兰索拉唑治疗胃食管反流病的疗效观察

目的评价兰索拉唑治疗胃食管反流病的疗效。方法选取2006年2月～2010年11月于笔者所在医院消化内科门诊就诊的并经胃十二指肠镜检查确诊的胃食管反流病患者120例,随机分为两组:治疗组予兰索拉唑30mg/次,1次/d,莫沙必利5mg/次,3次/d;对照组予奥美拉唑20mg/次,2次/d,多潘立酮10mg/次,3次/d。两组疗程均为4周。观察两组的临床症状缓解状况,复查胃十二指肠镜观察食管黏膜糜烂修复情况。结果两组治疗前后烧心、反流等症状评分下降比较差异有统计学意义(t=2.14,P<0.05);两组治疗4周内镜改善情况相比,治疗组与对照组治疗4周时内镜下改善与治疗前相比均有明显改善,治疗组较对照组愈合率、有效率明显增高,两组比较差异有统计学意义(x2=4.32,P<0.05)。结论兰索拉唑治疗GERD疗效肯定,明显优于奥美拉唑,而且不良反应少,可作为治疗GERD的常规方案。     

兰索拉唑、法莫替丁联合治疗难治性胃食管反流病临床观察

目的 观察兰索拉唑、法莫替丁联合治疗难治性胃食管反流病的疗效.方法 回顾分析将难治性胃食管反流病32例临床资料,于清晨空腹服用兰索拉唑30mg,夜间临睡前服用法莫替丁40mg,疗程8周.治疗前后,进行胃镜检查,观察临床症状及食管炎的改善情况.结果 症状评价:显效23例,有效6例,无效3例,总有效率90.6%.胃镜评价:除9例非靡烂性胃食管反流病外,23例中显效12例,有效9例,无效2例,总有效率91.3%.结论 兰索拉唑、法莫替丁联合治疗难治性胃食管反流病有较好的疗效,可作为难治性胃食管反流病较好的治疗方案.     

兰索拉唑联合六味安消治疗胃食管反流疗效观察

目的:探讨兰索拉唑联合六味安消治疗胃食管反流的临床效果。方法:52例胃食管反流患者随机分为治疗组27例和对照组25例,治疗组给予六味安消3粒,每天3次。兰索拉唑15mg,每日2次;对照组给予兰索拉唑15mg,每天2次。疗程均为4w。结果:治疗组显效率66.7%,总有效率为92.6%;对照组显效率36.0%,总有效率为84.0%。两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:兰索拉唑联合六味安消治疗对胃食管反流疾病效果明显。     

基于兰索拉唑的莫沙必利治疗老年胃食管反流病的临床观察

目的探讨兰索拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗老年胃食管反流病的疗效。方法选取2012年1月至2013年9月本院收治的胃食管反流病老年患者100例,按照随机数字表法分为观察组和对照组各50例。观察组给予兰索拉唑胶囊联合莫沙必利分散片口服治疗,对照组给予兰索拉唑胶囊口服治疗,两组疗程均为6周。观察对比两组的临床疗效、胃镜检查结果和不良反应发生率。结果观察组的临床显效率和总有效率(54.00%,90.00%)明显高于对照组(36.00%,74.00%),差异具有统计学意义(χ2=4.525、4.003,P值均<0.05)。结论兰索拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗老年胃食管反流病的临床疗效显著,值得临床推广应用。     

兰索拉唑联合莫沙比利治疗胃食管反流病的疗效分析

目的观察莫沙比利联合兰索拉唑治疗胃食管反流病的疗效。方法随机将我院诊治的56例胃食管反流病患者分为了治疗组和对照组,治疗组采用莫沙比利+兰索拉唑治疗共28例,对照组采用兰索拉唑治疗共28例,疗程均为8周。观察比较两组患者症状缓解情况和不良反应的发生,疗程结束由内镜检查疗效比较。结果治疗8周后在症状改善及内镜检查食管炎改善方面,治疗组满意率92.8%,对照组满意率78.5%,P<0.05为差异具有统计学意义。两组用药期间无严重不良反应发生。结论兰索拉唑联合莫沙比利治疗反流性食管炎,疗效理想,不良反应少。     

