rabeprazole on oesophageal and gastric pH in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

This study examined the dose-response effects of the new proton-pump inhibitor rabeprazole on oesophageal and gastric pH in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

METHODS

This study had a single-centre, double-blind, randomized, two-way crossover design. Twenty patients were treated for two 7-day periods separated by a 7-10-day washout period. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 20 mg of rabeprazole once daily during the first treatment period and 40 mg once daily during the second treatment period, or 40 mg during the first treatment period and 20 mg during the second treatment period. The primary efficacy variable was oesophageal acid exposure determined by 24-hour ambulatory pH monitoring. Acid-reflux time was defined as the percentage of time over 24 h that oesophageal pH was < 4. A dosage was considered effective if reflux time was reduced to < 6%, a number which has been our internal laboratory reference.

RESULTS

Both rabeprazole 20 mg and 40 mg, given once daily, normalized reflux time, with decreases of 79% and 92% in acid exposure by day 7. Both dosages also decreased the mean total number of reflux episodes and the number of episodes lasting > 5 min, with no significant differences between dosages for any reflux parameter. Mean gastric pH increased with 20 mg from 1.86 at baseline to 3.71 on day 1 and 4.17 on day 7. Rabeprazole 40 mg once daily increased gastric pH from 2.01 to 4.37 on day 1, and to 4.65 on day 7. Safety analyses revealed no significant acute side-effects for either dosage.

CONCLUSIONS

Pathological oesophageal acid exposure was normalized with both 20 mg and 40 mg dosages of rabeprazole, and the effects of these two doses did not differ. Rabeprazole was well-tolerated in this short-term study.

Famotidine relieves symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease and heals erosions and ulcerations. Results of a multicenter, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study. USA Merck Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Study Group

We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial comparing the efficacy of famotidine 40 mg administered at bedtime (HS), 20 mg given twice daily (BID), and placebo to relieve heartburn and to heal endoscopically documented esophageal erosions or ulcerations. A total of 338 patients were randomized: 135 to receive famotidine 40 mg HS, 137 to receive famotidine 20 mg BID, and 66 to receive placebo. In the group given famotidine 20 mg BID, there was a significantly greater proportion of patients with complete relief of daytime heartburn, and both famotidine groups demonstrated statistically significant advantages over placebo in global scores or by successful outcome. Antacid consumption was significantly reduced in the group given famotidine 20 mg BID as compared with placebo. Both famotidine regimens resulted in a significantly greater proportion of patients with complete endoscopic healing than placebo, with the BID dosing being numerically superior to the 40-mg HS dose.

Famotidine (20 mg) b.d. relieves gastrooesophageal reflux symptoms in patients without erosive oesophagitis. Famotidine/GERD Investigation Group

Previous clinical trials have evaluated a large number of symptomatic individuals with heartburn. Most studies have documented the need for multiple daily dosing with H2-antagonists to achieve clinical and statistical efficacy for symptom relief. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety profile and efficacy of famotidine oral dosing regimens, 40 mg nocte and 20 mg b.d. with placebo in the relief of symptoms in patients suffering from frequent heartburn found to have endoscopically normal oesophageal mucosa or mild non-erosive oesophagitis. Famotidine (20 mg) b.d. reduced and eventually completely relieved gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms in most patients during the 6-week trial. Global assessment of improvement at 2 and 6 weeks indicated significantly greater improvement with a b.d. treatment regimen than with either a 40 mg nocte or placebo treatment. No statistically significant differences between famotidine and placebo in the number of patients who experienced clinical adverse experiences were noted and no serious adverse events attributable to famotidine occurred. Based upon these findings, patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms experience good relief of their complaints with twice daily famotidine in standard doses.

