Maintenance of healed erosive esophagitis: a randomized six-month comparison of esomeprazole twenty milligrams with lansoprazole fifteen milligrams.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim was to compare esomeprazole with lansoprazole for the maintenance of healed erosive esophagitis and resolution of gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms in a United States population. METHODS: Patients who entered this double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter, maintenance trial had been treated and healed (no endoscopic evidence of erosive esophagitis) with esomeprazole 40 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg once daily (patients with Los Angeles grades C and D erosive esophagitis at baseline) or esomeprazole 40 mg (patients with Los Angeles grades A and B erosive esophagitis at baseline) and had no heartburn or acid regurgitation symptoms during the previous week. Patients were randomized to maintenance once-daily therapy with esomeprazole 20 mg (n = 512) or lansoprazole 15 mg (n = 514) for up to 6 months. Esophago-gastroduodenoscopies were done at months 3 and 6, and investigators assessed symptom severity at months 1, 3, and 6. Endoscopic/symptomatic remission was defined as no erosive esophagitis and no study withdrawal as a result of reflux symptoms. RESULTS: The estimated endoscopic/symptomatic remission rate during a period of 6 months was significantly higher (P = .0007) for patients who received esomeprazole 20 mg once daily (84.8%) compared with those who received lansoprazole 15 mg (75.9%). Most patients had no heartburn (383/462 and 369/466) or acid regurgitation (401/462 and 400/466) symptoms at 6 months, and there were no significant differences between treatments. Both treatments were well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: Esomeprazole 20 mg is more effective than lansoprazole 15 mg in maintaining endoscopic/symptomatic remission in patients with healed erosive esophagitis.     

Omeprazole 10 mg or 20 mg once daily in the prevention of recurrence of reflux oesophagitis. Solo Investigator Group.

This study determined the optimal maintenance dose of omeprazole in reflux oesophagitis. One hundred and ninety three patients rendered asymptomatic and healed after four or eight weeks omeprazole were randomised double blind to 10 mg omeprazole once daily (n = 60 evaluable), 20 mg omeprazole once daily (n = 68), or placebo (n = 62) for one year or until symptomatic relapse. Each omeprazole regimen was superior to placebo in preventing both symptomatic relapse (life table analysis, p < 0.001) and endoscopically verified relapse (p < 0.001). At 12 months, the life table endoscopic remission rates (proportions of patients without grade > or = 2 oesophagitis) were: 50% (95% confidence intervals 34 to 66%) with 10 mg omeprazole once daily, 74% (62 to 86%) with 20 mg omeprazole once daily, and 14% (2 to 26%) with placebo. At 12 months, the life table symptomatic remission rates (proportions of patients asymptomatic or with mild symptoms) were: 77% (64 to 89%) with 10 mg omeprazole once daily, 83% (73 to 93%) with 20 mg omeprazole once daily, and 34% (16 to 52%) with placebo. Both 10 mg and 20 mg omeprazole once daily were effective in prolonging the remission of reflux oesophagitis: 10 mg may be appropriate to start longterm treatment, though the existence of a dose response relation means that 20 mg once daily may be effective in patients for whom 10 mg once daily is suboptimal.     

Pantoprazole 20 mg is an effective maintenance therapy for patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of 20 mg with 40 mg pantoprazole in maintaining symptomatic and endoscopic remission in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). STUDY DESIGN: Patients (18-84 years old; n = 433) with healed GORD II or III were included in this prospective multi-centre, randomized, parallel, double-blind study. Pantoprazole was administered once daily for up to 1 year as either a 20 mg or 40 mg enteric-coated tablet to 221 and 212 patients, respectively. Symptoms of GORD were assessed every 3 months. Endoscopy was performed at entry, after 6 and 12 months, or when symptoms of GORD were perceived on at least three consecutive days. The primary efficacy parameter was the time until endoscopically proven relapse of GORD occurred (stage I or greater); the secondary parameters included tolerability, safety, and time until symptomatic relapse occurred. RESULTS: In the 20 mg treatment group, 87% and 75% of patients were in endoscopic remission after 6 and 12 months, respectively; the corresponding rates in the 40 mg treatment group were 91% and 78%. In both treatment groups, GORD stage I accounted for about 50% of endoscopic relapses. The symptomatic remission rates in the 20 mg group were estimated as 85% and 77% after 6 and 12 months, respectively; the corresponding values in the 40 mg group were 87% and 76%. No correlation was seen either between the endoscopically proven relapse and perception of symptoms, or between the severity of the pre-treatment stage of GORD and the maintenance dose of pantoprazole. Both doses were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Both the 20 mg and 40 mg doses of pantoprazole are safe and effective in maintaining patients with healed reflux oesophagitis in remission. Moreover, for the majority of patients, the 20 mg dose provides adequate long-term therapeutic efficacy at a minimal drug exposure and lower costs.     

