High Dose Proton Pump Inhibitor Infusion Versus Bolus Injection for the Prevention of Bleeding After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: A high dose of continuous intravenous infusion of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is the standard treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding. The optimal dose for the prevention of bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is unclear. AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine whether stronger acid suppression more effectively prevents bleeding and high risk ulcer stigma (HRS) after gastric ESD. METHODS: A total of 273 patients who underwent ESD were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: the continuous infusion group and the bolus injection group. Second-look endoscopy was performed on the following day after ESD. The incidences and risk factors of HRS identified by second-look endoscopy and delayed bleeding were analyzed. RESULTS: There were no differences in the incidences of HRS and delayed bleeding between two treatment groups. The incidence of HRS was 15.8 % (43/273) and the gross morphology (flat or depressed) was identified as a significant factor associated with HRS. The incidence of delayed bleeding was 8.4 % (23/273) and the gross morphology (flat) and the presence of submucosal invasive cancer were identified as the associated risk factors for delayed bleeding. CONCLUSION: The incidences of delayed bleeding and HRS identified by second-look endoscopy were not affected by PPI infusion methods. Flat or depressed morphologic lesions and submucosal invasive cancer should be closely monitored.

Patterns of proton pump inhibitor utilization in gastroesophageal reflux disease and the effect of restrictions on reimbursement: a nationwide prescription database study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the drug utilization patterns for proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) prescriptions dispensed in periods with and without restrictions on reimbursement in a public healthcare system. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data on all PPI prescriptions dispensed for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was retrieved from the Norwegian Prescription Database (NorPD) from 1 January 2004 to 31 January 2008. PPI utilization patterns were studied in new and current users of PPI in periods affected and not affected by a change in prescription policy. RESULTS: The policy change resulted in 39% of esomeprazole patients discontinuing PPI therapy during a 12-month period while 23% discontinued PPI therapy during a period not affected by the policy change. The shift frequency to a different PPI was low, 5% and 7% respectively, during periods not affected by policy change. Despite a required shift in most esomeprazole patients, 64% still continued on esomeprazole. Among the 36% who shifted from esomeprazole to a different PPI, 25% subsequently shifted back to esomeprazole. In new PPI users, the proportion of esomeprazole users declined from 57% before to 20% after the introduction of the policy change. CONCLUSIONS: Despite GERD being a chronic disease in most patients, there was a high degree of alteration seen in the utilization patterns of PPIs. A high proportion discontinued PPI therapy indicating mild symptoms or remission. The switching between different PPIs was low indicating good efficacy and tolerability in most patients. The policy change was more effective in new PPI users compared with the mandated shift in ongoing esomeprazole users.

Possible etiology of improvements in both quality of life and overlapping gastroesophageal reflux disease by proton pump inhibitor treatment in a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms suggestive of functional dyspepsia (FD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) frequently overlap with those of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Despite the high prevalence of symptomatic overlap, the underlying etiology remains poorly defined. We assessed the correlation of symptomatic relief and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with healing of reflux esophagitis to further derive insights into the underlying etiology. METHODS: 626 patients with reflux esophagitis were enrolled into one of two treatment groups (classical healing concept or the complete remission concept) to investigate differences in treatment intensity. Patients were treated with pantoprazole until esophageal mucosal healing. Remission was followed for up to 6 months without treatment. Gastro-intestinal symptoms and HRQoL were analyzed using disease-specific, psychometrically validated patient-reported outcome instruments (ReQuest™, GERDyzer™). RESULTS: Symptomatic burden reflected by ReQuest™ substantially decreased from baseline to end of treatment by 83% and 88% in either treatment group, respectively. ReQuest™ scores significantly decreased in patients with or without heartburn and in those with symptoms suggestive of FD and IBS, indicating response of all symptom categories to treatment (p < 0.005). Therapy-associated relief of symptoms was paralleled by substantial gains in HRQoL, which continued to stabilize post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Pantoprazole is effective in relieving upper and lower gastro-intestinal symptoms overlapping with erosive esophagitis, and provides sustained improvement in HRQoL post-treatment. Our results propose a link between both healing of erosive esophagitis and the slower remission of upper and lower gastro-intestinal symptoms. Since the improvement observed is likely to be multifactorial, the possibility for an immune-mediated etiology and identification of putative susceptibility factors by genome-wide association study may provide focus for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00325676.

