Safety of Intravenous Pantoprazole Sodium in Pediatric Patients Aged 1 Month to < 1 Year: A Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incidence rates (IR) of prespecified outcomes of interest in pediatric patients (1 month to < 1 year) treated with intravenous (IV) pantoprazole using Optum's longitudinal electronic health records database (Optum Market Clarity) from the United States (US).

METHODS

This real-world, non-interventional, retrospective cohort study was conducted from 01 January 2007 to 31 December 2020 in patients who received IV pantoprazole. Premature patients and those weighing < 2.36 kg were excluded. Patients were categorized based on diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and erosive esophagitis (EE) into: Subgroup 1 (GERD and EE), Subgroup 2 (GERD and no EE), and Subgroup 3 (absence of GERD and EE). Overall IRs (per 1000 person-years [PY]) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of outcomes were estimated (overall and subgroups) and stratified by duration of IV pantoprazole treatment (< 4 days versus ≥ 4 days).

RESULTS

Of 1879 eligible patients, none were identified in Subgroup 1; 851 (45.3%) and 1028 (54.7%) patients were identified in Subgroups 2 and 3, respectively. IRs of outcomes of interest ranged from 0.0 to 742.8 per 1000 PY. IRs were highest for vomiting (742.80), diarrhea (377.77), abdominal distension (214.31), hyponatremia (204.99), and hypokalemia (203.49). IRs were comparable between Subgroups 2 and 3. For most outcomes, IRs were higher among patients treated with IV pantoprazole for ≥ 4 days versus those treated for < 4 days.

CONCLUSION

These results are consistent with the known safety profile of pantoprazole and emphasize the utility of using real-world data from pediatric populations for assessment of safety outcomes.

Pantoprazole-lnduced Thrombocytopenia

Objective:

To report 2 cases of thrombocytopenia associated with pantoprazole treatment and discuss existing reports on this drug-induced adverse event.

Case Summaries:

This paper describes the course of thrombocytopenia associated with pantoprazole 40 mg in 2 hospitalized patients. In both cases, thrombocytopenia appeared after the initiation of pantoprazole and rapidly improved after discontinuation of pantoprazole, although complete resolution of thrombocytopenia occurred in only one patient prior to discharge from the hospital.

Discussion:

The mechanism of drug-induced thrombocytopenia is often poorly understood, and proton-pump inhibitors are generally not strongly suspected as a cause of thrombocytopenia. However, an objective causality assessment using the Naranjo probability scale revealed a probable relationship between thrombocytopenia and pantoprazole in both of the cases. It is unknown whether this is a class effect.

Conclusions:

Although drug-induced thrombocytopenia with pantoprazole appears to be rare, it represents a potentially severe adverse effect. This supports the judicious prescribing of pantoprazole and possibly other proton-pump inhibitors.

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.

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

PURPOSE

Ilaprazole (IY-81149) is a new proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) not previously studied in human patients with ulcer disease. This study evaluated and compared it with a reference PPI, omeprazole, in the treatment of gastric and duodenal ulcers.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, parallel, randomized study. Patients aged 18 years and above with at least one endoscopically confirmed active non-malignant gastric/duodenal ulcer were treated with 20 mg/day omeprazole or 5 mg/day or 10 mg/day ilaprazole for four 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. Between-group differences were tested using ANOVA or ANCOVA, as appropriate. Statistical significance was assumed at a two-tailed p value of </=0.05.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twelve gastric ulcer patients (median age 53.3 years) and 306 duodenal ulcer patients (median age 49.7 years) were recruited; 71.8 and 85% of gastric and duodenal ulcer patients, respectively, completed the study. Ulcers were successfully healed in 64.29, 67.14, and 63.89% of gastric ulcer patients and 78.85, 83.65, and 78.57% of duodenal ulcer patients after treatment with 20 mg omeprazole, 5 mg ilaprazole, and 10 mg ilaprazole, respectively. Most patients (>90%) became asymptomatic after treatment. At the dosages administered, both drugs exhibited similar efficacy and a similar safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Ilaprazole is as tolerable, safe, and efficacious as omeprazole in the treatment of gastroduodenal ulcers, at a much lower dose (5 vs. 20 mg omeprazole).

Intragastric acidity after switching from 5-day treatment with intravenous pantoprazole 40 mg/d to 5-day treatment with oral esomeprazole 40 mg/d or pantoprazole 40 mg/d: an open-label crossover study in healthy adult volunteers

BACKGROUND

After a course of IV proton pump inhibitor therapy, patients might require continued oral antisecretory therapy. A direct comparison of therapeutic alternatives could assist physicians in decisions regarding optimal acid-suppressive therapy. Oral esomeprazole might control intragastric acidity more effectively compared with other acid-suppressive agents after IV therapy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare intragastric acid control on day 5 of administration of esomeprazole magnesium versus pantoprazole 40 mg PO QD after switching from 5 days of treatment with pantoprazole 40 mg IV in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

This randomized, open-label, comparative, 2-way crossover study was conducted at the Oklahoma Foundation for Digestive Research, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, between October and December 2004. Healthy, Helicobacter pylori-negative adults were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 dosing sequences: pantoprazole IV followed by esomeprazole PO or pantoprazole IV followed by pantoprazole PO. All study medications were administered for 5 days at a dose of 40 mg QD. IV pantoprazole was administered over 2 minutes; all medications were administered 30 minutes before breakfast. There was a 10- to 21-day washout period between each 10-day dosing period. All doses were administered at the study site. Before oral study drug administration on days 1 and 5, 24-hour pH monitoring was performed using a pH catheter positioned 10 cm distal to the lower esophageal sphincter in the stomach. The primary end point was percentage of time with pH >4 (%t pH >4) during the 24-hour pH-monitoring period. Tolerability was assessed using spontaneous reporting, laboratory analysis, and vital-sign measurement.

RESULTS

Of 42 subjects randomized to treatment sequences, 4 were withdrawn during the study because of invalid pH data; 38 subjects (24 men, 14 women; mean [SD] age, 25.2 [8.1] years) had assessable data. Day-5 %t pH >4 was 68.5% with esomeprazole and 53.3% with pantoprazole (P < 0.001). Day-1 %t pH >4 was 62.5% with esomeprazole and 51.0% with pantoprazole (P < 0.001). The most common adverse events were rhinitis (2 subjects each with pantoprazole IV and PO; 1 subject with esomeprazole) and headache (2 subjects with esomeprazole; 1 subject with pantoprazole IV).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study in healthy adult volunteers suggest that switching from pantoprazole 40 mg IV to esomeprazole 40 mg PO QD more effectively suppresses intragastric acid compared with switching from pantoprazole 40 mg IV to pantoprazole 40 mg PO QD. All 3 treatments were well tolerated.

