Cenicriviroc Treatment for Adults With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis and Fibrosis: Final Analysis of the Phase 2b CENTAUR Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cenicriviroc (CVC) is a C-C chemokine receptors type 2 and 5 dual antagonist under evaluation for treating liver fibrosis in adults with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Year 1 primary analysis of the 2-year CENTAUR study showed that CVC had an antifibrotic effect without impacting steatohepatitis. Herein, we report the final data from year 2 exploratory analyses. APPROACH AND RESULTS: This was a randomized, controlled study of adults with NASH, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score ≥4, and NASH Clinical Research Network stage 1-3 fibrosis. Participants in arms A and C received CVC 150 mg or placebo, respectively, for 2 years; arm B received placebo in year 1 and switched to CVC in year 2. Liver biopsy was performed at baseline, year 1, and year 2. Of 289 randomized participants, 242 entered year 2. At year 2, 24% of patients who switched to CVC and 17% who remained on placebo achieved ≥1-stage fibrosis improvement and no worsening of NASH (P = 0.37). Twice the proportion on CVC who achieved fibrosis response at year 1 maintained benefit at year 2 (60% arm A versus 30% arm C), including 86% on CVC who had stage 3 fibrosis at baseline. Over 2 years, a similar proportion on CVC or placebo achieved ≥1-stage fibrosis improvement and no worsening of NASH (15% arm A versus 17% arm C). In patients with fibrosis responses, we observed consistent reductions in levels of N-terminal type 3 collagen propeptide and enhanced liver fibrosis scores, while increases in aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index and Fibrosis-4 scores were consistently observed in nonresponders. Safety profile was comparable across groups. CONCLUSIONS: CVC was well tolerated, and year 2 data corroborate antifibrotic findings from year 1. The majority on CVC who achieved fibrosis response at year 1 maintained it at year 2, with greater effect in advanced fibrosis. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02217475 (CENTAUR).

Efficacy and safety of sulforaphane for treatment of mild to moderate depression in patients with history of cardiac interventions: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

AIM: Depression has been recognized as one of the disorders associated with cardiac interventions such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In the present study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sulforaphane in treatment of depression induced by cardiac interventions. METHODS: After initial screening, 66 patients with previous history of at least one cardiac intervention and current mild to moderate depression were randomly assigned to two parallel groups receiving either sulforaphane (n = 33) or placebo (n = 33) for six successive weeks. Efficacy was assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) at baseline and week 2, 4, and 6. Safety of the treatments was checked during the trial period. RESULTS: Sixty participants completed the clinical trial (n = 30 in each group). Baseline demographic and clinical parameters were all similar among groups. Repeated measures analysis indicated that the sulforaphane group exhibited greater improvement in HAM-D scores throughout the trial (P < 0.001). Response to treatment (≥50% reduction in the HAM-D score) rate was higher in the sulforaphane group at trial endpoint (30% vs 6.67%, P = 0.042). Remission (HAM-D score ≤ 7) rate was also higher in the sulforaphane group; however, the difference was not significant (23.33% vs 3.33%, P = 0.052). Finally, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of frequency of side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Sulforaphane could safely improve depressive symptoms induced by cardiac interventions. Further clinical trials with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are warranted to confirm our results.