右兰索拉唑缓释胶囊治疗胃食管反流病 30 例简

目的 探讨右兰索拉唑缓释胶囊治疗胃食管反流病的临床疗效及安全性.方法 选择医院诊治的胃食管反流病患者60例,随机分为两组,各30例.观察组口服右兰索拉唑缓释胶囊,早餐前1h口服60 mg;对照组早餐前30 min口服奥美拉唑20 mg,疗程均为8周,观察两组患者的临床疗效、复发率及不良反应发生率.结果 观察组显效率为90.00％,明显高于对照组的66.67％（P＜0.05）;复发率为6.67％,不良反应发生率为13.33％,分别明显低于对照组的26.67％和36.67％（P＜0.05）.结论 右兰索拉唑缓释胶囊通过双层缓释技术,发挥了较好的临床疗效,具有较高的安全性和耐受性.     

国产兰索拉唑结合黛力新治疗非糜烂性胃食管反流病临床观察

目的 探讨质子泵抑制剂兰索拉唑结合黛力新治疗非糜烂性胃食管反流病(NERD)的临床疗效.方法 将105例NERD患者随机分为2组,A组52例,给予兰索拉唑30mg,早、晚餐前各1次,黛力新10.5mg,早、中餐后各1次;B组53例,给予兰索拉唑30mg,早、中餐前各1次,两组疗程均为6周,疗程结束后通过症状记分,判断疗效.结果 A治疗6周后,A组显效率为86.5%,总有效率为96.1%;B组显效率为41.5%,总有效率为71.6%.两组比较差异有显著性(P<0.05).结论 对伴有抑郁、焦虑的NERD患者,兰索拉唑结合黛力新治疗是有效药物.     

兰索拉唑联合枳术宽中胶囊治疗胃食管返流的疗效

目的：探讨兰索拉唑联合枳术宽中胶囊治疗胃食管返流的疗效。方法：将本院近期收治的胃食管返流患者80例,随机分为观察组和对照组,每组40例,观察组给予兰索拉唑联合枳术宽中胶囊治疗,对照组单独给予兰索拉唑治疗,比较两组疗效。结果：观察组总有效率为92.5%,显著高于对照组的75%,两组比较具有显著差异（P＜0.05）。结论：兰索拉唑联合枳术宽中胶囊治疗胃食管反流的疗效显著,值得推广。     

舒肝解郁胶囊联合兰索拉唑及莫沙必利治疗胃食管反流的临床疗效

目的探讨舒肝解郁胶囊联合兰索拉唑及莫沙必利治疗胃食管反流的临床疗效。方法将2013年11月—2015年10月共92例胃食管反流患者分为对照组(仅使用兰索拉唑和莫沙必利治疗)和舒肝解郁胶囊联合兰索拉唑和莫沙必利治疗组,8周后对两组患者临床疗效进行比较。结果治疗组总有效率(89.4%)明显高于对照组总有效率(64.4%)(P<0.05);治疗组症状消失率(74.5%)明显高于对照组症状消失率(46.7%)(P<0.05);而治疗组患者复发率(12.8%)明显低于对照组患者(35.6%)(P<0.05)。结论舒肝解郁胶囊联合兰索拉唑和莫沙必利临床疗效优于对照组,且复发率低、临床症状消失快,可为治疗胃食管反流的安全有效的方法。     