Intravenous pantoprazole as initial treatment in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and a history of erosive esophagitis: a randomized clinical trial

We sought to evaluate safety and efficacy of IV pantoprazole when used as initial therapy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and a history of erosive esophagitis (EE) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group study. Patients were randomized to 7 days of once-daily IV or oral pantoprazole (40 mg) or placebo. Efficacy variables included maximal acid output, basal acid output, and changes from baseline in frequency/severity of GERD symptoms, and frequency of antacid usage. Seventy-eight patients were randomized (n=26/27/25 [IV/oral/placebo]). Mean maximal acid output was 8.4, 6.3, and 20.9 mEq/h for IV or oral pantoprazole, and placebo, respectively. For pantoprazole versus placebo, maximal and basal acid output were significantly lower (P<.001) and there was a numerical trend toward improved GERD and antacid usage. Both treatments were well tolerated. In conclusion, IV/oral pantoprazole were similarly effective in suppressing basal and pentagastrin-stimulated gastric acid secretion in GERD patients with a history of EE.

Esomeprazole versus pantoprazole for healing erosive oesophagitis

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of esomeprazole and pantoprazole with regard to healing and relief from gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms. I this multicentre, randomized, single-blind study 180 patients (ITT population) diagnosed with endoscopically proven GERD grade A,B,C received esomeprazole (40 mg once daily (o.d.), n = 90) orpantoprazole (40 mg o.d., n = 90). Healing and relief from GERD-related symptoms were assessed at first and final visit (after 4 or 8 weeks of treatment). Esomeprazole 40 mg provided significantly greater healing than pantoprazole 40 mg after 4 weeks of treatment in patients with EE (77.8% vs. 72.2%). Esomeprazole-treated patients were healed after up to 8 weeks of treatment similar those treated with pantoprazole (92.2% vs. 91.1%). The proportion of heartburn-free days was similar in patients treated with esomeprazole and to those treated with pantoprazole.

[Financial restrictions in health care systems could affect treatment quality of GERD-patients]

AIMS

To directly compare the efficacy and safety of pantoprazole 40 mg VS. omeprazole 20 mg in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

915 Patients suffering from symptomatic GERD B-D (Los Angeles classification) were included in a double-blind randomized multicenter clinical trial and treated with either pantoprazole 40 mg od or omeprazole 20 mg od for six weeks. Primary efficacy criterion was the first time to reach normal symptoms as assessed by the questionnaire ReQuest-GI.

RESULTS

Compared to omeprazole 20 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg achieved a significantly faster rate of symptom relief (p = 0.0298). Thus, as assessed with the ReQuest questionnaire, patients treated with pantoprazole 40 mg experienced relief from the 7 leading GERD symptoms 2 days earlier than those treated with omeprazole 20 mg. Long-lasting sustained relief from symptoms was also achieved earlier with pantoprazole than with omeprazole; in patients treated with pantoprazole, the daily symptom load was lower than in those treated with omeprazole. After 6 weeks of treatment, over 90 percent of patients were free from symptoms in both treatment groups (93.7 % in the pantoprazole, vs. 91.8 % in the omeprazole group, PP). Both medications were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

GERD patients treated with pantoprazole 40 mg experience a significantly faster relief from their leading symptoms than those treated with omeprazole 20 mg.

Proton pump inhibitors and acute interstitial nephritis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a widely prescribed class of drugs, and their usage worldwide is increasing. Although well-tolerated, there have been case reports and a recent case series implicating these drugs in acute interstitial nephritis (AIN) and progression to acute renal failure (ARF). The aim of this study was to investigate how widespread this complication is in Australia, to identify which PPIs are implicated, and to establish whether PPI-induced AIN is a class effect.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective case review of potential cases at 2 teaching hospitals and a review of registry data from the Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia (TGA). Parameters sought included the drug implicated, concurrent medications, symptoms, signs, serum creatinine, and time of onset after prescription.

RESULTS

We identified 18 cases of biopsy-proven PPI-induced AIN causing ARF in the retrospective case review, which is the largest hospital-based case series to date. The TGA registry data identified an additional 31 cases of "biopsy proven interstitial nephritis." An additional 10 cases of "suspected interstitial nephritis," 20 cases of "unclassified acute renal failure," and 26 cases of "renal impairment" were also identified. All 5 commercially available PPIs were implicated in these cases.

CONCLUSION

With the ever more widespread use of this class of medications, PPI-induced AIN is likely to become more frequent. There is now evidence to incriminate all the commercially available PPIs, suggesting there is a class effect. Failure to recognize this entity might have catastrophic long-term consequences including chronic kidney disease. Increased awareness might facilitate more rapid diagnosis and management of this potentially reversible condition.

Multicenter, randomized, double-blind study comparing 10, 20 and 40 mg pantoprazole in children (5-11 years) with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate symptom improvement in 53 children (aged 5-11 years) with endoscopically proven gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) treated with pantoprazole (10, 20 and 40 mg) using the GERD Assessment of Symptoms in Pediatrics Questionnaire.

METHODS

The GERD Assessment of Symptoms in Pediatrics Questionnaire was used to measure the frequency and severity over the previous 7 days of abdominal/belly pain, chest pain/heartburn, difficulty swallowing, nausea, vomiting/regurgitation, burping/belching, choking when eating and pain after eating. Individual symptom scores were based on the product of the frequency and usual severity of each symptom. The sum of the individual symptom score values made up the composite symptom score (CSS). The primary end point was the change in the mean CSS from baseline to week 8.

RESULTS

Mean frequency and severity of each symptom significantly decreased (from P < 0.006 to P < 0.001) over time. Similar significant decreases in CSS at week 8 versus baseline (P < 0.001) were seen in all groups. Significant decreases from baseline in CSS were noted from weeks 1 to 8 in the 20-mg (P < 0.003) and 40-mg (P < 0.001) groups. The 20- and 40-mg doses were significantly (P < 0.05) more effective than the 10-mg dose in improving GERD symptoms at week 1. Adverse events were similar among the treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pantoprazole (20 and 40 mg) is effective in reducing endoscopically proven GERD symptoms in children. Both 20 and 40 mg pantoprazole significantly reduced symptoms as early as 1 week.

Lansoprazole regimens that sustain intragastric pH > 6.0: an evaluation of intermittent oral and continuous intravenous infusion dosages

BACKGROUND

Orally and intravenously administered proton pump inhibitors have been shown to reduce rebleeding rates, surgery and transfusion requirement.

AIM

To compare lansoprazole intravenous and orally disintegrating tablet (Prevacid SoluTab) regimens with a pantoprazole intravenously administered regimen in sustaining intragastric pH >6.0.