Reinitiating aspirin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in a patient post-aspirin-induced upper gastrointestinal bleed: a case report and review of literature.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a case of continued aspirin use for primary prevention of a cardiovascular event in a patient post-aspirin-induced upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleed and evaluate published evidence to determine whether reinitiating aspirin therapy for this patient was appropriate. CASE SUMMARY: A 65-year-old man had been taking chronic low-dose (81 mg/day) aspirin therapy since 2002 for primary prevention of a cardiovascular event. He developed an upper GI bleed with lowered hemoglobin (9 mg/dL) and hematocrit (26.3%) after concomitantly taking 2 doses of naproxen (220 mg each). An objective causality assessment with the Naranjo probability scale revealed a probable adverse reaction of an upper GI bleed associated with concomitant naproxen and aspirin use. No further naproxen was taken. Aspirin was discontinued and pantoprazole was started, with resolution of the bleeding. Aspirin was restarted 2.5 months after pantoprazole was initiated, and no further bleeding occurred. DISCUSSION: Upper GI bleeds associated with aspirin therapy are well described in the literature. The management of cardiovascular event prophylaxis after a GI bleed is often controversial; consensus in regard to the optimal method of management does not exist. We evaluated GI protection strategies for patients with a history of aspirin-induced GI bleeding requiring cardiovascular prophylaxis. We found that the benefit of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events needs to be carefully balanced with the risks associated with its use. The current literature supports that the best approach to prevent recurrent aspirin-induced GI bleeding is to administer a proton pump inhibitor with aspirin therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events needs to be carefully balanced with the risks associated with its use. Based on the current literature, the best approach to preventing recurrent aspirin-induced GI bleeds is to administer a proton pump inhibitor concomitantly with aspirin therapy.

Controlled trial of ligation plus vasoconstrictor versus proton pump inhibitor in the control of acute esophageal variceal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic therapy combined with vasoconstrictor was generally recommended to treat acute variceal bleeding. However, up to 30% of patients may still encounter treatment failure. OBJECTIVES: This trial was to evaluate the efficacy of combination with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) infusion in patients with acute variceal bleeding. METHODS: Cirrhotic patients presenting with acute esophageal variceal bleeding were rescued by emergency EVL. Soon after arresting of bleeding varices, eligible subjects were randomized to two groups. Vasoconstrictor group received either somatostatin or terlipressin infusion. PPI group received either omeprazole or pantoprazole. End points were initial hemostasis, very early rebleeding rate, and adverse events. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled in vasoconstrictor group and 58 patients in PPI group. Both groups were comparable in baseline data. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 98% in vasoconstrictor group and 100% in PPI group (P = 1.0). Very early rebleeding within 48-120 h occurred in one patient (2%) in vasoconstrictor group and one patient (2%) in the PPI group (P = 1.0). Treatment failure was 4% in vasoconstrictor group and 2% in PPI group (P = 0.95). Adverse events occurred in 33 patients (55%) in vasoconstrictor group and three patients (6%) in PPI group (P < 0.001). Two patients in vasoconstrictor group and one patient in PPI group encountered esophageal ulcer bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: After successful control of acute variceal bleeding by EVL, adjuvant therapy with PPI infusion was similar to combination with vasoconstrictor infusion in terms of initial hemostasis, very early rebleeding rate, and associated with fewer adverse events.

Problem based review: The patient with a pyrexia of unknown origin.

