Comparative study of omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole and esomeprazole for symptom relief in patients with reflux esophagitis

AIM： To clarify whether there is any difference in the symptom relief in patients with reflux esophagitis following the administration of four Proton pump inhibitors （PPIs）. METHODS： Two hundred and seventy-four patients with erosive reflux esophagitis were randomized to receive 8 wk of 20 mg omeprazole （n = 68）, 30 mg of lansoprazole （n = 69）, 40 mg of pantoprazole （n = 69）, 40 mg of esomeprazole （n = 68） once a day in the morning. Daily changes in heartburn and acid reflux symptoms in the first 7 d of administration were assessed using a six-point scale （0： none; 1： mild; 2： mild-moderate; 3： moderate; 4： moderate-severe; 5： severe）. RESULTS： The mean heartburn score in patients treated with esomeprazole more rapidly decreased than those receiving other PPI. Complete resolution of heartburn was also more rapid in patients treated with esomeprazole for 5 d compared with omeprazole （P = 0.0018, P = 0.0098, P = 0.0027, P = 0.0137, P = 0.0069, respectively）, lansoprazole （P = 0.0020, P = 0.0046, P = 0.0037, P = 0.0016, P = 0.0076, respectively）, and pantoprazole （P = 0.0006, P = 0.0005, P = 0.0009, P = 0.0031, P = 0.0119, respectively）. There were no significant differences between the four groups in the rate of endoscopic healing of reflux esophagitis at week 8. CONCLUSION： Esomeprazole may be more effective than omeprazole, lansoprazole, and pantoprazole for the rapid relief of heartburn symptoms and acid reflux symptoms in patients with reflux esophagitis.     

奥美拉唑、泮托拉唑、兰索拉唑和埃索美拉唑对反流性食管炎患者症状缓解的比较研究

目的比较奥美拉唑、泮托拉唑、兰索拉唑和埃索美拉唑对反流性食管炎患者症状缓解之间的差异。方法320例内镜诊断为反流性食管炎患者被随机分为4组,并分别服用奥美拉唑20mg,1次／d,8周;兰索拉唑30mg,1次／d,8周;泮托拉唑40mg,1次／d,8周;埃索美拉唑40mg,1次／d,8周。用six—point scale（0：无,1：轻度,2：轻度-中度,3：中度,4：中度-重度,5：重度）评价服用4种质子泵抑制剂后7天内的烧心和反流症状。结果埃索美拉唑组的平均烧心积分比其他质子泵抑制剂下降更迅速。埃索美拉唑组第1～5天的烧心症状完全消失率明显高于奥美拉唑组（P值分别为0．0054、0．0072、0．0089、0．0107、0．0134）、兰索拉唑组（P值分别为0．0043、0．0034、0．0044、0．0011、0．0052）、泮托拉唑组（P值分别为0．0156、0．0003、0．0005、0,0024、0．0172）。内镜下反流性食管炎愈合率4组之间无明显差异。结论埃索美拉唑比奥美拉唑、兰索拉唑、泮托拉唑更迅速地减轻反流性食管炎患者的烧心和反流症状。     

Symptom relief in patients with reflux esophagitis: comparative study of omeprazole, lansoprazole, and rabeprazole

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Rabeprazole has a faster onset of antisecretory activity than omeprazole and lansoprazole. The aim of the present study was to clarify whether there is any difference in the speed of symptom relief in patients with reflux esophagitis following the administration of these three proton pump inhibitors (PPI). METHODS: Eighty-five patients with erosive reflux esophagitis were randomized to receive 8 weeks of 20 mg of omeprazole (n = 30), 30 mg of lansoprazole (n = 25), or 20 mg of rabeprazole (n = 30) once a morning. Daily changes in heartburn and acid reflux symptoms in the first 7 days of administration were assessed using a six-point scale (0: none, 1: mild, 2: mild-moderate, 3: moderate, 4: moderate-severe, 5: severe). RESULTS: The mean heartburn score in patients administered rabeprazole decreased more rapidly than those given the other PPI. Complete heartburn remission also occurred more rapidly in patients administered rabeprazole (compared with omeprazole: P = 0.035, compared with lansoprazole: P = 0.038 by log-rank test). No differences were seen in the rate of endoscopic healing of reflux esophagitis at 8 weeks between the three treatment regimens. CONCLUSION: Rabeprazole may be more effective than omeprazole and lansoprazole for the rapid relief of heartburn symptoms in patients with reflux esophagitis.     