METHODS

Two similarly designed three-way, randomized crossover studies each enrolled 36 Helicobacter pylori-negative healthy volunteers. Study 1 regimens included intravenously administered bolus followed by 24-h continuous infusion (lansoprazole 90 mg, 6 mg/h; lansoprazole 120 mg, 6 mg/h; pantoprazole 80 mg, 8 mg/h). Study 2 regimens included intravenous bolus followed by lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet or intravenous continuous infusion for 24 h (lansoprazole 90 mg, lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet 60 mg every 6 h; lansoprazole 120 mg, 9 mg/h; pantoprazole 80 mg, 8 mg/h). Percentage of time pH >6.0 was assessed with 24-h intragastric pH monitoring.

RESULTS

All regimens produced comparable gastric acid suppression. In both studies, regimens superior to pantoprazole included lansoprazole 90 mg, 6-mg/h; lansoprazole 90 mg, lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet 60 mg q.d.s. and lansoprazole 120 mg, 9 mg/h (P < or = 0.013). The lansoprazole 120-mg, 6-mg/h regimen (P = 0.082) was not superior to pantoprazole in percentage of time intragastric pH >6.0. Mild reaction at the intravenous injection site was the most frequently reported adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

The intravenous bolus and continuously infused lansoprazole or intravenous bolus and intermittent lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet regimens are as effective as intravenous pantoprazole in sustaining intragastric pH >6.0.

Pantoprazole and perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis

Systemic vasculitis may, at times, be drug-induced and associated with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA). However, pantoprazole, a commonly used and well-tolerated proton pump inhibitor, has not previously been reported to cause ANCA-associated syndromes. We describe a patient who developed interstitial nephritis, cutaneous vasculitis, a perinuclear ANCA staining pattern (pANCA) on immunofluorescence, and anti-myeloperoxidase antibodies (MPO-ANCA) in association with pantoprazole. We review various immune-mediated syndromes reported in association with proton pump inhibitors, including one report of omeprazole associated with interstitial nephritis and the development of ANCA.

Efficacy and safety of rifabutin-containing 'rescue therapy' for resistant Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND

Current 'rescue' therapies provide inadequate Helicobacter pylori eradication rates because of antibiotic resistance.

AIM

To test the efficacy of a modified triple regimen combining rifabutin, pantoprazole and amoxicillin as rescue therapy for patients in whom eradication of H. pylori had failed standard clarithromycin-based triple therapy.

METHODS

One hundred and thirty patients (mean age 51.7 +/- 14.8 years) who had failed one or more eradication attempts with omeprazole, clarithromycin and amoxicillin were treated for 12 days with rifabutin 150 mg daily, amoxicillin 1 g or 1.5 g t.d.s, and pantoprazole 80 mg t.d.s.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates were 90.8/90.8%. Metronidazole or/and clarithromycin resistance had no significant impact on H. pylori eradication rates. A higher overall eradication rate of 96.6% (95% CI: 92.1-101%) was obtained in patients treated with a regimen containing 1.5 g amoxicillin t.d.s compared with 90.7% (95% CI: 82-98.6%) using a regimen with 1 g amoxicillin t.d.s but the difference was not significant. Side-effects reported in 40% of patients were mild.

CONCLUSION

A 12-day course of low dose of rifabutin with an increased dose of amoxicillin and pantoprazole is well-tolerated and highly effective against dual-resistant H. pylori infection after failure of triple therapy.

A prospective randomized trial of esomeprazole- versus pantoprazole-based triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication

OBJECTIVE

This prospective, randomized, controlled, head-to-head study was conducted to compare the efficacies of esomeprazole- and pantoprazole-based triple therapies for Helicobacter pylori eradication.

METHODS

From January 2002 to October 2003, 200 H. pylori-infected patients were randomly assigned to undergo twice daily treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg (n = 100) or pantoprazole 40 mg (n = 100) combined with clarithromycin 500 mg and amoxicillin 1 g for 1 wk (ECA and PCA groups, respectively). Follow-up endoscopy was performed at 8 wks after the end of treatment to assess the treatment response.

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated a significantly higher eradication rate for the ECA group than for the PCA group (94%vs 82%, respectively, p= 0.009). Per-protocol analysis also showed similar results (97%vs 84%, p= 0.003). Both groups had similar frequencies of adverse events (15%vs 24%) and drug compliance (97%vs 96%). Multivariate analysis disclosed that the use of esomeprazole (OR: 1.56, 95% CI, 1.11-2.19) and good compliance 7.39 (95% CI, 1.27-42.95) were independent predictors of treatment success. Alcohol drinking was an independent predictor of eradication failure (OR: 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.54).

CONCLUSION

Esomeprazole-based triple therapy demonstrated a higher eradication rate than pantoprazole-based regimen. The differences in eradiation efficacies between the two study groups may be related to the more powerful acid inhibition effect and stronger anti-H. pylori activity of esomeprazole compared to pantoprazole.

Esomeprazole 20 mg vs. pantoprazole 20 mg for maintenance therapy of healed erosive oesophagitis: results from the EXPO study

BACKGROUND

Following initial healing of erosive oesophagitis, most patients require maintenance therapy to prevent relapse.

AIM

To compare endoscopic and symptomatic remission rates over 6 months' maintenance therapy with esomeprazole or pantoprazole (both 20 mg once daily) in patients with healed erosive oesophagitis.

METHODS

Patients with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and endoscopically confirmed erosive oesophagitis at baseline were randomized to receive esomeprazole 40 mg or pantoprazole 40 mg for up to 8 weeks. Patients with healed erosive oesophagitis and free of moderate/severe heartburn and acid regurgitation at 4 weeks or, if necessary, 8 weeks entered the 6-month maintenance therapy phase of the study.

RESULTS

A total of 2766 patients (63% men; mean age 50 years) received esomeprazole 20 mg (n = 1377) or pantoprazole 20 mg (n = 1389) and comprised the intention-to-treat population. Following 6 months of treatment, the proportion of patients in endoscopic and symptomatic remission was significantly greater for those receiving esomeprazole 20 mg (87.0%) than pantoprazole 20 mg (74.9%, log-rank test P < 0.0001). Esomeprazole 20 mg produced a higher proportion of patients free of moderate to severe gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms and fewer discontinuations because of symptoms than pantoprazole 20 mg (92.2% vs. 88.5%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Esomeprazole 20 mg is more effective than pantoprazole 20 mg for maintenance therapy following initial healing of erosive oesophagitis and relief of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pantoprazole in clinically normal neonatal foals

REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a mainstay of treatment for acid-related ulceration in man and horses. Currently, only an oral preparation of omeprazole is approved for use in horses in the USA. Intravenous administration of a PPI would provide a useful therapeutic alternative for those foals in which oral medication is not feasible.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pantoprazole following i.v. or intragastric administration in healthy neonatal foals.

METHODS

Seven healthy foals age 6-12 days at the start of the study were evaluated. Treatments included no drug administration, i.v. pantoprazole (1.5 mg/kg bwt) and intragastric pantoprazole (1.5 mg/kg bwt). Intragastric pH was recorded for 24 h after drug administration for pharmacodynamic evaluation. Plasma pantoprazole concentrations were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography.