Clinical implications of drug interactions with the cytochrome P-450 enzyme system associated with omeprazole

Interactions with the hepatic cytochrome P-450 microsomal enzyme system, as evidenced by statistically significant changes in pharmacokinetic parameters, have been described with some H2-receptor antagonists. Omeprazole is the first of a new class of antisecretory agents inhibiting gastric secretion by blocking hydrogen potassium ATPase. Omeprazole contains a benzimidazole moiety and thus has the potential to interact with the cytochrome P-450 enzyme group. In vitro, in vivo and human clinical studies have assessed whether such an interaction occurs, and the potential clinical consequences, in patients receiving omeprazole therapy. In vitro studies have demonstrated that omeprazole influences O-deethylation and N-demethylation in liver microsomes and the clearance and elimination half-life of antipyrine in isolated perfused liver preparations. Overall, the studies reviewed suggest that omeprazole has a differential affinity toward specific cytochrome P-450 isozymes. In vivo animal studies have demonstrated that omeprazole prolongs pentobarbital sleep times and half-life and decreases [14C]-aminopyrine elimination. Human clinical studies have not demonstrated the "all or none" effect of omeprazole on cytochrome P-450-mediated drug interactions, as is seen with cimetidine. These studies confirm in vitro findings that omeprazole is a differential inhibitor of drug metabolism: interactions have been demonstrated with the model drugs aminopyrine and antipyrine, and the therapeutic drugs diazepam, phenytoin, and warfarin but not with theophylline or propranolol. Although caution should be exercised when initiating omeprazole therapy in patients taking concomitant diazepam, warfarin, and phenytoin, clinically significant drug interactions appear unlikely.

Effect of different doses of omeprazole on 24-hour oesophageal acid exposure in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux

To define the optimum doses of omeprazole appropriate for acute and long-term therapy of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, 24-h oesophageal pH was measured in 12 patients with symptomatic reflux and an abnormal 24-h oesophageal acid exposure time (greater than 6%) in a randomized, double-blind, four-way crossover study comparing the effects of omeprazole 10, 20, or 40 mg/day and placebo. Total reflux time over 24 hours, number of reflux episodes per hour, and the number of reflux episodes lasting greater than 5 minutes were measured by ambulatory 24-h oesophageal pH monitoring. All doses of omeprazole were superior to placebo in decreasing gastro-oesophageal reflux as measured by each index. With placebo, oesophageal acid exposure was 16.3% of the 24 hours, 10 mg omeprazole/day reduced that to 6.3%, 20 mg/day lowered acid exposure to 0.9%, and 40 mg/day to 0.6%. Thus only the 20 and 40 mg doses reduced acid exposure to within the normal range. Similar results were obtained with the other indices of reflux. These data suggest that a rational dose regimen for reflux oesophagitis is 20 mg/day, a regimen that has proved effective in clinical trials. The present study indicates that 24-hour oesophageal pH monitoring is a practical approach to the determination of drug dosage in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux.

The establishment and validation of the mobile immunization team concept at a clinic level

Faced with unacceptably low and declining overall immunization compliance, as well as specific flu immunization compliance, the Executive Committee of a 32-person Air National Guard clinic asked the nursing service to devise a method of correcting these deficiencies as rapidly as possible and maintaining immunization compliance at a rate of 90% or better of the total patient population of approximately 1,100 full-time and Guard personnel for whom the clinic was responsible. The concept of a mobile immunization team was devised and validated over a 2-year interval. In order to successfully develop and implement this concept, command emphasis and a high level of cooperation from both clinic personnel and the Unit Commanders involved was requested and received. The make-up of the team, risk management, the timing and place of team visits, and record keeping were among the problems addressed and resolved. The mobile immunization team concept was a success, achieving excellent overall immunization compliance and outstanding compliance with the flu immunization program over a 2-year period.