Pyrexia of unknown origin (PUO) is a frequent presentation to the Acute Medical Unit, and is a source of significant morbidity, both the psychological burden of an uncertain diagnosis and prognosis and untreated complications of the underlying pathology. We present a problem based review of the management of PUO, illustrated by a patient who recently presented to our unit with fever and systemic malaise after returning from abroad and in whom no cause could be found for more than two months. We describe a structured approach making use of complex modern techniques such as Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography (PET-CT) which ultimately provided the diagnosis for our patient.

14-day triple, 5-day concomitant, and 10-day sequential therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection in seven Latin American sites: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from Europe, Asia, and North America suggests that standard three-drug regimens of a proton-pump inhibitor plus amoxicillin and clarithromycin are significantly less effective for eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection than are 5-day concomitant and 10-day sequential four-drug regimens that include a nitroimidazole. These four-drug regimens also entail fewer antibiotic doses than do three-drug regimens and thus could be suitable for eradication programmes in low-resource settings. Few studies in Latin America have been done, where the burden of H pylori-associated diseases is high. We therefore did a randomised trial in Latin America comparing the effectiveness of four-drug regimens given concomitantly or sequentially with that of a standard 14-day regimen of triple therapy. METHODS: Between September, 2009, and June, 2010, we did a randomised trial of empiric 14-day triple, 5-day concomitant, and 10-day sequential therapies for H pylori in seven Latin American sites: Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Mexico (two sites). Participants aged 21-65 years who tested positive for H pylori by a urea breath test were randomly assigned by a central computer using a dynamic balancing procedure to: 14 days of lansoprazole, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin (standard therapy); 5 days of lansoprazole, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and metronidazole (concomitant therapy); or 5 days of lansoprazole and amoxicillin followed by 5 days of lansoprazole, clarithromycin, and metronidazole (sequential therapy). Eradication was assessed by urea breath test 6-8 weeks after randomisation. The trial was not masked. Our primary outcome was probablity of H pylori eradication. Our analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number NCT01061437. FINDINGS: 1463 participants aged 21-65 years were randomly allocated a treatment: 488 were treated with 14-day standard therapy, 489 with 5-day concomitant therapy, and 486 with 10-day sequential therapy. The probability of eradication with standard therapy was 82·2% (401 of 488), which was 8·6% higher (95% adjusted CI 2·6-14·5) than with concomitant therapy (73·6% [360 of 489]) and 5·6% higher (-0·04% to 11·6) than with sequential therapy (76·5% [372 of 486]). Neither four-drug regimen was significantly better than standard triple therapy in any of the seven sites. INTERPRETATION: Standard 14-day triple-drug therapy is preferable to 5-day concomitant or 10-day sequential four-drug regimens as empiric therapy for H pylori infection in diverse Latin American populations. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, US National Institutes of Health.

Effectiveness of three times daily lansoprazole/amoxicillin dual therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection in Korea.

AIM: We compared three times daily dual therapy with standard triple therapy for effectiveness and safety in H. pylori infection. METHODS: Two hundred and four H. pylori positive patients with peptic ulcer were randomly assigned to one of two regimens: (i) triple therapy with amoxicillin, clarithromycin and lansoprazole twice daily for 2 weeks or (ii) dual therapy with amoxicillin and lansoprazole three times daily for 2 weeks. The success of eradication was evaluated 4 to 5 weeks after completing treatment. RESULTS: The eradication rate was 82.8% in the triple therapy group and 78.4% in the dual therapy group by per protocol analysis. This difference was not significant (P= 0.573). Adverse events were more frequent in the triple therapy group than in the dual therapy group (P= 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Because dual therapy had fewer side effects than triple therapy and a similar eradication rate, dual therapy may provide an acceptable alternative first line therapy for H. pylori eradication in Korea.

Oral versus intravenous proton pump inhibitors in preventing re-bleeding for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy.