A double-blind,randomized comparison of omeprazole Multiple Unit Pellet System (MUPS) 20 mg,lansoprazole 30 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg in symptomatic reflux oesophagitis followed by 3 months of omeprazole MUPS maintenance treatment: a Dutch multicentre trial

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have proved to be effective in treating reflux oesophagitis. Until now, no study had compared the PPIs omeprazole Multiple Unit Pellet System (MUPS), lansoprazole and pantoprazole in patients with reflux oesophagitis. AIM: To compare omeprazole MUPS 20 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg for treatment effect in symptomatic reflux oesophagitis. METHOD: Patients with grade I-IV symptomatic reflux oesophagitis were randomized to double-blind omeprazole 20 mg once morning, lansoprazole 30 mg o.m. or pantoprazole 40 mg o.m. Patient satisfaction and symptoms were evaluated after 4 and 8 weeks. Patients not satisfied after 8 weeks were treated for another 4 weeks with omeprazole 40 mg MUPS (open). Successful treatment was followed by 3 months' maintenance treatment with omeprazole MUPS 20 mg (patients satisfied after 4 or 8 weeks) or omeprazole MUPS 40 mg (patients satisfied after 12 weeks). RESULTS: On intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (n = 461) at 4 and 8 weeks, respectively, 84% and 87% (omeprazole MUPS), 78% and 81% (lansoprazole), and 84% and 89% (pantoprazole) were free of heartburn. Equivalence was found between omeprazole MUPS and pantoprazole (heartburn relief), but not with lansoprazole. Patient satisfaction after 4 and 8 weeks, respectively, was 79% and 89% (omeprazole MUPS), 76% and 86% (lansoprazole), and 79% and 91% (pantoprazole). Patient satisfaction was similar in all treatment groups. During maintenance, 87% in the omeprazole MUPS 20 mg group and 81% in the omeprazole MUPS 40 mg group were satisfied after 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Omeprazole MUPS 20 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg have equivalent efficacy in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis. Based on patient satisfaction, omeprazole MUPS 20 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg are equally effective.     

Oral pantoprazole for erosive esophagitis: a placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Pantoprazole US GERD Study Group

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this dose-response study was to compare the effectiveness of 10 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg of pantoprazole with that of placebo tablets in the healing and symptom relief of gastroesophageal reflux disease associated with erosive esophagitis, and to determine the optimal dose. METHODS: A total of 603 patients with endoscopically confirmed (Hetzel-Dent scale) erosive esophagitis of grade 2 (64.5%) or grades 3 or 4 (35.3%) were enrolled in a double-blind, multicenter study and randomly assigned to receive pantoprazole (10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg) or placebo, administered once daily in the morning, for 4 or 8 wk depending on healing. RESULTS: The healing rates after 4 wk for placebo and pantoprazole 10 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg/day were 14%, 42%, 55%, and 72%, respectively (p < 0.001 for all doses of pantoprazole vs placebo). Cumulative healing rates after 8 wk for placebo and pantoprazole 10 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg/day were 33%, 59%, 78%, and 88%, respectively (p < 0.001 for all doses of pantoprazole vs placebo). The 40-mg pantoprazole dose produced greater rates of healing and earlier healing of esophagitis than either the 10- or 20-mg dose, regardless of severity. Pantoprazole, at any dose, was significantly more effective than placebo in relieving reflux symptoms. Patients on pantoprazole 40 mg experienced relief of symptoms on day 1 of treatment. No serious treatment-related adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Pantoprazole was safe and effective for healing erosive esophagitis and provided rapid symptomatic relief. These results indicate that pantoprazole offers a new option for treatment of erosive esophagitis. Among the three doses studied, the 40-mg dose was the most effective.     