RESULTS

Plasma concentrations of pantoprazole were detectable at the 5 min sampling point following i.v. or intragastric administration. Bioavailability of intragastric-administered pantoprazole was 41%. Baseline mean hourly pH was 1.5-6.1. There was a statistically significant increase in mean hourly pH relative to untreated foals 2-24 h after i.v. or intragastric pantoprazole administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these data, i.v. or intragastric administration of pantoprazole results in a significant, prolonged increase in intragastric pH.

POTENTIAL RELEVANCE

The i.v. formulation of pantoprazole may provide a clinically useful alternative means of acid suppression in foals unable to tolerate enteral administration of a PPI, such as those with pyloric outflow obstruction.

Pantoprazole 20 mg on demand is effective in the long-term management of patients with mild gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

A total of 536 patients with endoscopically confirmed GORD grade 0/I were included in this multicentre study. In the acute phase, patients were treated with pantoprazole 20 mg o.d. for 4 weeks to obtain symptom relief. Symptom-free patients were included in the subsequent long-term phase, and were randomly treated on demand with either pantoprazole 20 mg or placebo for 6 months (antacids as rescue medication). After the 4 weeks acute phase, 439 symptom-free patients entered the long-term phase. The perceived average daily symptom load remained significantly lower during the 6-month on-demand treatment with pantoprazole 20 mg as compared to placebo. Both the rates for unwillingness to continue and number of additional antacids taken were also significantly lower with pantoprazole 20 mg than with placebo. Hence, on-demand treatment with pantoprazole 20 mg is safe and effective in maintaining control of the symptoms heartburn, acid regurgitation and pain on swallowing symptoms in patients with GORD grade 0/I with superiority to placebo.

Intragastric acidity during treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily or pantoprazole 40 mg twice daily--a randomized, two-way crossover study

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe or complicated reflux disease may require higher than standard doses of a proton pump inhibitor for sufficient acid suppression.

AIM

To test the hypothesis that esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily is superior to pantoprazole 40 mg twice daily in lowering intragastric acidity.

METHODS

In a randomized, single-blinded, two-way crossover study, healthy subjects received esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily or pantoprazole 40 mg twice daily orally for five consecutive days. Continuous ambulatory 24-h intragastric pH was recorded on day 5 of each treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty subjects were analysed. Esomeprazole provided significantly higher intragastric pH-values over the 24-h period [median intragastric pH 6.4 for esomeprazole and 5.1 for pantoprazole (P < 0.00005)]. Intragastric pH > 4 was maintained for 21.1 h with esomeprazole and 16.8 h with pantoprazole (P < 0.0001). An intragastric pH > 4 for more than 16 h was achieved in 96.7 and 56.7% of subjects, respectively (P = 0.0002). During night-time the proportion of time with intragastric pH > 4 was 85.4% with esomeprazole and 63.6% with pantoprazole (P = 0.0001). Nocturnal acid break through occurred less frequently on esomeprazole.

CONCLUSIONS

Esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily provides better and more consistent intragastric acid control than pantoprazole 40 mg twice daily.

Efficacy and safety of pantoprazole versus ranitidine in the treatment of patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND/AIM

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a prevalent disease associated with a high symptom burden and a reduced quality of life. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared relief from key GERD symptoms (heartburn, acid eructation, and pain on swallowing) and from other gastrointestinal symptoms (epigastric pain, vomiting, nausea, flatulence, retching, and retrosternal feeling of tightness) and safety profiles of the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole and the H2 antagonist ranitidine in patients suffering from symptomatic GERD.

METHODS

The patients [338 intention-to-treat (ITT) population; 284 per-protocol (PP) population] received 20 mg pantoprazole (once daily in the morning) plus ranitidine placebo (once daily in the evening; ITT n = 167, PP n = 136) or pantoprazole placebo (once daily in the morning) plus 300 mg ranitidine (once daily in the evening; ITT n = 171, PP n = 148) for 28 days. The primary efficacy criterion (ITT and PP populations) was relief from key GERD symptoms (heartburn, acid eructation, and pain on swallowing) after 28 days of treatment. Secondary criteria (PP) included relief from key GERD symptoms on day 14, relief from all gastrointestinal symptoms on days 14 and 28, and relief from key GERD symptoms on days 14 and 28. Safety evaluations included adverse events and laboratory assessments.

RESULTS

Significantly more pantoprazole-treated patients were free from key GERD symptoms at day 28 (68.3%, n = 114) as compared with ranitidine-treated patients (43.3%, n = 74; 95% confidence interval for odds ratio 1.84-4.51). Pantoprazole was also significantly more efficacious in controlling all gastrointestinal symptoms of GERD. By day 28, 51.5% (n = 70) of the pantoprazole-treated patients were completely symptom free versus 31.1% (n = 46) of the ranitidine-treated patients (95% confidence interval for odds ratio 1.45-3.83). Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Pantoprazole is significantly superior to ranitidine in the treatment of key and associated gastrointestinal symptoms of GERD and is well tolerated.

Esomeprazole 40 mg i.v. provides faster and more effective intragastric acid control than pantoprazole 40 mg i.v.: results of a randomized study

BACKGROUND

Oral esomeprazole 40 mg provides greater acid control than oral pantoprazole 40 mg.

AIM

To compare the effects on intragastric acid control of esomeprazole 40 mg administered intravenously with pantoprazole 40 mg intravenously.

METHODS

Healthy Helicobacter pylori-negative male and female subjects were enrolled into this single-centre, open, randomized, two-way crossover study. Esomeprazole 40 mg intravenously and pantoprazole 40 mg intravenously were administered as 15-min infusions once daily at 09:00 hours for 5 days. Continuous 24-h intragastric pH monitoring was carried out at baseline and on days 1 and 5.

RESULTS

pH-data were available for all 25 subjects who completed the study. Esomeprazole 40 mg intravenously resulted in 8.3 and 13.9 h with an intragastric pH > 4 on days 1 and 5 compared with 5.3 and 9.0 h, respectively for pantoprazole 40 mg intravenously (day 1: P < 0.001, day 5: P < 0.0001). During the first 4 h of dosing on day 1 corresponding values were 1.7 and 0.6 h respectively (P < 0.0001). A mean median pH above 4 on day 5 was only attained with esomeprazole 40 mg intravenously.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily dosing with esomeprazole 40 mg intravenously provides faster and more pronounced intragastric acid control than pantoprazole 40 mg intravenously.

Pantoprazole for Sleepiness Associated with Acid Reflux and Obstructive Sleep Disordered Breathing

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of Pantoprazole (Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., Philadelphia, PA) therapy for daytime sleepiness in patients with symptoms of acid reflux and obstructive sleep-disordered breathing (OSDB).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective interventional cohort study.