兰索拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗老年胃食管反流病的临床实践

目的探究兰索拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗老年胃食管反流病的临床疗效与安全性。方法整群选取2013年3月~2015年10月期间在广宁县人民医院消化内科收治158例老年胃食管反流病患者作为研究对象,将其随机分为对照组79例和观察组79例。对照组给予兰索拉唑治疗,观察组在此基础上加服莫沙必利,两组疗程均为8周,比较两组患者治疗前后临床症状评分及治疗后总有效率和不良反应率情况。结果 (1)改善临床症状方面,对照组GEQ评分率为45.57%,观察组GEQ评分率为64.56%;提高临床疗效方面,对照组总有效率为82.28%,观察组总有效率为94.94%。两组以上指标比较均有显著性差异(P<0.05)。(2)不增加不良反应发生情况,观察组不良反应率为7.60%,对照组不良反应率为3.80%,两组指标比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论兰索拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗老年胃食管反流疾病,具有显著的临床疗效和较高的安全性,可以有利改善患者身体机能,提高其生活质量。     

Lansoprazole. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and its therapeutic efficacy in acid-related disorders.

Lansoprazole is an effective acid pump inhibitor acting at the final enzymatic step of the acid secretory pathway of the parietal cell, decreasing gastric acid secretion regardless of the primary stimulus. Results of short term (less than 8 weeks) clinical trials have shown lansoprazole to be significantly superior to placebo and ranitidine in the treatment of duodenal ulcer, both in the rate of healing and in overall healing at 4 weeks. Lansoprazole appears to heal duodenal ulcer more quickly than famotidine, and demonstrates slightly greater efficacy at 4 weeks, although both drugs appear to have equivalent efficacy overall. Gastric ulcers and reflux oesophagitis are also healed by lansoprazole 30 mg/day for 4 to 8 weeks, with healing rates after 8 weeks of approximately 85 to 95% for both indications. Lansoprazole appears to be superior to ranitidine and comparable to omeprazole in treating reflux oesophagitis. Furthermore, lansoprazole has relieved reflux symptoms more quickly than either ranitidine or omeprazole. Preliminary data also indicate that lansoprazole may be effective in the treatment of peptic ulcer disease and reflux oesophagitis refractory to H2-receptor antagonists, and in patients with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. While direct comparisons with omeprazole are limited, results suggest that lansoprazole, used for short term treatment, is at least as effective as omeprazole in the treatment of peptic ulcer and reflux oesphagitis. Lansoprazole has been well tolerated in short term clinical trials, with an incidence of adverse effects comparable with that of other agents in its therapeutic class. Trials assessing long term tolerability data are ongoing and will be required as part of the assessment of the safety profile, if lansoprazole is to be used prophylactically to prevent ulcer recurrence. Thus, by virtue of its ability to heal ulcers and rapidly relieve associated symptomatology, lansoprazole represents a useful alternative for the treatment of acid related disorders.     

兰索拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗老年胃食管反流病的临床效果

目的研究兰索拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗老年胃食管反流病的临床效果。方法选取本院2011年2月-2013年2月住院部收治的76例老年胃食管反流病患者为研究对象,根据治疗方式将其分为研究组和对照组,每组38例,对照组行兰索拉唑治疗,研究组在对照组治疗的基础上加用莫沙必利治疗,对比分析两组的临床治疗效果。结果研究组总有效率为94.74%,对照组总有效率为78.95%,差异有统计学意义（χ2=11.2608,P=0.0008）。研究组不良反应总发生率为5.26%,低于对照组的13.16%,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论兰索拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗老年胃食管反流病效果确切,安全性高,不良反应率低,可作为临床治疗的首选方案。     

兰索拉唑与奥美拉唑治疗酒精型消化性溃疡的临床疗效比较

目的对比分析兰索拉唑与奥美拉唑治疗酒精型消化性溃疡的临床疗效。方法将126例酒精型消化性溃疡患者随机分入兰索拉唑组与奥美拉唑组,兰索拉唑组给予兰索拉唑+阿莫西林+克拉霉素治疗,奥美拉唑组给予奥美拉唑+阿莫西林+克拉霉素治疗,两组疗程均为4周。比较两组的临床疗效、幽门螺杆菌(Hp)清除率及不良反应发生率。结果兰索拉唑组与奥美拉唑组临床治疗总有效率分别为95.5%和95.0%,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组患者治疗前后临床症状比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);兰索拉唑组Hp清除率显著高于奥美拉唑组(90.9%vs.78.3%,P<0.05);兰索拉唑组与奥美拉唑组不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义(7.6%vs.13.4%,P>0.05)。结论兰索拉唑治疗酒精型消化性溃疡Hp清除率高,不良反应少。     