Effects of pantoprazole, a novel H+/K+-ATPase inhibitor, on duodenal ulcerogenic and healing responses in rats: a comparative study with omeprazole and lansoprazole

BACKGROUND: Pantoprazole, 2-[(2-pyridylmethyl) sulphinyl] benzimidazole, is a new substituted benzimidazole that inhibits the parietal cell H+/K+-ATPase. METHODS: In the present study, the anti-secretory and anti-ulcer activities of pantoprazole were compared with those of omeprazole and lansoprazole in rats. RESULTS: Pantoprazole (0.3-3 mg/kg, p.o.) as well as omeprazole (1-10 mg/kg, p.o.) and lansoprazole (1-10 mg/kg, p.o.) dose-dependently decreased both basal acid secretion in pylorus-ligated rats and the stimulated acid secretion induced by mepirizole in acute fistula rats, and the effects of pantoprazole were more potent than those of omeprazole and lansoprazole, the ED50 values for the stimulated acid secretion being 0.8, 2.0 and 1.2 mg/kg, respectively. Neither of these drugs had any effect on duodenal HCO3- secretion. These pump inhibitors prevented the development of duodenal lesions in response to mepirizole in a dose-related manner, the ED50 values for pantoprazole, omeprazole and lansoprazole being 0.4, 2.0 and 1.3 mg/kg, respectively. Likewise, pantoprazole showed the healing promoting action on chronic duodenal ulcers induced by acetic acid, and this effect was also more potent when compared to omeprazole or lansoprazole. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that pantoprazole exhibited both anti-ulcer and healing promoting effects on duodenal ulcers in rats, and the effects may be attributable to its potent anti-secretory action. Other pump inhibitors such as omeprazole and lansoprazole were almost equally effective as pantoprazole, yet this drug was most potent on the basis of ED50 values.     

Pantoprazole based therapies in Helicobacter pylori eradication: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To perform a systematic review on the efficacy of pantoprazole based therapies in Helicobacter pylori eradication, and to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of pantoprazole and other proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) when co-prescribed with antibiotics. METHODS: Studies evaluating pantoprazole combined with antibiotics were considered. Only randomized clinical trials comparing pantoprazole and other PPIs when co-prescribed with antibiotics, and differing only in the PPI (pantoprazole vs other), were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Bibliographical searches in several electronic databases, and manual search of abstracts from congresses, were conducted. The percentage (weighted mean) of patients with eradication success was calculated. Meta-analysis was performed combining the odds ratios (ORs) of the individual studies in a global OR. RESULTS: The mean eradication rate with pantoprazole plus clarithromycin for 14 days was 60%. Cure rates with 7 day pantoprazole based triple regimens were higher: pantoprazole, amoxicillin and clarithromycin (78%); pantoprazole, clarithromycin and nitroimidazole (84%); and pantoprazole, amoxicillin and nitroimidazole (74%). Twelve studies comparing pantoprazole and other PPIs were selected for the meta-analysis, including 534 and 603 patients, respectively. The mean eradication rate for H. pylori using pantoprazole plus antibiotics was 83%, and 81% when other PPIs were used (OR = 1; 95% confidence interval (CI) from 0.61 to 1.64). When sub-analysis was performed, including only studies comparing pantoprazole with omeprazole, or pantoprazole with lansoprazole, differences were also statistically non-significant. The meta-analysis of the six studies prescribing equivalent doses of all PPIs demonstrated similar results with pantoprazole and with other PPIs (OR = 1.07; 95% CI from 0.71 to 1.62), the results being statistically homogeneous. CONCLUSIONS: Pantoprazole achieves similar cure rates to those of omeprazole and lansoprazole when co-prescribed with antibiotics for the eradication of H. pylori infection.     