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.     

On-demand therapy with pantoprazole 20 mg as effective long-term management of reflux disease in patients with mild GERD: the ORION trial

AIMS: To compare safety and efficacy of on-demand pantoprazole 20 mg/40 mg versus placebo in the long-term management of patients with mild gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) after heartburn relief. METHODS: A total of 634 patients with endoscopically confirmed GERD grade 0/I and heartburn were included. During the acute phase, patients were treated with pantoprazole 20 mg once daily for 4 weeks. Those patients relieved from heartburn entered the long-term phase, and were randomly assigned to either treatment group pantoprazole 20 mg, 40 mg or placebo. Over 6 months, patients took study medication on demand (antacids as rescue medication) and discontinued the drug once symptoms abated. RESULTS: After 4 weeks a total of 87.1%/90.0% of patients were free of heartburn (ITT/PP), and entered the subsequent long-term phase. The perceived average daily symptom load (placebo: 3.93, pantoprazole 20 mg: 2.91, pantoprazole 40 mg: 2.71, ITT) and the number of antacid tablets taken (average number, placebo: 0.68, pantoprazole 20 mg: 0.45, pantoprazole 40 mg: 0.33, ITT) were significantly higher in the placebo than in both pantoprazole groups (p<0.0001), with no statistically significant difference between the two pantoprazole groups. The discontinuation rate due to insufficient control of heartburn was significantly lower in both pantoprazole groups compared to placebo (placebo: 10.9, pantoprazole 20 mg: 2.8, pantoprazole 40 mg: 0.9, ITT). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings favor on-demand treatment with pantoprazole 20 mg for the long-term management of heartburn in patients with uncomplicated GERD (grade 0/I) with superiority to placebo.     

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.     

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.     

Ten mg dexrabeprazole daily is as effective as 20 mg dexrabeprazole daily

Ten mg dexrabeprazole daily has been shown to be more effective than 20 mg rabeprazole daily against gastroesophageal reflux disease （GERD）. This report shows that the efficacy of 10 mg dexrabeprazole daily is equivalent to that of 20 mg dexrabeprazole daily against GERD. This implies that a dose of 10 mg dexrabeprazole is sufficient to block the maximum amount of proton pumps without any need to double the dose as suggested with rabeprazole.     

Esomeprazole once daily for 6 months is effective therapy for maintaining healed erosive esophagitis and for controlling gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy and safety

OBJECTIVE: Esomeprazole, the S-isomer of omeprazole, achieves a significantly greater healing rate and symptom resolution of erosive esophagitis than that achieved by omeprazole. The objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of the new proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole in preventing relapse over a prolonged period in patients with healed erosive esophagitis. METHODS: A total of 318 gastroesophageal reflux patients whose erosive esophagitis was healed in a comparative study of esomeprazole 40 mg, 20 mg, or omeprazole 20 mg, were randomized to maintenance therapy with once daily esomeprazole 40 mg, 20 mg, or 10 mg, or placebo in a U.S., double-blind multicenter trial. RESULTS: After 6 months, healing was maintained (cumulative life table rates) in 93.6% (95% CI 87.4-99.7) of patients treated with esomeprazole 40 mg, 93.2% (95% CI 87.4-99.0) treated with esomeprazole 20 mg, and 57.1% (95% CI 45.2-69) treated with esomeprazole 10 mg; p < 0.001 vs placebo (29.1%; 95% CI 17.7-40.3). Of patients relapsing, mean time to first recurrence of esophagitis increased with dose, from 34 days (placebo) to 78 days (10 mg), 115 days (20 mg), and 163 days (40 mg). Patients treated with esomeprazole had less frequent and less severe heartburn than those treated with placebo. At month 6, more than 70% of patients being treated with esomeprazole remained symptom-free. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole is effective and well tolerated in the maintenance of a healing erosive esophagitis. Esomeprazole 40 mg and 20 mg maintain healing in over 90% of patients while providing effective control of heartburn symptoms.     