Phase I dose-escalation studies of roniciclib, a pan-cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, in advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and maximum tolerated dose of roniciclib in patients with advanced malignancies, with dose expansion to evaluate clinical benefit at the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). METHODS: Two phase I dose-escalation studies evaluated two roniciclib dosing schedules: 3 days on/4 days off or 4 weeks on/2 weeks off. The expansion phase included patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), ovarian cancer, or tumour mutations involving the CDK signalling pathway. RESULTS: Ten patients were evaluable in the 4 weeks on/2 weeks off schedule (terminated following limited tolerability) and 47 in the 3 days on/4 days off schedule dose-escalation cohorts. On the 3 days on/4 days off schedule, RP2D was 5 mg twice daily in solid tumours (n=40); undetermined in lymphoid malignancies (n=7). Common roniciclib-related adverse events included nausea (76.6%), fatigue (65.8%), diarrhoea (63.1%), and vomiting (57.7%). Roniciclib demonstrated rapid absorption and dose-proportional increase in exposure. One partial response (1.0%) was observed. In RP2D expansion cohorts, the disease control rate (DCR) was 40.9% for patients with ovarian cancer (n=25), 17.4% for patients with SCLC (n=33), and 33.3% for patients with CDK-related tumour mutations (n=6). CONCLUSIONS: Roniciclib demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and moderate DCR in 3 days on/4 days off schedule.

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

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence rates (IR) of prespecified outcomes of interest in pediatric patients (1 month to < 1 year) treated with intravenous (IV) pantoprazole using Optum's longitudinal electronic health records database (Optum Market Clarity) from the United States (US). METHODS: This real-world, non-interventional, retrospective cohort study was conducted from 01 January 2007 to 31 December 2020 in patients who received IV pantoprazole. Premature patients and those weighing < 2.36 kg were excluded. Patients were categorized based on diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and erosive esophagitis (EE) into: Subgroup 1 (GERD and EE), Subgroup 2 (GERD and no EE), and Subgroup 3 (absence of GERD and EE). Overall IRs (per 1000 person-years [PY]) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of outcomes were estimated (overall and subgroups) and stratified by duration of IV pantoprazole treatment (< 4 days versus ≥ 4 days). RESULTS: Of 1879 eligible patients, none were identified in Subgroup 1; 851 (45.3%) and 1028 (54.7%) patients were identified in Subgroups 2 and 3, respectively. IRs of outcomes of interest ranged from 0.0 to 742.8 per 1000 PY. IRs were highest for vomiting (742.80), diarrhea (377.77), abdominal distension (214.31), hyponatremia (204.99), and hypokalemia (203.49). IRs were comparable between Subgroups 2 and 3. For most outcomes, IRs were higher among patients treated with IV pantoprazole for ≥ 4 days versus those treated for < 4 days. CONCLUSION: These results are consistent with the known safety profile of pantoprazole and emphasize the utility of using real-world data from pediatric populations for assessment of safety outcomes.

Predicting sulforaphane-induced adverse effects in colon cancer patients via in silico investigation.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant global health burden that ranks as the third most diagnosed and second most common cause of cancer related deaths worldwide. New therapeutic strategies include chemoprevention and use of molecules which could prevent, suppress or reverse CRC progression such as sulforaphane (SFN). However, evidences about its safety in CRC patients are still lacking. The aim of this in silico investigation was to predict SFN-induced adverse effects in CRC patients by computational analysis. The study showed that 334 genes were consistently dysregulated in CRC (223 downregulated and 111 upregulated), while 38 were recognized as significant and might be used as predictive biomarkers for overall survival and metastasis (TCGA, GEO, R studio). Among them, SFN interacted with 86 genes, out of which 11 were marked as significant (correlate with overall prognosis and metastasis). Sulforaphane potentiates the overexpression of TIMP1, AURKA, and CEP55, and promotes inhibition of CRYAB, PLCE1, and MMP28, that might lead to the progression of CRC (CTD). Pathway enrichment analysis revealed that SFN stimulated Transcriptional activation of RUNX2, AURKA activation by TPX2, IL-10 signaling, while inhibited Differentiation of White and Brown Adipocyte process, an underlying pathway which inactivation led to obesity (Cytoscape ClueGo + CluePedia, DAVID). Thus, genome signature of CRC patients could serve as important factor when addressing the risk-to-benefit profile of SFN. Patients with colon cancer and increased expression of TIMP1, CCL20, SPP1, AURKA, CEP55, NEK2, SOX9 and CDK1, or downregulation of CRYAB, PLCE1, MMP28, BMP2 and PLAC8 may not be ideal candidates for SFN chemoprevention.