Pantoprazole versus lansoprazole in French patients with reflux esophagitis

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of pantoprazole 40 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg given for 4 to 8 weeks on endoscopic healing and symptom relief in grade II-III reflux esophagitis patients (according to Savary-Miller classification).METHODS: Four hundred and sixty one patients were included (pantoprazole n=226, lansoprazole n=235) in this prospective, randomized, multicenter double-blind study. Endoscopic control was performed at 4 weeks and at 8 weeks if esophagitis was not healed. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, the healing rates at 4 weeks were 81 and 80% in the pantoprazole and lansoprazole groups, respectively (NS), 90 and 86% at 8 weeks (NS). In the per-protocol analysis, the healing rates at 4 weeks were 86% in the 2 groups and at 8 weeks 97% in the pantoprazole group and 93% in the lansoprazole group (NS). The heartburn relief rates at day 14 were 88% and 86% in the pantoprazole and lansoprazole groups, respectively. Only esophagitis grade at entry was shown to be a predictive factor for healing at 4 weeks (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study showed that pantoprazole 40 mg once daily is as effective and well tolerated as lansoprazole 30 mg once daily in the treatment of grade II-III acute reflux esophagitis.     

Gastric acid control with esomeprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole: a five-way crossover study

OBJECTIVES: Proton pump inhibitors owe their clinical efficacy to their ability to suppress gastric acid production. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare intragastric pH following standard doses of esomeprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole and rabeprazole. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, comparative five-way crossover study evaluated the 24-h intragastric pH profile of oral esomeprazole 40 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg, omeprazole 20 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg, and rabeprazole 20 mg once daily in 34 Helicobacter pylori-negative patients aged 18-60 yr with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Patients were randomly assigned to one of five treatment sequences and study drug was taken on 5 consecutive mornings 30 minutes prior to a standardized breakfast. A washout period of at least 10 days separated each treatment phase. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients provided evaluable data for all five comparators. The mean number of hours of evaluable pH data was > or =23.75 hours. On day 5, intragastric pH was maintained above 4.0 for a mean of 14.0 h with esomeprazole, 12.1 h with rabeprazole, 11.8 h with omeprazole, 11.5 h with lansoprazole, and 10.1 h with pantoprazole (p < or = 0.001 for differences between esomeprazole and all other comparators). Esomeprazole also provided a significantly higher percentage of patients with an intragastric pH greater than 4.0 for more than 12 h relative to the other proton pump inhibitors (p < 0.05). The frequency of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole at the standard dose of 40 mg once daily provided more effective control of gastric acid at steady state than standard doses of lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole in patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease.     

Negative chronotropic effect of proton pump inhibitors on frog-heart preparation

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been known to cause bradycardia. We evaluated the effect of three PPIs, i.e. omeprazole, rabeprazole and pantoprazole on the heart rate of frog. The in situ frog heart preparation was set up. Heart rate and amplitude of contraction were studied following administration of different doses of the three PPIs. Statistical analysis was done by using Graphpad statistical software system. After 1 mg of omeprazole and rabeprazole, and 2 mg pantoprazole, the heart rate was similar as compared to baseline (p >0.05). After 2 mg of omeprazole and rabeprazole, and 4 mg pantoprazole, the reduction in heart rate was significant (p <0.05). In addition, pantoprazole caused negative ionotropic effect. The three PPIs showed a dose-dependent negative chronotropic effect in the frog heart prepration.     

Randomized open trial for comparison of proton pump inhibitors in triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection in relation to CYP2C19 genotype

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Genetic polymorphism of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 influences the efficacy of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and amoxicillin. However, in triple therapy (PPI plus amoxicillin and clarithromycin), little is known about the impact of CYP2C19 polymorphism, or the use of rabeprazole, which is not well metabolized by CYP2C19. The efficacy of three PPI (omeprazole, lansoprazole, and rabeprazole) in a 1-week triple regimen were compared in relation to CYP2C19 polymorphism. METHOD: One hundred and eighty-three patients were randomized to receive one of the following regimens: amoxicillin 500 mg t.i.d., clarithromycin 200 mg t.i.d., and PPI (omeprazole 20 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg, or rabeprazole 10 mg) b.i.d. CYP2C19 polymorphism was analyzed by PCR restriction fragment length polymorphism. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat-based overall cure rates for omeprazole, lansoprazole or rabeprazole regimens were 83.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 69-89%), 86.7% (CI: 75-93%), and 76.6% (CI: 64-85%), respectively, without significant difference. The cure rate of the rabeprazole regimen (but not the lansoprazole or omeprazole regimens) tended to be correlated with CYP2C19 genotypes (P = 0.076). In patients with a homozygous extensive metabolizer genotype, the per protocol-based cure rate with rabeprazole (62.5%) was significantly lower than that with lansoprazole (90.0%; P = 0.038). CONCLUSION: The overall cure rate of 1-week triple therapy for H. pylori eradication was not significantly different between regimens with omeprazole, lansoprazole or rabeprazole, but the impact of CYP2C19 genetic polymorphism on the cure rate appeared to differ between these PPI.     