Report of an Air National Guard clinic's experience with screening at-risk individuals before initial physical fitness testing

AFR 35-11, dated 10 April 1985, included standards for physical fitness performance tests with the option of a 1.5-mile run or a 3-mile walk. Since that time, ANG units have begun initial physical fitness testing of all personnel. This program brought with it new responsibilities for ANG medical units including the screening of individuals in whom health problems might indicate that they are at risk in taking the physical fitness test (PFT). The 111th TAC Clinic used a questionnaire, screened by physicians utilizing a predetermined grid of responses to designate individuals cleared for the run or walk test or as at risk. Of 823 individuals screened, 91 (11%) were designated at risk. These individuals are being further evaluated and 31 (29%) have been subsequently cleared to date. Physical testing of cleared individuals was accomplished, and both running and walking courses were carefully monitored by ambulance crews. Four casualties came to medical attention (blisters, severe fatigue, dizziness, and indigestion). The patient with severe fatigue was a patient on medical hold, S/P myocardial infarction, who had not been medically cleared to participate. The patient with light-headedness was found to have newly diagnosed hypertension. In view of the relatively small number of casualties incurred during this initial PFT, it is felt that the screening process employing a questionnaire evaluated by medical personnel is an appropriate method of minimizing risk.

Dose--response effect of famotidine on patterns of gastro-oesophageal reflux

The present study attempts to assess the alteration in patterns of gastro-oesophageal reflux as assessed by 24-h oesophageal pH monitoring by varying degrees of H2-receptor blockade with famotidine. Subjects were 12 patients with complaints of daily heartburn who demonstrated at least 6% of acid mucosal contact time by 24-h ambulatory oesophageal pH monitoring. All subjects had a positive Bernstein test, and nine of the 12 subjects had erosive oesophagitis. The study was conducted as a double-blind crossover design utilizing 40 mg nocte, 20 mg b.d., and 40 mg b.d. and placebo treatments. Results indicated that all treatments significantly reduced the 24-h percentage acid contact time (P less than 0.05) compared to placebo. The two b.d. treatment regimens also significantly (P less than 0.05) reduced the number of episodes lasting longer than 5 min. Only the b.d. regimens successfully lowered the percentage of upright acid exposure. All treatments significantly (P less than 0.01) reduced the percentage of supine acid contact time, as well as the number of episodes lasting more than 5 min. It is concluded that gastro-oesophageal reflux disease may well require a b.d. dosing regimen with famotidine in order to achieve optimal mucosal healing and day time symptom control.

Review of an extensive worldwide study of a new H2-receptor antagonist, famotidine, as compared to ranitidine in the treatment of acute duodenal ulcer

The efficacy and safety of famotidine, a new potent H2-receptor antagonist, has been studied in 1,031 patients by 68 investigators in 19 countries in a worldwide dose-ranging multicenter comparative study. Three doses of famotidine (40 mg h.s., 20 mg b.i.d., 40 mg b.i.d.) were compared to ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. There were no significant differences between the groups in baseline characteristics, including duodenal ulcer size. Efficacy parameters included daytime and nocturnal symptom relief and duodenal ulcer healing, documented by endoscopy, and defined as complete re-epithelialization of the ulcer crater. Significant reductions from baseline for day and night pain, beginning during the first 24 h period, were found in all four treatment groups (p less than 0.01). There was little difference among the four treatment groups with respect to the percentage of patients healed after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. Healing rates for the three famotidine groups (40 mg h.s., 20 mg b.i.d., 40 mg b.i.d.) were 88, 92 and 92%, respectively, after 8 weeks of treatment as compared to 91% for the ranitidine group. The occurrence and type of adverse clinical experiences reported was similar for each of the four treatment groups. The most common adverse experiences were headache and diarrhea. The results of this study demonstrate that an h.s. dose of famotidine is equivalent to both b.i.d. famotidine and b.i.d. ranitidine in duodenal ulcer healing and pain relief. In view of possible increased patient compliance with a simplified dosage regimen, famotidine 40 mg h.s. is recommended in the acute treatment of duodenal ulcer.