METHODS

Twenty-seven adult subjects (67% men) with symptoms of acid reflux disease and mild to moderate OSDB were included in a 3-month study of proton pump inhibitor therapy (Pantoprazole 40 mg once daily). Primary outcomes included changes in daytime sleepiness, reflux symptoms, and bed partner assessment of snoring. Secondary outcomes included changes in snoring quantification, apnea, and apnea-hypopnea indices (AHI) with SNAP Laboratories (Glenview, IL) home sleep study and self-reported global symptom improvement.

RESULTS

At baseline, patients were typically middle-aged, obese men with mild to moderate sleep apnea (mean AHI = 15) with excessive daytime somnolence (mean Epworth Sleepiness Score = 13). After 3-month treatment with Pantoprazole, a statistically significant improvement was noted for daytime sleepiness (P = .002) and total reflux symptoms (P = .0006). Subjects also reported a significant reduction in reflux awakening them from sleep (P < .0001). Bed-partner assessment of snoring significantly improved (P = .03); however, no significant improvements were noted in snoring quantification, apnea, or AHI. When compared with a disease-severity matched historic placebo-control group, this cohort demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in daytime sleepiness (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

This cohort of subjects had significant improvements in daytime sleepiness and reflux symptoms, including reflux awakening from sleep, with Pantoprazole therapy. Further controlled studies are indicated to confirm these results. Improvement in daytime somnolence likely resulted from a reduction in reflux-related arousals because no improvements occurred in OSDB.

Pantoprazole treatment does not invoke anti-inflammatory properties in vivo

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are antiulcer agents that have gastric antisecretory and mucosal protective actions. The antisecretory effect of these agents derives from the inhibition of gastric parietal cell proton pump H+/K+ ATPase. The exact mechanism of PPI-induced gastric mucosal protection is not known though. It has been suggested that PPI may accumulate, modulating the functions of neutrophils and, thus, may be useful in reducing the gastric mucosal injury caused by these cells. However, these same mechanisms may not be desirable when PPIs are prescribed in prophylaxis and pre-operatively for ill or immunodepressed patients. The present study was designed to examine a possible anti-neutrophil activity of pantoprazole in vivo. A short study with omeprazole and lanzoprazole was also performed.

METHODS

Dosages of PPIs able to inhibit basal acid secretion (10 and 100 mg kg(-1)) were administered intraperitoneally (i.p.) to rats for 7 or 28 days. Cimetidine (100 mg kg(-1)) and dexamethasone (0.75 mg kg(-1)) were used as controls for antisecretory and anti-inflammatory activity, respectively. Air pouches were then developed in these animals, and Helicobacter pylori suspension or carrageenan was used as inflammatory stimulus. Exudate formation and leukocyte migration to air pouches were assessed.

RESULTS

Neither short nor long treatment with pantoprazole modified the ability of neutrophils to migrate in response to carrageenan or H. pylori. The same results were obtained when omeprazole or lanzoprazole was used. Dexamethasone, alone, a potent anti-inflammatory drug, was able to reduce polymorphonuclear and mononuclear cell migration.

CONCLUSION

Based on these observations, pantoprazole and other PPIs seem to have no anti-inflammatory properties in vivo.

Pantoprazole-induced acute interstitial nephritis

Pantoprazole is a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) that is commonly prescribed for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux-related disorders. There are many documented side effects of PPIs. Here we report a case of acute interstitial nephritis, which developed after 6 weeks of treatment with pantoprazole. A 23-year-old man presented with acute renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy. Acute interstitial nephritis was diagnosed by renal biopsy and was successfully treated with corticosteroids and withdrawal of pantoprazole. Drug-induced acute interstitial nephritis can occur with PPIs such as pantoprazole and vigilance needs to be maintained.

Retrospective evaluation of the effect of omeprazole on clozapine metabolism

OBJECTIVE

To study the effect of the replacement of omeprazole by pantoprazole on clozapine metabolism in 13 psychiatric patients, who used both clozapine and omeprazole.

METHOD

Retrospective study of the medical files.

RESULTS

In comparison to smokers, a significant rise of the serum clozapine levels was observed in all non-smoking patients, whilst the daily dose of clozapine remained unchanged. This effect was probably caused by the discontinuation of enzyme induction of the cytochrome P450 enzyme 1A2 by omeprazole in non-smokers, whereas CYP1A2 remained induced in patients who smoked.

CONCLUSION

Omeprazole only influenced clozapine metabolism in non-smokers. In none of the patients an adjustment of the clozapine dose was required.

Efficacy and tolerability of pantoprazole compared with misoprostol for the prevention of NSAID-related gastrointestinal lesions and symptoms in rheumatic patients

AIM

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of pantoprazole 20 mg once daily (o.d.) with misoprostol 200 microg twice daily (b.i.d.), administered for 6 months to rheumatic patients who required long-term therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and who were at increased risk of developing gastrointestinal lesions.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel group comparison study was performed with rheumatic patients (n = 515) who were likely to take NSAIDs continuously for at least 6 months. Patients were 55 years or older, at risk to develop gastrointestinal lesions, had less than five erosions/petechiae in the stomach and duodenum, no ulcers, no reflux esophagitis (endoscopy-proven), and gastrointestinal symptoms of at most moderate intensity. A minimum daily dose was defined for NSAIDs (COX-2 inhibitors were not available at the time). Patients were randomized to take either pantoprazole 20 mg o.d. (n = 257) or misoprostol 200 microg b.i.d. (n = 258) for 6 months while continuing NSAID therapy. Endoscopy was performed at baseline, 3, and 6 months.

RESULTS

Pantoprazole was superior to misoprostol (p < 0.001) with regard to 'therapeutic failure' (occurrence of a peptic ulcer, ten or more erosions/petechiae in the stomach/duodenum, reflux esophagitis, severe gastrointestinal symptoms, and/or 'likely' or 'definitely' related adverse event leading to study termination). Estimated remission rates at 3 and 6 months (Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis) were, respectively, 93 and 89% (pantoprazole) and 79 and 70% (misoprostol). Pantoprazole was superior to misoprostol (p = 0.005) with regard to 'endoscopic failure' (occurrence of a peptic ulcer, ten or more erosions/petechiae in the stomach/duodenum, or reflux esophagitis) after 6 months. Estimated remission rates at 3 and 6 months were, respectively, 98 and 95% (pantoprazole) and 95 and 86% (misoprostol). Patients discontinuing the study early due to adverse events 'likely' or 'definitely' related to the study drug accounted for 13/257 (5%) in the pantoprazole and 33/258 (13%) in the misoprostol treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Pantoprazole 20 mg o.d. is superior to misoprostol 200 microg b.i.d. in the prevention of NSAID-induced gastrointestinal lesions and symptoms in patients on continuous long-term treatment with NSAIDs due to rheumatic diseases and at risk to develop such lesions or symptoms.