Lansoprazole: an update of its place in the management of acid-related disorders

Lansoprazole is an inhibitor of gastric acid secretion and also exhibits antibacterial activity against Helicobacter pylori in vitro. Current therapy for peptic ulcer disease focuses on the eradication of H. pylori infection with maintenance therapy indicated in those patients who are not cured of H. pylori and those with ulcers resistant to healing. Lansoprazole 30 mg combined with amoxicillin 1g, clarithromycin 250 or 500mg, or metronidazole 400 mg twice daily was associated with eradication rates ranging from 71 to 94%, and ulcer healing rates were generally >80% in well designed studies. In addition, it was as effective as omeprazole- or rabeprazole-based regimens which included these antimicrobial agents. Maintenance therapy with lansoprazole 30 mg/day was significantly more effective than either placebo or ranitidine in preventing ulcer relapse. Importantly, preliminary data suggest that lansoprazole-based eradication therapy is effective in children and the elderly. In the short-term treatment of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), lansoprazole 15, 30 or 60 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo, ranitidine 300 mg/day or cisapride 40 mg/day and similar in efficacy to pantoprazole 40 mg/day in terms of healing of oesophagitis. Lansoprazole 30 mg/day, omeprazole 20 mg/day and pantoprazole 40 mg/day all provided similar symptom relief in these patients. In patients with healed oesophagitis. 12-month maintenance therapy with lansoprazole 15 or 30 mg/day prevented recurrence and was similar to or more effective than omeprazole 10 or 20 mg/day. Available data in patients with NSAID-related disorders or acid-related dyspepsia suggest that lansoprazole is effective in these patients in terms of the prevention of NSAID-related gastrointestinal complications, ulcer healing and symptom relief. Meta-analytic data and postmarketing surveillance in >30,000 patients indicate that lansoprazole is well tolerated both as monotherapy and in combination with antimicrobial agents. After lansoprazole monotherapy commonly reported adverse events included dose-dependent diarrhoea, nausea/vomiting, headache and abdominal pain. After short-term treatment in patients with peptic ulcer, GORD, dyspepsia and gastritis the incidence of adverse events associated with lansoprazole was generally < or = 5%. Similar adverse events were seen in long-term trials, although the incidence was generally higher (< or = 10%). When lansoprazole was administered in combination with amoxicillin, clarithromycin or metronidazole adverse events included diarrhoea, headache and taste disturbance. In conclusion, lansoprazole-based triple therapy is an effective treatment option for the eradication of H. pylori infection in patients with peptic ulcer disease. Preliminary data suggest it may have an important role in the management of this infection in children and the elderly. In the short-term management of GORD, lansoprazole monotherapy offers a more effective alternative to histamine H2-receptor antagonists and initial data indicate that it is an effective short-term treatment option in children and adolescents. In adults lansoprazole maintenance therapy is also an established treatment option for the long-term management of this chronic disease. Lansoprazole has a role in the treatment and prevention of NSAID-related ulcers and the treatment of acid-related dyspepsia; however, further studies are needed to confirm its place in these indications. Lansoprazole has emerged as a useful and well tolerated treatment option in the management of acid-related disorders.     