BACKGROUND: High dose intravenous proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding has been recommended as adjuvant therapy. Whether oral proton pump inhibitor can replace intravenous proton pump inhibitor in this setting is unknown. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of oral and intravenous proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic therapy. METHODS: Patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy were randomly assigned as oral lansoprazole or intravenous esomeprazole group. Primary outcome of the study was re-bleeding rate within 14 days. Secondary outcome included hospital stay, volume of blood transfusion, surgical intervention and mortality within 1 month. RESULTS: From April 2010 to Feb 2011, 100 patients were enrolled in this study. The re-bleeding rates were 4% (2/50) in the intravenous group and 4% (2/50) in the oral group. There was no difference between the two groups with regards to the hospital stay, volume of blood transfusion, surgery or mortality rate. The mean duration of hospital stay was 1.8 days in the oral lansoprazole group and 3.9 days in the intravenous esomeprazole group (p > 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving oral proton pump inhibitor have a shorter hospital stay. There is no evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes between oral and intravenous PPI treatment. However, the study was not powered to prove equivalence or non-inferiority. Future studies are still needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01123031.

[Factors affecting efficacy of gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment with proton pump inhibitors].

AIM: The aim of the study was to determine causes of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) inefficacy in some patients suffering from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In our study of 154 GERD patients, 50 received omeprazole, 51 - lansoprazole and 53 - pantoprazole in a standard daily dose. GERD symptoms (heartburn and regurgitation) were scored by Likert scale; the patients' quality of life (SF-36) and their mental status (SMALL) were examined. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, 24-h intraesophageal pH monitoring, esophageal manometry and pharmacokinetic study were performed. RESULTS: The treatment with a standard dose of PPIs was ineffective in 21 (13.6%) patients. Causes of PPIs inefficacy in 4.5% patients were rapid PPI metabolism and in 9.1% - "driving gear" of symptoms formation related with psychic dysadaptation.

Patient journey in erosive oesophagitis: real-world perspectives from US physicians and patients.

OBJECTIVE: Management of erosive oesophagitis (EE) remains suboptimal, with many patients experiencing incomplete healing, ongoing symptoms, and relapse despite proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment. The Study of Acid-Related Disorders investigated patient burden of individuals with EE in a real-world setting. DESIGN: US gastroenterologists (GIs) or family physicians (FPs)/general practitioners (GPs) treating patients with EE completed a physician survey and enrolled up to four patients with EE for a patient survey, with prespecified data extracted from medical records. RESULTS: 102 GIs and 149 FPs/GPs completed the survey; data were available for 73 patients (mean age at diagnosis, 45.4 years). Omeprazole was healthcare professional (HCP)-preferred first-line treatment (60.8% GIs; 56.4% FPs/GPs), and pantoprazole preferred second line (29.4% and 32.9%, respectively). Price and insurance coverage (both 55.5% HCPs) and familiarity (47.9%) key drivers for omeprazole; insurance coverage (52.0%), price (50.0%), familiarity (48.0%), initial symptom relief (46.0%), and safety (44.0%) key drivers for pantoprazole. Only 49.3% patients took medication as instructed all the time; 56.8% independently increased medication frequency some of the time. Despite treatment, 57.5% patients experienced heartburn and 30.1% regurgitation; heartburn was the most bothersome symptom. 58.9% patients believed that their symptoms could be better controlled; only 28.3% HCPs were very satisfied with current treatment options. 83.6% patients wanted long-lasting treatment options. Fast symptom relief for patients was a top priority for 66.1% HCPs, while 56.6% would welcome alternatives to PPIs. CONCLUSION: This real-world multicentre study highlights the need for new, rapidly acting treatments in EE that reduce symptom burden, offer durable healing and provide symptom control.