A new PPI, ilaprazole compared with omeprazole in the treatment of duodenal ulcer: a randomized double-blind multicenter trial.

GOALS: To investigate the efficacy and safety of a new proton pump inhibitor (PPI), ilaprazole (IY-81149) in the treatment of duodenal ulcers and provide some characteristics of the dose-response relationship for later studies. BACKGROUND: PPIs have been used therapeutically for many years, and shown great efficacy in accelerating ulcer healing. Currently researches are focused on more potent PPIs. Some preclinical studies have shown that ilaprazole might be such a new substitute. STUDY: 235 patients with at least 1 endoscopically diagnosed active duodenal ulcer were enrolled in a randomized trial. Patients were randomized into 4 groups (5, 10, and 20 mg/d ilaprazole, with 20 mg/d omeprazole as positive control) and treated for up to 4 weeks. Forty patients accepted continuous 24-hour pH measurements after the fifth dose. The primary endpoint was ulcer healing rate at week 4. RESULTS: The efficacy analyses were based on 235 patients. At week 4, 86.4%, 93.1%, 86.4%, and 89.8% patients treated with 5 mg ilaprazole, 10 mg ilaprazole, 20 mg ilaprazole, and 20 mg omeprazole once daily, respectively had ulcers healed (P=0.59). The majority of patients (>70%) became asymptomatic after 4 weeks treatment. Both drugs with stipulated dosages exhibited similar efficacy and safety profiles. Gastric acid suppression increased with increasing dose of ilaprazole in pH study. CONCLUSIONS: Ilaprazole is as tolerable, safe, and efficacious as omeprazole in the treatment of duodenal ulcers, especially at a lower dose (10 mg/d ilaprazole vs. 20 mg/d omeprazole). (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00953381).

Evolving Role for Pharmacotherapy in NAFLD/NASH.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a highly prevalent, dynamic disease that occurs across the age spectrum and can lead to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. There are currently no US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved treatments for NAFLD; however, this is a field of active research. This review summarizes emerging pharmacotherapies for the treatment of adult and pediatric NAFLD. Investigated pharmacotherapies predominantly target bile acid signaling, insulin resistance, and lipid handling within the liver. Three drugs have gone on to phase III trials for which results are available. Of those, obeticholic acid is the single agent that demonstrates promise according to the interim analyses of the REGENERATE trial. Obeticholic acid showed reduction of fibrosis in adults with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) taking 25 mg daily for 18 months (n = 931, reduction in fibrosis in 25% vs. 12% placebo, P < 0.01). Ongoing phase III trials include REGENERATE and MAESTRO-NASH, which investigates thyroid hormone receptor-ß agonist MGL-3196. Outcomes of promising phase II trials in adults with NASH are also available and those have investigated agents, including the fibroblast growth factor (FGF)19 analogue NGM282, the GLP1 agonist liraglutide, the FGF21 analogue Pegbelfermin, the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor Empagliflozin, the ketohexokinase inhibitor PF-06835919, the acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase inhibitor GS-0976, and the chemokine receptor antagonist Cenicriviroc. Completed and ongoing clinical trials emphasize the need for a more nuanced understanding of the phenotypes of subgroups within NAFLD that may respond to an individualized approach to pharmacotherapy.

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

PURPOSE: Ilaprazole (IY-81149) is a new proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) not previously studied in human patients with ulcer disease. This study evaluated and compared it with a reference PPI, omeprazole, in the treatment of gastric and duodenal ulcers. METHODS: This was a double-blind, parallel, randomized study. Patients aged 18 years and above with at least one endoscopically confirmed active non-malignant gastric/duodenal ulcer were treated with 20 mg/day omeprazole or 5 mg/day or 10 mg/day ilaprazole for four weeks. Healing of ulcer was determined by its resolution from active to scarring stage. Symptoms relief was evaluated using a graded score. Safety and tolerability were evaluated on basis of clinical assessments. Between-group differences were tested using ANOVA or ANCOVA, as appropriate. Statistical significance was assumed at a two-tailed p value of 90%) became asymptomatic after treatment. At the dosages administered, both drugs exhibited similar efficacy and a similar safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: Ilaprazole is as tolerable, safe, and efficacious as omeprazole in the treatment of gastroduodenal ulcers, at a much lower dose (5 vs. 20 mg omeprazole).