Maintenance therapy for erosive esophagitis in children after healing by omeprazole: is it advisable?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of acid-suppressive maintenance therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in children, after the healing of reflux esophagitis. METHODS: Forty-eight children (median age 105 months, range 32-170) with erosive reflux esophagitis were initially treated with omeprazole 1.4 mg/kg/day for 3 months. Patients in endoscopic remission were assigned in a randomized, blinded manner by means of a computer-generated list to three groups of 6-month maintenance treatment: group A (omeprazole at half the starting dose, once daily before breakfast), group B (ranitidine 10 mg/kg/day, divided in two doses), and group C (no treatment). Endoscopic, histological, and symptomatic scores were evaluated at: T0, enrollment; T1, assessment for remission at 3 months after enrollment (healing phase); T2, assessment for effective maintenance at 12 months after T0 (3 months after the completion of the maintenance phase). Relapse was defined as the recurrence of macroscopic esophageal lesions. After the completion of the maintenance phase, patients without macroscopic esophagitis relapse were followed up for GERD symptoms for a further period of 30 months. RESULTS: Of 48 initially treated patients, 46 (94%) healed and entered the maintenance study. For all patients, in comparison to T0, the histological, endoscopic, and symptomatic scores were significantly reduced both at T1 and T2 (P<0.0001, for each). No significant difference was found in these three scores, comparing group A, B, and C at T1 and T2. A relapse occurred in one patient only, who presented with macroscopic esophageal lesions at T2. Three months after the completion of the maintenance phase, 12 (26%) patients complained of symptoms sufficiently mild to discontinue GERD therapy, excluding the patient who showed macroscopic esophagitis relapse. Three of 44 (6.8%) patients reported very mild GERD symptoms within a period of 30 months after maintenance discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Our pediatric population showed a low rate of erosive esophagitis relapse and GERD symptom recurrence long term after healing with omeprazole, irrespective of the maintenance therapy.     

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

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors are the most potent pharmacologic inhibitors of gastric acid secretion currently available, and have proven effective in the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The object of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a new proton pump inhibitor, rabeprazole at two different dosages, with that of omeprazole in the healing of erosive GERD. METHODS: Rabeprazole 20 mg once daily (QD) and 10 mg twice daily (BID) were compared with omeprazole 20 mg QD in a double-blind, multicentre, parallel group study involving 310 patients with erosive GERD. The primary efficacy endpoint was oesophageal mucosal healing determined by endoscopy. Secondary endpoints included reduction in symptoms and improvements in quality-of-life scores. RESULTS: The healing rates between both rabeprazole groups and the omeprazole group were equivalent in both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat populations. In the per-protocol population, rabeprazole 20 mg was noted to have a numerical trend toward more rapid daytime heartburn relief. However, by 4 and 8 weeks of treatment, no significant differences were found between groups for secondary endpoints, adverse events, or laboratory abnormalities including elevation of serum gastrin levels. CONCLUSIONS: Rabeprazole 20 mg in two different dosing schedules is as effective as omeprazole 20 mg QD with regard to efficacy and tolerability in patients with erosive GERD.     

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 pantoprazole 20 mg to ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. in the treatment of mild gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND: Despite a high prevalence of mild gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), few studies investigated efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors in this indication. This randomized double-blind study compares pantoprazole to ranitidine in GERD 0 and I, i.e. reflux without esophagitis or with confined lesions only. METHODS: Patients received either pantoprazole 20 mg o.a.d. or ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. Outcome was assessed after 2 and 4 weeks. Primary criterion was relief of leading symptoms, i.e. heartburn, acid eructation and pain on swallowing, after 4 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: According to the per-protocol (PP) analysis, 69% (100/144) and 80% (115/144) of patients in the pantoprazole group were relieved of leading symptoms after 2 and 4 weeks, respectively. The rates in the ranitidine group were 47% (62/133) and 65% (86/133). Thus, superiority of pantoprazole could be proven. Quality-of-life parameters improved more in the pantoprazole group and patients' assessment of treatment was more favorable. Analysis for Helicobacter pylori status showed infection to lead to higher symptom relief rates. Both study medications were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Pantoprazole 20 mg demonstrated superior efficacy with faster relief of reflux symptoms and similar tolerability compared to ranitidine 150 mg in the treatment of mild GERD.     