A randomized, prospective, comparative, multicenter study of rabeprazole and ranitidine in the treatment of reflux esophagitis]

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study was done to evaluate the efficacy of rabeprazole (proton-pump-inhibitor) and ranitidine (H(2)-receptor antagonist) in the symptom relief and treatment of erosive esophagitis diagnosed by endoscopy. METHODS: A total of 110 patients with typical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms were enrolled in this multicenter study. They were randomized into rabeprazole group (53 patients) and ranitidine group (57 patients) respectively. The patients in rabeprazole group were given 10 mg of rabeprazole and ranitidine group received 300 mg of ranitidine before breakfast and dinner for 8 weeks. After the end of treatment, we evaluated the endoscopic healing rate of reflux esophagitis and symptomatic improvement. RESULTS: After 8 weeks of treatment, rabeprazole group showed significantly higher complete endoscopic cure rate than ranitidine group (86.8% [46/53] vs. 57.9% [33/57], p=0.001) and higher symptomatic improvement of heartburn (91.2% [31/34] vs. 76.2% [32/42], p=0.085), especially in the first 7 days (76.7% vs. 45.3%, p=0.008). Also, rabeprazole group showed significantly higher improvement of regurgitation symptom than ranitidine group (100% [35/35] vs. 83% [39/47], p=0.009). Both group showed no differences in the improvement of chest pain and globus sensation. All the adverse events (rabeprazole group 4 events vs. ranitidine group 3 events) were mild and there was no abnormality in laboratory test. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GERD, rabeprazole 10 mg b.i.d. is superior to ranitidine 300 mg b.i.d. in healing of reflux esophagitis and resolving typical GERD symptoms. Rabeprazole is an effective and well-tolerated drug for GERD treatment.     

Esomeprazole (40 mg) compared with lansoprazole (30 mg) in the treatment of erosive esophagitis

OBJECTIVES: Esomeprazole, the S isomer of omeprazole, has been shown to have higher healing rates of erosive esophagitis than omeprazole. This study compared esomeprazole with lansoprazole for the healing of erosive esophagitis and resolution of heartburn. METHODS: This United States multicenter, randomized, double blind, parallel group trial was performed in 5241 adult patients (intent-to-treat population) with endoscopically documented erosive esophagitis, which was graded by severity at baseline (Los Angeles classification). Patients received 40 mg of esomeprazole (n = 2624) or 30 mg of lansoprazole (n = 2617) once daily before breakfast for up to 8 wk. The primary efficacy endpoint was healing of erosive esophagitis at week 8. Secondary assessments included proportion of patients healed at week 4, resolution of investigator-recorded heartburn, time to first and time to sustained resolution of patient diary-recorded heartburn, and proportion of heartburn-free days and nights. RESULTS: Esomeprazole (40 mg) demonstrated significantly higher healing rates (92.6%, 95% CI = 91.5-93.6%) than lansoprazole (30 mg) (88.8%, 95% CI = 87.5-90.0%) at week 8 (p = 0.0001, life-table estimates, intent-to-treat analysis). A significant difference in healing rates favoring esomeprazole was also observed at week 4. The difference in healing rates between esomeprazole and lansoprazole increased as baseline severity of erosive esophagitis increased. Sustained resolution of heartburn occurred faster and in more patients treated with esomeprazole. Sustained resolution of nocturnal heartburn also occurred faster with esomeprazole. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole (40 mg) is more effective than lansoprazole (30 mg) in healing erosive esophagitis and resolving heartburn. Healing rates are consistently high with esomeprazole, irrespective of baseline disease severity.     