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

BACKGROUND: Orally and intravenously administered proton pump inhibitors have been shown to reduce rebleeding rates, surgery and transfusion requirement. AIM: To compare lansoprazole intravenous and orally disintegrating tablet (Prevacid SoluTab) regimens with a pantoprazole intravenously administered regimen in sustaining intragastric pH >6.0. METHODS: Two similarly designed three-way, randomized crossover studies each enrolled 36 Helicobacter pylori-negative healthy volunteers. Study 1 regimens included intravenously administered bolus followed by 24-h continuous infusion (lansoprazole 90 mg, 6 mg/h; lansoprazole 120 mg, 6 mg/h; pantoprazole 80 mg, 8 mg/h). Study 2 regimens included intravenous bolus followed by lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet or intravenous continuous infusion for 24 h (lansoprazole 90 mg, lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet 60 mg every 6 h; lansoprazole 120 mg, 9 mg/h; pantoprazole 80 mg, 8 mg/h). Percentage of time pH >6.0 was assessed with 24-h intragastric pH monitoring. RESULTS: All regimens produced comparable gastric acid suppression. In both studies, regimens superior to pantoprazole included lansoprazole 90 mg, 6-mg/h; lansoprazole 90 mg, lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet 60 mg q.d.s. and lansoprazole 120 mg, 9 mg/h (P < or = 0.013). The lansoprazole 120-mg, 6-mg/h regimen (P = 0.082) was not superior to pantoprazole in percentage of time intragastric pH >6.0. Mild reaction at the intravenous injection site was the most frequently reported adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: The intravenous bolus and continuously infused lansoprazole or intravenous bolus and intermittent lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet regimens are as effective as intravenous pantoprazole in sustaining intragastric pH >6.0.

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

BACKGROUND: Current 'rescue' therapies provide inadequate Helicobacter pylori eradication rates because of antibiotic resistance. AIM: To test the efficacy of a modified triple regimen combining rifabutin, pantoprazole and amoxicillin as rescue therapy for patients in whom eradication of H. pylori had failed standard clarithromycin-based triple therapy. METHODS: One hundred and thirty patients (mean age 51.7 +/- 14.8 years) who had failed one or more eradication attempts with omeprazole, clarithromycin and amoxicillin were treated for 12 days with rifabutin 150 mg daily, amoxicillin 1 g or 1.5 g t.d.s, and pantoprazole 80 mg t.d.s. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates were 90.8/90.8%. Metronidazole or/and clarithromycin resistance had no significant impact on H. pylori eradication rates. A higher overall eradication rate of 96.6% (95% CI: 92.1-101%) was obtained in patients treated with a regimen containing 1.5 g amoxicillin t.d.s compared with 90.7% (95% CI: 82-98.6%) using a regimen with 1 g amoxicillin t.d.s but the difference was not significant. Side-effects reported in 40% of patients were mild. CONCLUSION: A 12-day course of low dose of rifabutin with an increased dose of amoxicillin and pantoprazole is well-tolerated and highly effective against dual-resistant H. pylori infection after failure of triple therapy.