Relapse prevention in reflux oesophagitis with regard to Helicobacter pylori status: a double-blind, randomized, multicentre trial to compare the efficacy of pantoprazole versus ranitidine

OBJECTIVE: To compare prospectively the effectiveness of 1 year's treatment with pantoprazole versus ranitidine in order to prevent relapse after initial cure of reflux oesophagitis. For the first time the influence of the initial Helicobacter pylori status on therapeutic results was also taken into account. METHODS: In order to cure reflux oesophagitis, 396 patients with Savary/Miller stage II or III reflux oesophagitis were treated with pantoprazole 40 mg once daily for 8 weeks. Those who were H. pylori positive (n = 140) were also given 1 week of eradication treatment with clarithromycin 2 x 250 mg daily, metronidazole 2 x 400 mg daily, and a further 40 mg pantoprazole daily. The 303 patients who were endoscopically cured after the 8-week period were randomized and treated with either pantoprazole 20 mg (n = 199) or ranitidine 150 mg (n = 104) daily in double-blind fashion. The primary objective was to assess the time to endoscopically proven recurrence of reflux oesophagitis. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, 66.3% (118/178) of the pantoprazole group and 34.0% (32/94) of the ranitidine group showed neither endoscopic nor clinical symptoms of relapse after the 1-year treatment period (P < 0.0001) (per-protocol populations: 70.3% [109/155] in the pantoprazole group and 39.4% [28/71] in the ranitidine group). In the pantoprazole group, the relapse rate in initially H. pylori-positive patients who underwent eradication was 30.9% (17/55) and in H. pylori-negative patients 29% (29/100). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with 20 mg pantoprazole daily to prevent relapse of reflux oesophagitis in H. pylori-negative patients is significantly more effective than 150 mg ranitidine daily. The initial H. pylori eradication treatment does not influence the outcome of the long-term treatment.     

Prevention of duodenal ulcer relapse with omeprazole 20 mg daily: A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Abstract We report the first double-blind, placebo-controlled study that assesses the efficacy and safety of omeprazole 20 mg daily in the maintenance treatment of duodenal ulcer. For the healing phase, 128 patients with endoscopically proven active duodenal ulcer and a history of three or more relapses during the 2 years prior to the study were treated until healing with omeprazole 40 mg daily for 2 and up to 8 weeks. One hundred and twenty-three patients whose ulcers were healed were randomized to receive omeprazole 20 mg daily (n = 60) or placebo (n = 63) for 12 months as maintenance treatment. Patients were interviewed at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months, and endoscopy was performed at 3, 6 and 12 months and whenever symptoms recurred. The healing rates of the 124 patients completing the healing phase were 84, 98 and 100% at 2, 4 and 8 weeks, respectively. During the maintenance phase, eight and four patients discontinued treatment from the omeprazole and placebo groups, respectively. The proportion of patients in remission in the omeprazole group and placebo group after 12 months were 94 and 9% respectively (life table estimates, P < 0.0001). No significant clinical or laboratory changes were observed in patients on therapy with omeprazole. Patients with a history of frequent relapses thus continued to have a very high relapse rate without prophylactic treatment. Omeprazole 20 mg daily was effective and safe in maintaining such patients in remission.     

Rabeprazole for the prevention of pathologic and symptomatic relapse of erosive or ulcerative gastroesophageal reflux disease. Rebeprazole Study Group

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effectiveness and safety profile of 10 and 20 mg of rabeprazole, a new proton pump inhibitor, once daily versus placebo in preventing endoscopic and symptomatic relapse for up to 1 yr among patients with healed erosive or ulcerative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: The 52-wk trial used a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group design in which 209 men and women were assigned to 10 or 20 mg of rabeprazole once daily in the morning or placebo. RESULTS: Both rabeprazole doses were significantly superior to placebo in preventing endoscopic relapse (p < 0.001), and 20 mg was significantly more effective than 10 mg (p < 0.04). Both doses were also significantly superior to placebo in reducing the frequency and severity of heartburn relapse (p < 0.001). When adjusted for differences in exposure to study medication, no significant differences were found in the incidence of adverse events. No clinically significant changes were found regarding clinical laboratory parameters, vital signs, electrocardiograms, ophthalmological evaluations, body weight, serum gastrin, and enterochromaffin-like cell histology. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily therapy with 10 or 20 mg of rabeprazole effectively prevents pathological and symptomatic GERD relapse. The 20-mg dose is significantly more effective than the 10-mg dose in preventing endoscopic recurrence. Treatment was well tolerated, and no clinically significant safety findings emerged. Our findings support rabeprazole's efficacy in preventing GERD recurrence with excellent tolerability and a short-term favorable safety profile.     

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.     

Efficacy of S-Pantoprazole 20?mg Compared with Pantoprazole 40?mg in the Treatment of Reflux Esophagitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind Comparative Trial

Background

S-isomer (S) pantoprazole is known to be more effective and less dependent on cytochrome 2C19 than R-isomer (R)-pantoprazole.