Proton pump inhibitor therapy improves symptoms in postnasal drainage.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gastroesophageal reflux is common among patients with postnasal drainage. We investigated whether proton pump inhibitor therapy improved symptoms in patients with postnasal drainage without sinusitis or allergies. METHODS: In a parallel-group, double-blind, multi-specialty trial, we randomly assigned 75 participants with continued symptoms of chronic postnasal drainage to groups that were given 30 mg of lansoprazole twice daily or placebo. Participants were followed up for 16 weeks. Symptoms were assessed at baseline and after 8 and 16 weeks. Ambulatory pH and impedance monitoring assessed presence of baseline reflux. The primary objective of the study was to determine if acid suppressive therapy improved postnasal drainage symptoms. The secondary objective was to assess if pH and impedance monitoring at baseline predicted response to treatment. RESULTS: Postnasal drainage symptoms improved significantly among patients given lansoprazole compared with placebo. After 8 and 16 weeks, participants given lansoprazole were 3.12-fold (1.28-7.59) and 3.50-fold (1.41-8.67) more likely to respond, respectively, than participants given placebo. After 16 weeks, median (interquartile) percent symptom improvements were 50.0% (10.0%-72.0%) for participants given lansoprazole and 5.0% (0.0%-40.0%) for participants given placebo (P = .006). Neither baseline presence of typical reflux symptoms nor esophageal physiologic parameters predicted response to therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with chronic postnasal drainage without evidence of sinusitis and allergies, twice-daily therapy with proton pump inhibitors significantly improved symptoms after 8 and 16 weeks. The presence of heartburn, regurgitation, abnormal levels of esophageal acid, or nonacid reflux did not predict response to therapy.

Acid-suppressive effect of rabeprazole 5 mg and 10 mg once daily by 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring in patients with non-erosive reflux disease in Japan: a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind pharmacodynamic study.

BACKGROUND: Acid suppression induced by rabeprazole 5 mg in patients with NERD has not been reported in the literature. AIMS: The objective of this study was to investigate gastroesophageal acid suppression in NERD patients by rabeprazole 5 mg and 10 mg/day. METHODS: Subjects were grade M (minimal changes) NERD patients. Twenty-two patients not responding to open label antacid therapy entered a double-blind treatment phase in which rabeprazole 5 mg or 10 mg/day for four weeks were compared. Twenty-four-hour esophageal pH monitoring was performed before and on treatment (at week 4) to assess the pharmacodynamic effect of these doses of rabeprazole. RESULTS: The frequency of heartburn episodes and the number of acid reflux episodes in the esophagus corresponded well in grade M NERD patients (r=0.44, P=0.042). Median percentage of time at pH<4 was 4.3% before treatment and 1.1% on treatment with rabeprazole 5 mg (change from baseline; -2.5%), whereas the median percentage of time at pH<4 in the rabeprazole 10 mg group was 7.4% before treatment and 0.5% on treatment (change from baseline; -6.6%). Likewise, treatment-related changes of median number of reflux episodes were -18.0 with rabeprazole 5 mg and -44.0 with rabeprazole 10 mg. For each esophageal pH data, no significant differences were observed between the two groups (P=0.377, P=0.077). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of 5 mg and 10 mg rabeprazole sufficiently inhibited pathological gastroesophageal acid reflux and relieved heartburn episodes in NERD patients who did not respond to an antacid. Further investigation would be necessary to determine proper usage of the two doses.

Practice pattern of gastroenterologists for the management of GERD under the minimal influence of the insurance reimbursement guideline: a multicenter prospective observational study.

The objective of the study was to document practice pattern of gastroenterologists for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) under the minimal influence of the insurance reimbursement guideline. Data on management for 1,197 consecutive patients with typical GERD symptoms were prospectively collected during 16 weeks. In order to minimize the influence of reimbursement guideline on the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), rabeprazole was used for the PPI treatment. A total of 861 patients (72%) underwent endoscopy before the start of treatment. PPIs were most commonly prescribed (87%). At the start of treatment, rabeprazole 20 mg daily was prescribed to 94% of the patients who received PPI treatment and 10 mg daily to the remaining 6%. At the third visits, rabeprazole 20 mg daily was prescribed to 70% of those who were followed and 10 mg daily for the remaining 30%. Continuous PPI treatment during the 16-week period was performed in 63% of the study patients. In conclusion, a full-dose PPI is preferred for the initial and maintenance treatment of GERD under the minimal influence of the insurance reimbursement guideline, which may reflect a high proportion of GERD patients requiring a long-term treatment of a full-dose PPI.