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

BACKGROUND: After a course of IV proton pump inhibitor therapy, patients might require continued oral antisecretory therapy. A direct comparison of therapeutic alternatives could assist physicians in decisions regarding optimal acid-suppressive therapy. Oral esomeprazole might control intragastric acidity more effectively compared with other acid-suppressive agents after IV therapy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare intragastric acid control on day 5 of administration of esomeprazole magnesium versus pantoprazole 40 mg PO QD after switching from 5 days of treatment with pantoprazole 40 mg IV in healthy volunteers. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, comparative, 2-way crossover study was conducted at the Oklahoma Foundation for Digestive Research, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, between October and December 2004. Healthy, Helicobacter pylori-negative adults were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 dosing sequences: pantoprazole IV followed by esomeprazole PO or pantoprazole IV followed by pantoprazole PO. All study medications were administered for 5 days at a dose of 40 mg QD. IV pantoprazole was administered over 2 minutes; all medications were administered 30 minutes before breakfast. There was a 10- to 21-day washout period between each 10-day dosing period. All doses were administered at the study site. Before oral study drug administration on days 1 and 5, 24-hour pH monitoring was performed using a pH catheter positioned 10 cm distal to the lower esophageal sphincter in the stomach. The primary end point was percentage of time with pH >4 (%t pH >4) during the 24-hour pH-monitoring period. Tolerability was assessed using spontaneous reporting, laboratory analysis, and vital-sign measurement. RESULTS: Of 42 subjects randomized to treatment sequences, 4 were withdrawn during the study because of invalid pH data; 38 subjects (24 men, 14 women; mean [SD] age, 25.2 [8.1] years) had assessable data. Day-5 %t pH >4 was 68.5% with esomeprazole and 53.3% with pantoprazole (P < 0.001). Day-1 %t pH >4 was 62.5% with esomeprazole and 51.0% with pantoprazole (P < 0.001). The most common adverse events were rhinitis (2 subjects each with pantoprazole IV and PO; 1 subject with esomeprazole) and headache (2 subjects with esomeprazole; 1 subject with pantoprazole IV). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study in healthy adult volunteers suggest that switching from pantoprazole 40 mg IV to esomeprazole 40 mg PO QD more effectively suppresses intragastric acid compared with switching from pantoprazole 40 mg IV to pantoprazole 40 mg PO QD. All 3 treatments were well tolerated.

Esomeprazole versus pantoprazole for healing erosive oesophagitis.

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

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

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe or complicated reflux disease may require higher than standard doses of a proton pump inhibitor for sufficient acid suppression. AIM: To test the hypothesis that esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily is superior to pantoprazole 40 mg twice daily in lowering intragastric acidity. METHODS: In a randomized, single-blinded, two-way crossover study, healthy subjects received esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily or pantoprazole 40 mg twice daily orally for five consecutive days. Continuous ambulatory 24-h intragastric pH was recorded on day 5 of each treatment. RESULTS: Thirty subjects were analysed. Esomeprazole provided significantly higher intragastric pH-values over the 24-h period [median intragastric pH 6.4 for esomeprazole and 5.1 for pantoprazole (P < 0.00005)]. Intragastric pH > 4 was maintained for 21.1 h with esomeprazole and 16.8 h with pantoprazole (P < 0.0001). An intragastric pH > 4 for more than 16 h was achieved in 96.7 and 56.7% of subjects, respectively (P = 0.0002). During night-time the proportion of time with intragastric pH > 4 was 85.4% with esomeprazole and 63.6% with pantoprazole (P = 0.0001). Nocturnal acid break through occurred less frequently on esomeprazole. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily provides better and more consistent intragastric acid control than pantoprazole 40 mg twice daily.