Aim

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of S-pantoprazole 20?mg versus pantoprazole 40?mg for treatment of reflux esophagitis.

Methods

This multi-center, double-blind, randomized trial enrolled patients with endoscopically documented reflux esophagitis. Patients were assigned to receive either 20?mg S-pantoprazole or 40?mg pantoprazole once daily for 4?weeks. Endoscopy and symptoms were assessed after 4?weeks of treatment. In patients whose reflux esophagitis was not resolved at 4?weeks, treatment was extended to 8?weeks and symptoms were reassessed. Heartburn, chest pain, acid regurgitation, globus, and overall symptoms were rated. The primary efficacy endpoint was healing of esophagitis, and secondary endpoints were symptomatic and endoscopic improvement.

Results

Sixty-seven patients in the S-pantoprazole group (52 male, mean age 51?years) and 62 in the pantoprazole group (61 male, mean age 50?years) were analyzed per protocol. The healing rate of reflux esophagitis was 85?% at 4?weeks and 94?% at 8?weeks in the S-pantoprazole group, which did not differ from those in the pantoprazole group (84 and 97?%, respectively). After treatment, individual and overall gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms and esophagitis improved compared with baseline inflammation in both groups. Intergroup differences in symptoms and endoscopic healing were not significant.

Conclusion

The efficacy and safety of 20?mg S-pantoprazole were comparable to those of 40?mg pantoprazole for treatment of reflux esophagitis and symptomatic improvement of GERD.     

Intra-oesophageal pH profiles and pharmacokinetics of pantoprazole and esomeprazole: a crossover study in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

AIM: To compare the effect of pantoprazole and esomeprazole on intra-oesophageal pH and investigate their pharmacokinetics in patients with symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). METHODS: Double-blind, randomized, two-period crossover study. Caucasian men with symptomatic GORD (n=48) were selected on the basis of clinical records of typical GORD symptoms, confirmed by a pathological reflux time (oesophageal pH<4 for > or =6% of the time). They received oral pantoprazole 40 mg once daily (od) or esomeprazole 40 mg od for seven days. Continuous 24 h oesophageal pH-metry was performed at baseline and day 7. Evaluations included: pre- and post-treatment differences in the percentage of time with pH<4.0 and <3.0 between baseline and day 7; area under the curve (AUC), Cmax, and T(1/2); point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CI) on days 1 and 7, calculated for ratios of the AUC and Cmax. RESULTS: Both drugs decreased the mean total number of reflux episodes and reduced the percentage of reflux time within 24 h to <3%. No pathological reflux was detectable after repeated administration of either drug. The 90% CI were within the predefined range at all time points; thus, equivalence of pantoprazole and esomeprazole was concluded. For pantoprazole, Cmax and AUC were unchanged on day 7 vs day 1, confirming its high and constant bioavailability. For esomeprazole, Cmax and AUC were increased on day 7 vs day 1 by 80% and 50%, respectively, indicating low initial bioavailability. No clinically relevant side effects were seen for either drug. CONCLUSION: Pantoprazole and esomeprazole have equivalent effect on oesophageal pH, since no pathological reflux was detected after treatment with either drug. For esomeprazole, the Cmax and AUC increased after multiple dosing; for pantoprazole the pharmacokinetics were predictable and independent of the number of administered doses.     

Gastroesophageal reflux disease. Acute and maintenance treatments with cimetidine

The comparative efficacy of a 12-week acute treatment with 800 and 1600 mg cimetidine daily and the effectiveness of a 400-mg single-dose maintenance treatment versus placebo lasting 6 months were studied in a double-blind fashion in 30 and 24 patients, respectively, with gastroesophageal reflux (GER) disease. Cimetidine in a dose of 800 or 1600 mg daily resulted in a significant symptomatic improvement and a decrease in the extent of endoscopic esophagitis. An improvement in the gastroesophageal sphincter function during treatment was suggested by a significant decrease in the frequency of reflux, as evaluated by isotope scintigraphy. No significant differences were found between the two doses of cimetidine. The overall initial improvement tended to be maintained during maintenance treatment, but no significant differences were found between cimetidine and placebo. The present study thus supports the use of 800 mg of cimetidine daily for short-term treatment of GER disease but provides no support for maintenance treatment with a low dose. The study further suggests that cimetidine treatment, by reducing the tendency to GER, may induce long-lasting remission of the disease.