Effects of long-term medical treatment with cimetidine and bethanechol in patients with esophagitis and Barrett's esophagus

To evaluate long-term medical therapy in patients with Barrett's esophagus, six patients were studied before and after long-term therapy with cimetidine for a mean period of 11.7 months. Some patients also received bethanechol. All had severe symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux resistant to intensive antacid therapy, specialized columnar epithelium by biopsy, and endoscopic evidence of severe inflammation. Esophageal manometry documented a hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter in three patients and low peristaltic amplitude in the distal esophagus in four. Treatment was begun with cimetidine, 300 mg orally four times daily. If symptoms did not totally abate, bethanechol, 25 mg orally four times daily, was added. Cimetidine completely relieved or dramatically reduced symptoms in all patients. Adding bethanechol produced further symptomatic improvement in three of four patients. After initial dilatation in the two patients with strictures, there was no recurrence. Endoscopic evidence of inflammation resolved completely in four patients and was markedly improved in two. Treatment with both drugs was well tolerated by all patients. The abnormally placed squamo-columnar junction did not regress during follow-up.

Famotidine: a notable lack of drug interactions

Cimetidine, an H2-receptor antagonist, has been shown to inhibit the oxidative metabolism of several drugs by interacting with the hepatic cytochrome P450 system, which is involved in phase-I oxidative drug metabolism. Ranitidine, another H2-receptor antagonist, has been shown to have an extremely low level of interaction with the cytochrome P450 system. The potential of famotidine, a new H2-receptor antagonist with a guanylthiazole ring structure, to interact with the cytochrome P450 system has been extensively evaluated. Many of the studies used cimetidine and/or ranitidine as active controls. In vitro studies investigated the potential effects of famotidine coadministration on aminopyrine and diazepam demethylase activity, disturbances of P450 spectra, and effects on the metabolism of specific substrates such as deethylation of 7-ethoxycoumarin and demethylation of benzphetamine. Famotidine and ranitidine showed negligible interaction with the cytochrome P450 reactions studied, in contrast to the rather marked interaction demonstrated with cimetidine. Several in vivo animal studies investigated the effect of famotidine on hexobarbital sleeping time; plasma concentrations of diazepam, warfarin, and propranolol; antipyrine elimination kinetics; and warfarin prothrombin complex activity. Famotidine and ranitidine demonstrated either no evidence or minimal evidence of interaction with cytochrome P450 functions, in direct contrast to marked interactions produced by cimetidine. Human studies investigated the potential of an interaction with the coadministration of famotidine and aminopyrine, antipyrine, diazepam, theophylline, phenytoin, and warfarin. Coadministration of famotidine had no effect on the pharmacokinetic variables of theophylline, diazepam, desmethyldiazepam, and phenytoin and no effect on the half-life of antipyrine and aminopyrine or on the prothrombin time ratios associated with warfarin therapy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

A unique postmarket outpatient surveillance program of cimetidine: report on phase II and final summary

A unique outpatient surveillance program consisting of an initial phase (phase I) and a follow-up phase (phase II) was initiated 7 months after FDA approval of cimetidine. The methodology used in this extensive postmarket surveillance program provided information on adverse effects in a large number of patients both on an acute and chronic (up to 12 months) basis. Phase I gathered data on 9907 patients from 1049 physicians over a 3-month period. The overall incidence of adverse effects in this phase was 4.4%, and they did not differ in type from those of premarketing controlled studies. Six months after termination of phase I, phase II was initiated, and follow-up data were requested on the same group of patients from the same 1049 physicians. Case report forms were received from 905 physicians on 7248 patients representing 9763 courses of cimetidine therapy. A total of 162 adverse effects were reported by 138 patients for an incidence of 1.8%. As in postmarket surveillance I, the adverse effects reported in postmarket surveillance II were not different from those previously reported in clinical studies, published reports, or via the spontaneous reporting system. This postmarket surveillance program designed and successfully tested methodology useful for future surveillance studies, and confirmed the safety of cimetidine in a large cohort of patients which remains a valuable source for future data accumulation.