Comparison of cetraxate-based and pantoprazole-based triple therapies in the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest that cetraxate possesses anti-Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) activity. We therefore conducted this pilot study to investigate the efficacy of a cetraxate-based triple therapy and to compare the regimen with proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy.

METHODS

From April 2001 to January 2002, a total of 58 H. pylori-infected patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 regimens for 1 week: cetraxate plus clarithromycin and amoxicillin (CCA group) or pantoprazole plus clarithromycin and amoxicillin (PCA group). Follow-up endoscopy was performed at 8 weeks after the end of treatment to assess the treatment response.

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat analysis showed that the eradication rates of the CCA group (n = 27) and PCA group (n = 31) were 70.4% and 93.5%, respectively. The CCA group had a significantly lower eradication rate than the PCA group (p = 0.03). Per-protocol analysis also showed similar results (69.2% vs. 96.7%, p = 0.01). However, the frequency of adverse events in the CCA group was lower than that of the PCA group (3.7% vs. 25.8%, p = 0.03). Univariate analysis showed that the eradication rate was significantly related to proton pump inhibitor therapy (93.5% vs. 70.4%, p = 0.03 ) and smoking habit (66.7 % vs. 88.4%, p = 0.05), but multivariate analysis disclosed that proton pump inhibitor therapy was the only independent factor predicting treatment success (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Cetraxate-based triple therapy is less effective than pantoprazole-based triple therapy in the treatment of H. pylori infection. However, the former has a lower frequency of adverse effects than the latter.

40 mg pantoprazole and 40 mg esomeprazole are equivalent in the healing of esophageal lesions and relief from gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors are regarded as the most effective class of acid suppressive medication for gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment. There is considerable interest regarding the dose equivalence between various proton pump inhibitors.

GOALS

To compare the efficacy of pantoprazole and esomeprazole with regard to healing and relief from gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms.

STUDY

Multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease grades B/C (Los Angeles classification) received 40 mg pantoprazole daily (n = 113) or 40 mg esomeprazole daily (n = 114). Healing (endoscopy) and relief from gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms (direct questioning) were assessed at first and final visit (after 4, 6, 8, or 10 weeks of treatment).

RESULTS

Overall healing in both treatment groups was 88% of patients (intention-to-treat population), 95% (pantoprazole), and 90% (esomeprazole) (per-protocol population); statistically, this indicates "at least equivalence" between treatments. Overall relief from gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms was similar for pantoprazole (55%) and esomeprazole (51%, per-protoco). No correlation between healing and symptom relief was seen. The majority of reported adverse events were assessed as "not related" to the study drug. Pantoprazole and esomeprazole have comparably good safety and tolerability.

CONCLUSION

In patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, 40 mg pantoprazole daily and 40 mg esomeprazole daily are equally effective for healing of esophageal lesions and relieving gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms.

Acute Interstitial Nephritis Due to Pantoprazole

OBJECTIVE:

To describe what is believed, as of November 4, 2003, to be the first case published in the literature of acute interstitial nephritis (AIN) due to pantoprazole.

CASE SUMMARY:

A 77-year-old white woman presented to the hospital with elevated serum creatinine, oliguria for the past 24 hours, arthralgia, fatigue, fever, and bilateral flank pain. The patient had initiated treatment with oral pantoprazole 40 mg/d for gastroesophageal reflux 2 months prior to admission. After 5 weeks of therapy, she stopped taking pantoprazole due to general malaise. Upon admission, all home medications, including pantoprazole, were reinitiated based on the patient's medication list. Serum creatinine increased to 6.1 mg/dL on day 4 of admission from a baseline of 1.0 mg/dL. Pantoprazole therapy was promptly discontinued, and prednisone 40 mg/d was initiated. Urinalysis revealed eosinophils, and a subsequent renal biopsy confirmed a diagnosis of AIN. The serum creatinine level gradually declined over 2 weeks, and the patient was discharged home with a serum creatinine level of 1.6 mg/dL. The Naranjo probability scale suggests a highly probable relationship between AIN and pantoprazole therapy in this patient.

DISCUSSION:

Drug hypersensitivity reactions are the most common cause of AIN. There have been several reported cases of omeprazole-induced AIN. Although there are very few prospective data on the efficacy of treatment of drug-induced AIN, corticosteroids may have a role in recovery of renal function. Prednisone doses of 1 mg/kg/d have been suggested.

CONCLUSIONS:

Physicians should be aware that drug-induced AIN can be associated with proton-pump inhibitors. Early detection of this rare adverse reaction may prevent acute renal insufficiency.

Eradication of Helicobacter pylori by 7-day triple-therapy regimens combining pantoprazole with clarithromycin, metronidazole, or amoxicillin in patients with peptic ulcer disease: results of two double-blind, randomized studies

AIM

To compare the short-term (7-day) safety and efficacy of two triple-therapy regimens using pantoprazole with those of two dual-therapy regimens (one with pantoprazole and one without), for Helicobacter pylori eradication in patients with peptic ulcer disease.

METHODS

H. pylori infection was identified by rapid urease (CLOtest), and confirmed by histology and culture. Patients were enrolled into one of two randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group studies. In study A, patients received oral pantoprazole 40 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg, and metronidazole 500 mg (PCM); pantoprazole, clarithromycin and amoxicillin 1000 mg (PCA); or pantoprazole and clarithromycin (PC). In study B, patients received PCM, PCA, PC, or clarithromycin and metronidazole without pantoprazole (CM). Treatments were given twice daily for 7 days. H. pylori status after therapy was assessed by histology and culture at 4 weeks after completing the course of study treatment. Modified intent-to-treat (MITT; each study: n = 424, n = 512) and per-protocol (PP; each study: n = 371, n = 454) populations were analyzed. The MITT population comprised all patients whose positive H. pylori status was confirmed by culture and histology; the PP population comprised patients who also complied with > or = 85% of study medication doses.

RESULTS

A total of 1016 patients were enrolled. Cure rates among patients with clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori strains were 82 and 86% for PCM, and 72 and 71% for PCA, in studies A and B, respectively. Cure rates among patients with metronidazole-susceptible H. pylori strains were 82 and 87% for PCM, and 71 and 69% for PCA, in studies A and B, respectively. The combined eradication rates observed with the PCM regimen were superior to those of all other regimens tested. Side-effects were infrequent and mild.

CONCLUSIONS

PCM had the highest overall eradication rate in these two studies examining 7-day treatment regimens. All regimens were safe and well tolerated.

Once-daily pantoprazole 40 mg and esomeprazole 40 mg have equivalent overall efficacy in relieving GERD-related symptoms

AIM

To compare the efficacy of pantoprazole and esomeprazole for the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease- (GERD-) related symptoms.