Lansoprazole: A Comprehensive Review

Lansoprazole is the second member of the substituted benzimidazole class of antisecretory agents approved for use in the United States. These drugs decrease parietal cell acid secretion by inhibiting H⁺,K⁺-adenosine triphosphatase, the final step in the secretion of acid. Lansoprazole has been studied extensively for the short-term treatment of duodenal and gastric ulcers, reflux esophagitis, and Helicobacter pylori-positive peptic ulcer disease; long-term treatment of Zollinger-Ellison syndrome; and maintenance treatment of erosive esophagitis. A dosage of 30 mg/day produced higher healing rates and equivalent or faster relief of ulcer symptoms than ranitidine or famotidine in patients with duodenal or gastric ulcers and reflux esophagitis. Compared with omeprazole 20 mg/day, that dosage provided faster epigastric pain relief in these patients after 1 week, although healing rates for the two agents were equivalent at 4 and 8 weeks. In patients with peptic ulcer refractory to 8-week therapy with histamine₂-receptor antagonists, healing rates were not significantly different between lansoprazole and omeprazole. In patients with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, lansoprazole was superior to histamine₂-receptor antagonists and was similar in efficacy, safety, and duration of action to omeprazole. Combinations of lansoprazole or omeprazole with one or two antibiotics produced equivalent eradication of H. pylori. In clinical trials, lansoprazole was well tolerated, with frequency of adverse effects similar to that reported with ranitidine, famotidine, and omeprazole.     

Lansoprazole vs. omeprazole for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a pH-metric comparison

BACKGROUND: Lansoprazole and omeprazole are widely used proton pump inhibitors for the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux. Normalization of oesophageal acid exposure is an important goal in the management of complicated and atypical gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. AIM: To compare the efficacy of lansoprazole and omeprazole in the abolition of abnormal reflux as assessed by oesophageal pH monitoring. METHODS: Seventy patients with complicated or atypical gastro-oesophageal reflux disease were randomly assigned to receive 30 mg lansoprazole or 20 mg omeprazole once daily. Three to four weeks after the start of treatment, patients underwent oesophageal pH monitoring while on therapy. If the results were still abnormal, the proton pump inhibitor dosage was doubled and 24-h pH-metry was repeated after 20-30 days. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were randomized to receive lansoprazole and 34 patients to receive omeprazole. Ten of the 36 (29%) patients treated with 30 mg lansoprazole once daily and 23 of the 34 (68%) patients treated with 20 mg omeprazole once daily had persistently abnormal reflux at oesophageal pH monitoring (P < 0.001). In all such cases, repeat pH monitoring after doubling the proton pump inhibitor dosage gave normal results. CONCLUSIONS: At the currently marketed dosages of lansoprazole and omeprazole, normalization of oesophageal acid exposure in patients is accomplished more easily with lansoprazole.     

Lansoprazole: pharmacokinetics,pharmacodynamics and clinical uses

Lansoprazole (Prevacid?, TAP Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) is a substituted benzimidazole that inhibits gastric acid secretion. This agent is approved for the short-term treatment of erosive reflux oesophagitis, active gastric ulcer, active duodenal ulcer and the treatment of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastric and duodenal ulcers. It is also approved for the long-term treatment of healed reflux oesophagitis, healed duodenal ulcer, the treatment of hypersecretory conditions such as Zollinger-Ellison syndrome and the eradication of Helicobacter pylori as a component of triple therapy with lansoprazole, clarithromycin and amoxicillin, or dual therapy with lansoprazole and amoxicillin. Its mechanism of action is to selectively inhibit the membrane enzyme H⁺/K⁺ATPase in gastric parietal cells. In clinical trials, lansoprazole is more effective than placebo or histamine (H₂)-receptor antagonists in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis. Lansoprazole administered at a dose of 30 mg daily produced faster relief of symptoms and superior healing rates in patients with gastric or duodenal ulcers or reflux oesophagitis than H₂-receptor antagonists. A daily dose of 30 mg lansoprazole reduced epigastric pain faster than omeprazole 20 mg daily in patients with peptic ulcer disease but healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks were similar with both agents at these dosages. Lansoprazole was more effective than H₂-receptor antagonists in patients with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome and produced similar treatment outcome to omeprazole. Lansoprazole in combination with clarithromycin and amoxicillin produced similar rates of eradication of H. pylori. In clinical trials, lansoprazole is well-tolerated and has a low frequency of side effects similar to that of H₂-receptor antagonists or omeprazole.     