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

BACKGROUND: Following initial healing of erosive oesophagitis, most patients require maintenance therapy to prevent relapse. AIM: To compare endoscopic and symptomatic remission rates over 6 months' maintenance therapy with esomeprazole or pantoprazole (both 20 mg once daily) in patients with healed erosive oesophagitis. METHODS: Patients with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and endoscopically confirmed erosive oesophagitis at baseline were randomized to receive esomeprazole 40 mg or pantoprazole 40 mg for up to 8 weeks. Patients with healed erosive oesophagitis and free of moderate/severe heartburn and acid regurgitation at 4 weeks or, if necessary, 8 weeks entered the 6-month maintenance therapy phase of the study. RESULTS: A total of 2766 patients (63% men; mean age 50 years) received esomeprazole 20 mg (n = 1377) or pantoprazole 20 mg (n = 1389) and comprised the intention-to-treat population. Following 6 months of treatment, the proportion of patients in endoscopic and symptomatic remission was significantly greater for those receiving esomeprazole 20 mg (87.0%) than pantoprazole 20 mg (74.9%, log-rank test P < 0.0001). Esomeprazole 20 mg produced a higher proportion of patients free of moderate to severe gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms and fewer discontinuations because of symptoms than pantoprazole 20 mg (92.2% vs. 88.5%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole 20 mg is more effective than pantoprazole 20 mg for maintenance therapy following initial healing of erosive oesophagitis and relief of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms.

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

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

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pantoprazole in clinically normal neonatal foals.

REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a mainstay of treatment for acid-related ulceration in man and horses. Currently, only an oral preparation of omeprazole is approved for use in horses in the USA. Intravenous administration of a PPI would provide a useful therapeutic alternative for those foals in which oral medication is not feasible. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pantoprazole following i.v. or intragastric administration in healthy neonatal foals. METHODS: Seven healthy foals age 6-12 days at the start of the study were evaluated. Treatments included no drug administration, i.v. pantoprazole (1.5 mg/kg bwt) and intragastric pantoprazole (1.5 mg/kg bwt). Intragastric pH was recorded for 24 h after drug administration for pharmacodynamic evaluation. Plasma pantoprazole concentrations were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography. RESULTS: Plasma concentrations of pantoprazole were detectable at the 5 min sampling point following i.v. or intragastric administration. Bioavailability of intragastric-administered pantoprazole was 41%. Baseline mean hourly pH was 1.5-6.1. There was a statistically significant increase in mean hourly pH relative to untreated foals 2-24 h after i.v. or intragastric pantoprazole administration. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these data, i.v. or intragastric administration of pantoprazole results in a significant, prolonged increase in intragastric pH. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: The i.v. formulation of pantoprazole may provide a clinically useful alternative means of acid suppression in foals unable to tolerate enteral administration of a PPI, such as those with pyloric outflow obstruction.

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

BACKGROUND: No placebo-controlled clinical trials have yet been published on the efficacy of therapy in older subjects with oesophagitis. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of pantoprazole in preventing the recurrence of oesophagitis in elderly subjects. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-four patients aged 65 years and over with acute oesophagitis were treated openly with pantoprazole, 40 mg daily, for 8 weeks. Patients with documented healing of erosive oesophagitis were then treated with pantoprazole, 20 mg daily, for 6 months. Thereafter, cured patients were randomized to receive pantoprazole, 20 mg daily, or placebo for the following 6 months. Clinical evaluations were performed every 2 months, and endoscopy was repeated after 8 weeks and after 6 and 12 months and/or whenever symptoms suggested a relapse of oesophagitis. RESULTS: After 8 weeks, the healing rates of oesophagitis were 81.1% (75.1-87.1%) and 93.7% (89.7-97.7%) by intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses, respectively. After 6 months, the corresponding values were 82% (75.4-88.5%) and 92.4% (87.6-97.2%), respectively. After 12 months, the per protocol and intention-to-treat healing rates of oesophagitis were 95.1% (88.5-100%) and 79.6% (68.3-90.9%), respectively, in the treatment group vs. 32.7% (19.9-45.4%) and 30.4% (18.3-42.4%), respectively, in the placebo group (P = 0.0001). Heartburn, acid regurgitation and chest pain were significantly associated with the relapse of oesophagitis (P = 0.0001), whereas hiatus hernia, Helicobacter pylori infection, concomitant diseases and treatments were not. CONCLUSION: In the elderly, pantoprazole was highly effective in healing and reducing the relapse of oesophagitis; discontinuing active treatment after 6 months was associated with a significant increase in the relapse rate.