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomized, double-blind study 217 patients [intention-to-treat (ITT) population] diagnosed with endoscopically proven GERD grade B/C received pantoprazole (40 mg once daily (o.d.), n = 112] or esomeprazole (40 mg o.d/, n = 105) for 4 weeks. Patients recorded GERD-related symptoms (daytime and night-time) using diaries (daily), and/or by telephone interviews (every third day) and completed the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) questionnaire. The area under the time curve (AUC) for the sum score of GERD-related symptoms (symptom load of each patient during the treatment) and the time to reach adequate relief from GERD-related symptoms were calculated.

RESULTS

Patients reported first adequate relief from daytime GERD-related symptoms after a mean of 3.7 (pantoprazole) and 5.9 days (esomeprazole) (P = 0.034); the values for the night-time were 1.7 and 3.5 days, respectively (P = 0.012, ITT). The AUCs for the single symptoms and the sum scores were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with pantoprazole resulted in significantly faster first-time relief from daytime and night-time GERD-related symptoms than esomeprazole. Pantoprazole and esomeprazole were similar with respect to reduction of load of GERD-related symptoms.

Comparable efficacy of pantoprazole and omeprazole in patients with moderate to severe reflux esophagitis. Results of a multinational study

AIM

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of pantoprazole 40 mg and omeprazole MUPS 40 mg in patients with moderate to severe gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study conducted in Austria, Germany, Portugal, Switzerland and The Netherlands, patients with endoscopically confirmed moderate to severe GERD (Savary/Miller esophagitis grade II/III) were enrolled. They received a once-daily dose of either 40 mg pantoprazole or 40 mg omeprazole MUPS. Healing was determined by endoscopy after 4 weeks of treatment. If patients were not healed, treatment was extended for another 4 weeks. An additional endoscopy was performed in these cases after 8 weeks of treatment. Healing was determined by endoscopy after 4 and 8 weeks. In addition, treatment effect on symptoms was evaluated by the investigator using a questionnaire assessing heartburn, reflux regurgitation and pain on swallowing at each visit, as well as by a self-administered questionnaire comprising further 24 gastrointestinal symptoms. Analyses were performed for the intention-to-treat (ITT) and the per-protocol (PP) population. In addition, patients with high compliance (HC: 90% </=110%) were considered in a separate group. Adverse events and the influence of the Helicobacter pylori status were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 669 outpatients were enrolled in the study, with 337 patients receiving pantoprazole and 332 omeprazole MUPS. The PP population consisted of 552 patients, 282 treated with pantoprazole and 270 with omeprazole MUPS. The healing rates in both treatment groups were shown to be equivalent and were higher in patients who adhered closely to the administration protocol (HC). According to ITT (ITT(HC)) analyses, healing rates were 65.3% (77.4%) in the pantoprazole and 66.3% (74.7%) in the omeprazole group after 4 weeks. Furthermore, patients infected with H. pylori had slightly but not significantly higher healing rates than those with a negative test result. The safety profile of both treatments was comparable.

CONCLUSION

Pantoprazole 40 mg and omeprazole MUPS 40 mg were equivalent with respect to healing after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment in patients with reflux esophagitis grade II/III. Overall, HC patients had higher healing rates than the regular compliant patients. Both drugs were well tolerated and safe.

Evidence-based analysis: postoperative gastric bleeding: etiology and prevention

Although the incidence of stomach hemorrhage is declining, stress-related gastric bleeding remains an important source of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients undergoing major surgical procedures to remove tumor. Prevention of stress-related bleeding is desirable; however, the optimal use of drugs to prevent gastric bleeding is unclear. Prophylaxis is recommended for surgical patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation or have a coaguloathy. Histamine-2 receptor antagonists and sucralfate will reduce the likelihood of clinically important gastric-bleeding. Sucralfate appears to be less effective than H-2 blockers, but it is associated with fewer side effects such as nosocomial pneumonia. Preliminary studies show that proton pump inhibitors are most effective, have few side effects, but are most expensive. Intravenous proton pump inhibitors may be the drugs of choice for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in high-risk patients.

Oral bioavailability of pantoprazole suspended in sodium bicarbonate solution

The bioavailability of pantoprazole when administered as a suspension in sodium bicarbonate solution and as the oral tablet was studied. In an open-label, randomized, two-period crossover study, healthy fasting subjects received either one enteric-coated 40-mg pantoprazole tablet by mouth with 240 mL of water or 20 mL of a suspension prepared from one crushed pantoprazole tablet and 840 mg of sodium bicarbonate solution and administered via a nasogastric tube. Treatments were separated by a 48-hour washout period. Blood samples were collected at intervals up to 24 hours after drug administration for measurement of pantoprazole concentration by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and estimation of pharmacokinetic values. A separate study was conducted to determine pantoprazole's stability in the suspension for up to three months at 25, 5, and -20 degrees C; concentrations were measured by HPLC. Twelve subjects completed the study. The suspension yielded pantoprazole Cmax values similar to those of the tablet formulation, but the drug was 25% less bioavailable. There was no lag time for the suspension. The suspension was stable for up to two weeks at 5 degrees C and up to three months at -20 degrees C. A suspension of pantoprazole in sodium bicarbonate solution yielded a Cmax similar to that of the tablet formulation, and the drug was quickly absorbed. However, bio-availability was slightly lower with the suspension than with the tablet.

Short- and long-term therapy for reflux oesophagitis in the elderly: a multi-centre, placebo-controlled study with pantoprazole

BACKGROUND

No placebo-controlled clinical trials have yet been published on the efficacy of therapy in older subjects with oesophagitis.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of pantoprazole in preventing the recurrence of oesophagitis in elderly subjects.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty-four patients aged 65 years and over with acute oesophagitis were treated openly with pantoprazole, 40 mg daily, for 8 weeks. Patients with documented healing of erosive oesophagitis were then treated with pantoprazole, 20 mg daily, for 6 months. Thereafter, cured patients were randomized to receive pantoprazole, 20 mg daily, or placebo for the following 6 months. Clinical evaluations were performed every 2 months, and endoscopy was repeated after 8 weeks and after 6 and 12 months and/or whenever symptoms suggested a relapse of oesophagitis.

RESULTS

After 8 weeks, the healing rates of oesophagitis were 81.1% (75.1-87.1%) and 93.7% (89.7-97.7%) by intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses, respectively. After 6 months, the corresponding values were 82% (75.4-88.5%) and 92.4% (87.6-97.2%), respectively. After 12 months, the per protocol and intention-to-treat healing rates of oesophagitis were 95.1% (88.5-100%) and 79.6% (68.3-90.9%), respectively, in the treatment group vs. 32.7% (19.9-45.4%) and 30.4% (18.3-42.4%), respectively, in the placebo group (P = 0.0001). Heartburn, acid regurgitation and chest pain were significantly associated with the relapse of oesophagitis (P = 0.0001), whereas hiatus hernia, Helicobacter pylori infection, concomitant diseases and treatments were not.