A randomized controlled trial comparing two different dosages of infusional pantoprazole in peptic ulcer bleeding.

AIM: The optimal dosage of proton pump inhibitor in bleeding peptic ulcers remains controversial. The aim was to compare the clinical effectiveness of two doses of infusional pantoprazole in peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: Peptic ulcer patients (n= 120) with bleeding stigmata were enrolled after successful endoscopic therapy. After an initial bolus injection of 80 mg pantoprazole, patients were randomized to receive continuously infused pantoprazole at either 192 mg day(-1) or 40 mg every 6 h (i.e. 160 mg day(-1)) for 3 days. Clinical outcomes between the two groups within 14 days were compared, with 14-day recurrent bleeding regarded as the primary end-point. RESULTS: Both groups (n= 60 each) were well matched in demographic and clinical factors upon entry. Bleeding totally recurred in 11 (9.2%) patients, with six (10%) in the 192 mg day(-1) group and five (8.3%) in the 160 mg day(-1) group (relative risk of bleeding recurrence between two treatments 1.2; 95% CI 0.39, 3.72). All secondary outcomes between the two groups were similar, including the amount of blood transfusion (mean 1179 ml vs. 1203 ml, P > 0.1), hospital stay (mean 9.5 days vs. 9.9 days, P > 0.1), need for surgery (n= 1 vs. n= 0, P > 0.1), and mortality (n= 1 vs. n= 0, P > 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Following endoscopic haemostasis, infusional pantoprazole at either 192 mg day(-1) or 40 mg every 6 h appear similar.

Comparison of the efficacy of the two tetracycline-containing sequential therapy regimens for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori: 5 days versus 14 days amoxicillin.

AIM: To compare the efficacy of 14-day and 5-day amoxicillin treatment on the eradication rate during tetracycline containing sequential H. pylori therapy, and also to compare the eradication rate of this regimen with those used in similar studies performed in Turkey. METHOD: This study included 112 patients infected with H. pylori that were randomized into 2 groups. In group A, patients (n = 56) received pantoprazole (40 mg BID) and amoxicillin (1 g BID) for 5 days, followed by pantoprazole (40 mg BID), tetracycline (500 mg QID), and metronidazole (500 mg TID) for the remaining 9 days. In group B, patients (n = 56) received pantoprazole (40 mg BID) and amoxicillin (1 g BID) for 5 days, followed by pantoprazole (40 mg BID), tetracycline (500 mg QID), metronidazole (500 mg TID), and amoxicillin (1 g BID) for the remaining 9 days. Eradication rates were calculated using both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. RESULTS: In all, 112 patients were subjected to ITT analysis and 109 patients completed the study. In group A, H. pylori eradication was achieved in 46 (82.1%) of the 56 patients included in the ITT analysis and in 46 (83.6%) of the 55 patients included in the PP analysis. In group B, H. pylori eradication was achieved in 44 (78.57%) of the 56 patients included in the ITT analysis and in 44 (81.48%) of the 54 patients included in the PP analysis (Table 2). The eradication rates were not statistically significant between the 2 groups (p > .005). CONCLUSION: Extended duration of amoxicillin treatment during the entire tetracycline containing sequential therapy period did not improve the H. pylori eradication rate. As a consequence, sequential therapy using 5-day amoxicillin is an acceptable first-line therapy option for the eradication of H. pylori in Turkey.

Comparison between the effect of omeprazole and rabeprazole on the antiplatelet action of clopidogrel.