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

BACKGROUND: Pantoprazole is claimed to have a lower potential for drug interaction than other proton pump inhibitors. AIM: To estimate the frequency of adverse events and drug interactions reported to the Food and Drug Administration in patients receiving omeprazole, lansoprazole or pantoprazole. METHODS: The study involved a search of the Food and Drug Administration's database for adverse events and drug interactions with omeprazole, lansoprazole or pantoprazole as primary or secondary suspect drug. An estimate of the amount of drug dispensed during the adverse event collection period (from US drug launch) was obtained from the International Medical Statistics health database. RESULTS: Of the suspected drug interactions recorded, vitamin K antagonist interactions, although rare, were the most common. The frequency of vitamin K antagonist interactions was 0.09 per million packages for omeprazole and 0.11 per million packages for lansoprazole and pantoprazole. Interactions with benzodiazepines or phenytoin were even rarer, being reported in less than 10 patients on each proton pump inhibitor. CONCLUSION: The frequency of reported drug interactions was low for omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole and vitamin K antagonist interactions were by far the most common. These potentially important drug interactions, although rare, were no less frequent on pantoprazole than on omeprazole or lansoprazole, suggesting a class effect.

A double-blind study of pantoprazole and omeprazole in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis: a multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Pantoprazole is a new substituted benzimidazole which is a potent inhibitor of gastric acid secretion by its action upon H+,K(+)-ATPase. AIM: To compare pantoprazole 40 mg with omeprazole 20 mg as once daily dosing in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis (grades II and III). METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, multicentre study included 286 patients. Patients were reendoscoped after 4 weeks, and continued to receive a further 4 weeks of treatment if they were not healed at this time. RESULTS: After 4 weeks of treatment, complete healing occurred in 126/170 (74%) patients in the pantoprazole group and in 67/86 (78%) patients in the omeprazole group (per-protocol analysis). At 8 weeks, the corresponding healing rates were 153/170 (90%) and 81/86 (94%). The differences between the treatment groups were not significant (P = 0.57 and 0.34). Improvement in the principal symptoms of reflux oesophagitis was also very similar between the treatment groups, with 59% and 69% at 2 weeks, and 83% and 86% at 4 weeks, respectively, being free from any individual symptom. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown pantoprazole and omeprazole to be similarly effective and well tolerated in the treatment of mild to moderate reflux oesophagitis.

Efficacy and tolerability of pantoprazole 40 mg versus 80 mg in patients with reflux oesophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Pantoprazole is a substituted benzimidazole which is a potent inhibitor of gastric acid secretion by its action upon H+, K+-ATPase. METHODS: Pantoprazole 40 mg and 80 mg were compared in a randomized double-blind study in 192 out-patients with stage II or III (Savary-Miller classification) reflux oesophagitis. Patients received either pantoprazole 40 mg (n = 97) or pantoprazole 80 mg (n = 95), once daily before breakfast for 4 weeks. Treatment was extended for a further 4 weeks if the oesophagitis had not healed. RESULTS: After 4 weeks complete healing of the reflux oesophagitis was seen in 78% of protocol-correct patients given pantoprazole 40 mg daily (n = 86), and in 72% in the 80 mg (n = 87) group. The cumulative healing rates after 8 weeks were 95 and 94%, respectively (P > 0.05, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel), and time until healing of oesophagitis comparable in both groups. Differences between doses were also not significant in an intention-to-treat analysis. Both dosing schedules were well tolerated and the patients experienced remarkable symptom relief. No adverse event or changes in laboratory values of clinical significance could definitely be ascribed to the trial medication. CONCLUSION: The 40 mg pantoprazole dosage is comparable to 80 mg in reflux oesophagitis, both in efficacy and tolerability.