CONCLUSION

In the elderly, pantoprazole was highly effective in healing and reducing the relapse of oesophagitis; discontinuing active treatment after 6 months was associated with a significant increase in the relapse rate.

A summary of Food and Drug Administration-reported adverse events and drug interactions occurring during therapy with omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole

BACKGROUND

Pantoprazole is claimed to have a lower potential for drug interaction than other proton pump inhibitors.

AIM

To estimate the frequency of adverse events and drug interactions reported to the Food and Drug Administration in patients receiving omeprazole, lansoprazole or pantoprazole.

METHODS

The study involved a search of the Food and Drug Administration's database for adverse events and drug interactions with omeprazole, lansoprazole or pantoprazole as primary or secondary suspect drug. An estimate of the amount of drug dispensed during the adverse event collection period (from US drug launch) was obtained from the International Medical Statistics health database.

RESULTS

Of the suspected drug interactions recorded, vitamin K antagonist interactions, although rare, were the most common. The frequency of vitamin K antagonist interactions was 0.09 per million packages for omeprazole and 0.11 per million packages for lansoprazole and pantoprazole. Interactions with benzodiazepines or phenytoin were even rarer, being reported in less than 10 patients on each proton pump inhibitor.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of reported drug interactions was low for omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole and vitamin K antagonist interactions were by far the most common. These potentially important drug interactions, although rare, were no less frequent on pantoprazole than on omeprazole or lansoprazole, suggesting a class effect.

The pharmacovigilance of pantoprazole: the results of postmarketing surveillance on 11 541 patients in England

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a postmarketing surveillance study involving patients treated with pantoprazole in general practice in the 6-month period following the launch of this drug in November 1996. Prescription-event monitoring (PEM) provides data on a large cohort of patients in 'real life' settings. The aim was to monitor the safety of pantoprazole as used in general practice. It was the third proton pump inhibitor launched in the UK.

METHODS

Patients were identified by data from dispensed prescriptions (FP10s) written by general practitioners (GPs) in England for pantoprazole. Green forms were posted to GPs approximately 6 months following the first prescription identified. GPs were asked to list events that occurred during and after treatment. The incidence density of each event was calculated, ranked and the difference between the incidence of each event in the first and subsequent months of exposure was tested by constructing confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 11 541 patients. The major indications for treatment were oesophageal reflux (22.7%) and dyspepsia (16.9%). Of GPs expressing an opinion, 81.9% reported pantoprazole to be effective. GPs reported 107 events as adverse drug reactions. The most frequent reason given for stopping was diarrhoea (106 patients), which corresponded with the adverse event with the highest incidence density.

CONCLUSION

This PEM study has defined the reported safety profile of pantoprazole as used in general practice in England. The commonest adverse events found in this study have already been reported in the Summary of Product Characteristics.

[Pantoprazole-induced hepatitis]

HISTORY

A 46-year-old woman presented for an emergency admission because of colic-like upper abdominal pain and markedly impaired general condition. Eight days before admission she had started and continued to take pantoprazole because of symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux.

INVESTIGATIONS

Clinical examination and laboratory tests indicated abnormal liver functions suggesting hepatitis. Serology largely excluded an infectious, autoimmunological or metabolic cause. Duplex sonography gave no evidence of bile obstruction or Budd-Chiari syndrome.

DIAGNOSIS AND COURSE

The patient's condition and laboratory tests after the drug had been discontinued gradually improved on symptomatic treatment, indicating pantoprazole-induced hepatitis.

CONCLUSION

Intake of proton pump inhibitors is a rare cause but should be considered in the differential diagnosis of hepatitis of uncertain etiology.

Efficacy and safety of oral pantoprazole 20 mg given once daily for reflux esophagitis in children

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of oral pantoprazole, 20 mg (0.5 to 1.0 mg/kg/day) once daily for 28 days, in pediatric patients with reflux esophagitis.

METHODS

Patients in this study (n = 15; 6 to 13 years old, 9 boys) had reflux esophagitis grade Ic or II (Vandenplas classification). The efficacy of pantoprazole to reduce esophageal acid exposure time (pH < 4), reduce the number and duration of reflux episodes, and to increase the percentage of time with gastric pH > 3 was assessed by continuous 24-hour pH monitoring. The intensity of 5 common symptoms of esophagitis was scored before and after treatment on a 4-point scale. Esophagitis was assessed at baseline and after treatment by visual inspection and by the histology of biopsies from the distal third of the esophagus.

RESULTS

Before treatment, the median percentage of time with intra-esophageal pH <4 was 9.3%. After 28 days of therapy with pantoprazole, this value decreased to 2.7% (P = 0.0006). The median percentage of time with intragastric pH > 3 increased from 21% at baseline to 39% on day 28 of therapy (P = 0.005). After 28 days of treatment, all patients experienced at least partial relief from reflux symptoms. Endoscopically confirmed healing of esophagitis was seen in 47% of children (Savary-Miller classification). Histologic evidence of healing was not observed. Median serum gastrin levels were slightly elevated over baseline levels (from 74 pg/ml to 93 pg/ml). In one patient there was a transient elevation of serum GOT and GPT during treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral pantoprazole 20 mg daily provided gastric acid control in 15 pediatric patients with reflux esophagitis with partial clinical improvement of symptoms after 28 days of treatment. Pantoprazole was safe and well tolerated.

Pantoprazole maintenance therapy prevents relapse of erosive oesophagitis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of pantoprazole with ranitidine for the maintenance of endoscopically documented healed (grade 0 or 1) erosive oesophagitis.

METHODS

Patients (371) were randomly assigned to receive pantoprazole 10, 20 or 40 mg or ranitidine 150 mg. Endoscopies were performed after 1, 3, 6 and 12 months or when symptoms suggesting relapse (grade = 2) developed. Gastric biopsies were obtained at baseline and on at least one postbaseline visit. Symptom-free days and Gelusil use were assessed.

RESULTS

Pantoprazole was significantly (P < 0.001) more effective in maintaining erosive oesophagitis healing. After 12 months, 33%, 40%, 68% and 82% of patients remained healed for the ranitidine and pantoprazole 10, 20 and 40 mg groups, respectively. Daytime and night-time heartburn were eliminated in > 90% of days for the pantoprazole 40 mg group. Gelusil use was significantly lower with pantoprazole 20 and 40 mg than with ranitidine (P < 0.02) during the first 9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Twelve months of maintenance therapy with pantoprazole (10-40 mg once daily) was superior to ranitidine (150 mg twice daily) in maintaining erosive oesophagitis healing. Pantoprazole 40 mg provided the most consistent efficacy and was well tolerated.