BACKGROUND: Emerging data suggests that several proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), including omeprazole, might interfere with the antiplatelet action of clopidogrel. However, there is a lack of data for rabeprazole. This study aimed to investigate and compare the impact of omeprazole and rabeprazole on the antiplatelet action of clopidogrel among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective, randomized, open-labeled study was conducted among 87 CAD patients receiving clopidogrel and aspirin. Forty three and 44 patients were randomized to receive omeprazole 20 mg and rabeprazole 20 mg once daily, respectively, for at least 2 weeks. Adenosine 5-diphosphate 20 µmol/L-induced platelet aggregation was performed before and after PPIs treatment. Mean maximal platelet aggregation (MPA) before and after PPIs treatment of both groups were compared. At baseline, there were no significant differences in the mean MPA between the omeprazole and rabeprazole groups (40.68 ± 18.82% vs 36.42 ± 21.39%; P=0.326). After a 2-week treatment with PPIs, the mean MPA in both groups significantly increased from baseline and there were no differences between the omeprazole and rabeprazole groups (55.73 ± 19.66% vs 48.46 ± 18.80%; P=0.141). CONCLUSIONS: Both omeprazole and rabeprazole decreased the antiplatelet effect of clopidogrel. Use of these agents resulted in a similar degree of interference on clopidogrel's action, as measured by ADP-induced platelet aggregation.

Dexlansoprazole in the treatment of esophagitis and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of dexlansoprazole in the treatment of heartburn associated with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and healing and maintenance of healing of all grades of erosive esophagitis (EE). DATA SOURCES: Literature searches were conducted using MEDLINE Ovid (1950-December 2009, week 4) and EMBASE (1980-2009, week 53) using the term dexlansoprazole. References from articles obtained from the search were evaluated for other relevant citations. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All articles published in English evaluating the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and adverse effect profile of dexlansoprazole were selected for inclusion. DATA SYNTHESIS: Dexlansoprazole is the newest addition to the proton pump inhibitor (PPI) class and is approved for the treatment of heartburn associated with nonerosive GERD, healing of all grades of EE, as well as maintenance of healing of EE. Dexlansoprazole has a unique dual delayed-release formulation, which releases drug at 2 points in time; the first peak occurs 1-2 hours after administration and the second occurs within 4-5 hours after administration. In Phase 3 trials conducted in adults, researchers found that dexlansoprazole increases rates of healing of EE, as well as the maintenance of healing, compared to lansoprazole. Relief of heartburn symptoms was comparable among the dexlansoprazole and lansoprazole treatment groups. Common adverse effects of dexlansoprazole are similar to those of the other PPIs, including diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea, upper respiratory infection, vomiting, and flatulence. CONCLUSIONS: Dexlansoprazole provides another treatment option for the management of EE and symptoms of heartburn. Considering that the cost of dexlansoprazole is not favorable, further studies evaluating potential advantages over other agents are necessary to define the role of dexlansoprazole in the treatment of these conditions.

Helicobacter pylori eradication lowers serum asymmetric dimethylarginine levels.

INTRODUCTION: Microbial pathogens, one of them is Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), have frequently been implicated in the atherogenesis. Endothelium-derived nitric oxide (NO) is synthesized from L-arginine by nitric oxide synthase (NOS) and plays a pivotal role in the regulation of vascular tone. Asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA) is the most potent endogenous NOS inhibitor. Elevated levels of ADMA have been reported in many circumstances associated with a high cardiovascular risk. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the eradication of H. pylori infection affects serum ADMA levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two H. pylori-positive patients were enrolled in the study. Triple therapy for 14 days were given to all patients. Serum ADMA levels were measured at baseline and 2 months after therapy. RESULTS: Eradication was achieved in 34 (81%) patients. The mean serum ADMA levels before and after therapy were 1, 77 ± 0, 30 and 1, 67 ± 0, 29 ng/mL in the group with H. pylori eradicated and 1, 63 ± 0, 28 and 1, 56 ± 0, 32 ng/mL in the noneradicated, respectively. We detected statistically significant decreased serum ADMA levels after therapy in H. pylori eradicated group. CONCLUSION: These findings have indicated that eradication of H. pylori infection may decrease the risk of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular events.