Lansoprazole: pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and clinical uses

Lansoprazole (Prevacid, TAP Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) is a substituted benzimidazole that inhibits gastric acid secretion. This agent is approved for the short-term treatment of erosive reflux oesophagitis, active gastric ulcer, active duodenal ulcer and the treatment of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastric and duodenal ulcers. It is also approved for the long-term treatment of healed reflux oesophagitis, healed duodenal ulcer, the treatment of hypersecretory conditions such as Zollinger-Ellison syndrome and the eradication of Helicobacter pylori as a component of triple therapy with lansoprazole, clarithromycin and amoxicillin, or dual therapy with lansoprazole and amoxicillin. Its mechanism of action is to selectively inhibit the membrane enzyme H+/K+ ATPase in gastric parietal cells. In clinical trials, lansoprazole is more effective than placebo or histamine (H2)-receptor antagonists in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis. Lansoprazole administered at a dose of 30 mg daily produced faster relief of symptoms and superior healing rates in patients with gastric or duodenal ulcers or reflux oesophagitis than H2-receptor antagonists. A daily dose of 30 mg lansoprazole reduced epigastric pain faster than omeprazole 20 mg daily in patients with peptic ulcer disease but healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks were similar with both agents at these dosages. Lansoprazole was more effective than H2-receptor antagonists in patients with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome and produced similar treatment outcome to omeprazole. Lansoprazole in combination with clarithromycin and amoxicillin produced similar rates of eradication of H. pylori. In clinical trials, lansoprazole is well-tolerated and has a low frequency of side effects similar to that of H2-receptor antagonists or omeprazole.     

Rapid symptom relief in reflux oesophagitis: a comparison of lansoprazole and omeprazole

Background: Lansoprazole, a substituted benzimidazole, is a proton pump inhibitor which is highly effective in the control of 24-h intragastric acidity. The aim of this multicentre, randomized, double-blind study was to compare lansoprazole 30 mg once daily and omeprazole 20 mg once daily in the symptom relief and healing of patients with reflux oesophagitis. Methods: Six hundred and four patients with endoscopically proven oesophagitis and a recent history of heartburn were randomly assigned to receive lansoprazole 30 mg or omeprazole 20 mg daily for 4–8 weeks. Daily assessment of symptoms was made by the patient using a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale. Clinical symptoms were evaluated at weeks 0, 1, 4 and 8. Endoscopic assessment of healing, defined by normalization of the oesophageal mucosal appearance, was made at weeks 4 and 8. Results: Two hundred and eighty-two patients in the lansoprazole group and 283 patients in the omeprazole group were eligible for inclusion in the per protocol analysis. At 3 days, there was a significant improvement in daytime symptoms of heartburn for patients in the lansoprazole group compared with the omeprazole group (P=0.05). A similar but non-significant trend was seen at 7 days (P=0.18). Clinical assessment at 7 days demonstrated significant improvement in daytime epigastric pain in the lansoprazole group compared with the omeprazole group (P=0.03), with a similar but non-significant trend in night-time epigastric pain (P=0.07). Healing rates of oesophagitis at 4 and 8 weeks were 70 and 87%, respectively, with lansoprazole, and 63 and 82%, respectively, with omeprazole. Logistic regression analysis of the cumulative healing rates, which included baseline factors affecting outcome, resulted in an odds ratio of 1.46 (95% CI=0.87–2.45), suggesting a higher chance of being healed with lansoprazole treatment compared with omeprazole treatment. A total of 615 adverse events were reported by 308 (51%) patients during the study period. The majority of events were mild in nature and the incidence was similar in both treatment groups. The most frequently reported events were headache, diarrhoea and nausea. Conclusion: Lansoprazole provides greater symptom relief compared with omeprazole during the first week of treatment. Both treatments were effective in healing oesophagitis.