国产泮托拉唑治疗非甾体消炎药相关性溃疡出血的疗效分析

目的 比较泮托拉唑(商品名:泮立苏)与奥美拉唑(商品名:洛赛克)治疗非甾体消炎药相关消化性溃疡伴出血的疗效、不良反应及成本-效果比.方法 选择符合非甾体消炎药相关性溃疡伴出血诊断标准的住院患者58例,按随机数字表分为泮托拉唑组(31例)和奥美拉唑组(27例).泮托拉唑组予以国产泮托拉唑40 mg加入0.9%氯化钠溶液100 ml中静脉滴注,每12小时1次;奥美拉唑组予以进口奥美拉唑40 mg加入0.9%氯化钠溶液100 ml中静脉滴注,每12小时1次,两组疗程均为7 d.观察两组疗效及不良反应,并运用药物经济学方法分析二者成本-效果比.结果 泮托拉唑组总有效率为93.5%,奥美拉唑组总有效率为96.3%,两组药物均能有效止血,差异无统计学意义(P=1.00);两组不良反应发生率分别为3.2%和7.4%;成本-效果比(C/E)分别为7.76、20.73;奥美拉唑相对于泮托拉唑的增量成本-效果比(△C/△E)为454.结论 国产泮托拉唑是治疗非甾体消炎药相关性溃疡出血有效、安全、经济的药物.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the efficacy, adverse reactions and cost-effectiveness between domestic pantoprazole (Pan Li Su) and imported omeprazole (Losec) in the treatment of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) associated ulcer bleeding.Methods Fifty-eight hospitalized patients with NSAID associated ulcer bleeding were randomly divided into pantoprazole group (n=31)and omeprazole group (n= 27) according to random number table.Pantoprazole group was given 40 mg domestic pantoprazole dissolved 100 ml 0.9% sodium chloride solution intravenously every 12 hours.Omeprazde group was given 40 mg omeprazole dissolved in 100 ml 0.9% sodium chloride solution intravenously every 12 hours.The two groups were both treated for seven days.Finally, the efficacy and adverse effect were observed, and cost-effectiveness was analyzed with pharmacoeconomics.Results The total effective rate of pantoprazole group was 93.5%, omeprazole group was 96.3% .The drugs of the two groups could effectively stop bleeding, the difference was not statistically significant (P= 1.00).The rate of adverse effect was 3.2 % and 7.4 % in the two groups accordingly.The cost-effectiveness ratio (C/E) was 7.76 and 20.73 respectively.Compared with pantoprazole group, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of omeprazole group was 454.Conclusions Domesic pantoprazole is an effective, safety and economical medicine for NSAID associated ulcer bleeding.     

Restoration of acid secretion following treatment with proton pump inhibitors

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are covalent inhibitors of the gastric H+,K+-adenosine triphosphatase (ATPase) forming disulfide bonds. Recovery of acid secretion after PPI inhibition may be due to de novo synthesis of pump protein and/or disulfide reduction and reactivation of inhibited pump. The half-time of recovery of acid secretion in rats following omeprazole treatment is approximately 15 hours, whereas pump protein half-life is 54 hours. In humans, the half-life of the inhibitory effect on acid secretion is approximately 28 hours for omeprazole and approximately 46 hours for pantoprazole. Whereas all PPIs bind to cysteine 813, pantoprazole additionally binds to cysteine 822, deeper in the membrane domain of TM6. Their different durations of action may reflect different rates of pump reactivation due to differing accessibility of the disulfides to glutathione. METHODS: Rats were stimulated and treated with 30 mg/kg of each PPI. Gastric ATPase was prepared and reversal of inhibition of the H+,K+-ATPase was measured as the time-dependent restoration of activity by incubation with dithiothreitol or glutathione. RESULTS: One hundred percent reactivation of ATPase following inhibition in vivo by omeprazole or its enantiomers was seen with dithiothreitol and 89% with glutathione. Similar data were found for lansoprazole or rabeprazole. No reactivation by either reducing agent was seen following inhibition by pantoprazole. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery of acid secretion following inhibition by all PPIs, other than pantoprazole, may depend on both protein turnover and reversal of the inhibitory disulfide bond. In contrast, recovery of acid secretion after pantoprazole may depend entirely on new protein synthesis.     

不同质子泵抑制剂三联治疗幽门螺杆菌阳性糜烂性胃炎的疗效差异

目的 比较不同质子泵抑制剂(PPI)和抗生素三联疗法治疗幽门螺杆菌(Hp)阳性糜烂性胃炎的疗效差异.方法 将Hp阳性糜烂性胃炎545例随机给予奥美拉唑、埃索美拉唑、泮托拉唑、兰索拉唑或雷贝拉唑联合阿莫西林与克拉霉素三联疗法治疗7d,比较各组疗效差异.结果 埃索美拉唑组在缓解症状、改善胃镜下表现方面显著高于其它各组,雷贝...     

Pantoprazole versus omeprazole: influence on meal-stimulated gastric acid secretion

AIMS: To determine the influence of recommended therapeutic doses of pantoprazole and omeprazole on meal-stimulated acid secretion. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-period crossover study, 12 healthy male volunteers received 40 mg pantoprazole od, 20 mg omeprazole od or placebo at 08:00 h for 5 days in a randomized order. Meal-stimulated acid secretion was determined by means of a homogenized test meal, and intragastric titration on day 1, 4-6 h, 8-10 h, 16-18 h, and 24-26 h, and on days 3 and 5, 4-6 h after oral drug administration. RESULTS: On day 1 (4-6 h after oral drug administration), meal-stimulated acid secretion was decreased by 36% and 24% after administration of 40 mg pantoprazole or 20 mg omeprazole, respectively. After 3 and 5 days of dosing, the decreases were 88% and 85% with 40 mg pantoprazole, and 70% and 74% with 20 mg omeprazole. At all measuring points during the 5-day dosing periods, 40 mg pantoprazole proved superior to 20 mg omeprazole in inhibiting meal-stimulated gastric acid secretion. The differences were statistically significant for pantoprazole on day 1, 24-26 h after oral drug administration and on day 3 (P = 0.0425 and P = 0.0244, respectively). On day 1, only pantoprazole was significantly better than placebo (P = 0.0210, 4-6 h after dosing; P = 0.0093, 8-10 h after dosing and P = 0.0068, 16-18 h after dosing). CONCLUSION: Pantoprazole 40 mg is significantly more effective than omeprazole 20 mg in inhibiting meal-stimulated acid secretion. In addition, pantoprazole exhibits a more rapid onset of action.     

Symptom relief in gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized, controlled comparison of pantoprazole and nizatidine in a mixed patient population with erosive esophagitis or endoscopy-negative reflux disease.

OBJECTIVES: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in primary care practice presents symptomatically, and resources to distinguish promptly between erosive esophagitis and endoscopy-negative reflux disease (ENRD) are limited. It is therefore important to determine the roles of proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2-receptor antagonists for first-line symptom-based therapy in patients with erosive esophagitis and ENRD. The aim of this study was to compare pantoprazole 40 mg once daily versus nizatidine 150 mg b.i.d. in a mixed GERD patient population with ENRD or erosive esophagitis (Savary-Miller grades 1-3). METHODS: A 4-wk randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study conducted in Canada. Eligible patients had experienced GERD symptoms > or = 4 times weekly for > 6 months. Patients were randomized to pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or nizatidine 150 mg b.i.d.. Endoscopy was performed before randomization and after 4 wk of therapy. RESULTS: Of 220 patients randomized to therapy, 208 were available for a modified intent-to-treat analysis. Erosive esophagitis was present in 125 patients; 35 patients were Helicobacter pylori positive. There was complete symptom relief after 7 days of therapy in 14% of patients on nizatidine and in 40% of those on pantoprazole (p < 0.0001), and after 28 days of treatment in 36% and 63% of patients, respectively (p < 0.0001). After 28 days of treatment, adequate heartburn control was reported by 58% of the nizatidine group and in 88% of the pantoprazole (p < 0.0001); erosive esophagitis healing rates were 44% for nizatidine and 79% for pantoprazole (p < 0.001). Rescue antacid was needed by a greater number of patients using nizatidine than of those using pantoprazole (p < 0.001). H. pylori infection was associated with an increased probability of erosive esophagitis healing. CONCLUSIONS: Pantoprazole once daily was superior to nizatidine b.i.d. in producing complete heartburn relief in a mixed population of GERD patients and in achieving erosion healing. The proportions of patients with complete symptom relief were greater with pantoprazole after 7 days of therapy than with nizatidine after 28 days. The present study data suggest that pantoprazole is a highly effective first-line therapy for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in a primary care practice setting.     

Comparison of efficacy of pantoprazole alone versus pantoprazole plus mosapride in therapy of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized trial

The present study aimed to compare the efficacy for the therapy of GERD of pantoprazole alone with a combination of pantoprazole and mosapride. The study was a prospective, randomized trial involving 68 patients suffering heartburn and/or regurgitation at least twice a week for 6 weeks. Sixty-one patients consented to be randomized to receive either pantoprazole 40 mg b.i.d. (n = 33, group A) or pantoprazole 40 mg b.i.d. plus mosapride 5 mg t.d.s. (n = 28, group B) for 8 weeks. Twenty-four-hour esophageal pH-metry and endoscopy were conducted at recruitment and endoscopy was repeated at 8 weeks in all the patients studied. There were no differences in symptomatic responses to therapy between the groups (69.7% vs 89.2%; P = 0.11). The mean symptom score after 8 weeks was significantly lower in group B (3.78 +/- 3.62 vs 1.67 +/- 2.09; P = 0.009). Nonerosive esophagitis was present in 29 patients. In patients with nonerosive GERD there was no significant difference in symptomatic response to either regimen (17/20 in group A and 7/9 in group B responded; P = 0.63). In erosive esophagitis, symptomatic responses occurred more frequently in group B, 18/19 (94.7%), than in group A, 6/13 (46.2%; P = 0.003). However endoscopic healing of esophagitis occurred equally with either regimen (6/11, 54.5% in group A; 12/17, 70.5% in group B; P = 0.44). In nonerosive GERD, the addition of mosapride offers no benefit over pantoprazole alone. A combination of pantoprazole and mosapride is more effective than pantoprazole alone in providing symptomatic relief to patients with erosive GERD.     

Prevention of NSAID-associated gastrointestinal lesions: a comparison study pantoprazole versus omeprazole

AIM: To investigate tolerability and efficacy of pantoprazole 20 mg, once daily (o.d.), pantoprazole 40 mg o.d., and omeprazole 20 mg o.d., in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug(s) (NSAIDs). METHODS: Included in this randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group study were rheumatic patients (>55 yr) on continual NSAIDs and with at least one more recognized risk factor that contributes to the development of gastrointestinal (GI) injury. Study duration was 6 months, and the treatment consisted of pantoprazole 20 mg o.d. (N = 196), pantoprazole 40 mg o.d. (N = 199), or omeprazole 20 mg o.d. (N = 200). Patients took NSAID(s) (except COX-2 inhibitors), had no more than five erosions/petechiae in the upper GI tract, no current peptic ulcers or reflux esophagitis, and had at most moderate intensity GI symptoms. Endoscopy was performed at baseline, 3, and 6 months. The primary end points were lack of "therapeutic failure" and lack of "endoscopic failure" at 6 months. RESULTS: After 6 months, the probabilities to remain in remission were 90% pantoprazole 20 mg o.d., 93% pantoprazole 40 mg o.d., and 89% omeprazole 20 mg o.d. for lack of "therapeutic failure;" 91% pantoprazole 20 mg o.d., 95% pantoprazole 40 mg o.d., and 93% omeprazole 20 mg o.d. for lack of "endoscopic failure." CONCLUSIONS: For patients taking NSAIDs continually, pantoprazole 20 mg o.d., pantoprazole 40 mg o.d., or omeprazole 20 mg o.d. provide equivalent, effective, and well-tolerated prophylaxis against GI lesions, including peptic ulcers.