Patient preferences for change in symptoms associated with opioid-induced constipation.

INTRODUCTION: While opioids have become a standard treatment option for those experiencing moderate to severe chronic pain, side effects of constipation and related symptoms have interfered with their usage in as many as 40-50% of treated patients. Prior research has elucidated the range of these symptoms, but no study has determined which of these symptoms patients most desire improving or whether improving constipation itself by as little as one more bowel movement per week is deemed an important change. METHODS: We conducted an online patient survey of 513 participants residing in one of six countries who reported having chronic pain, were taking opioids, and experiencing opioid-induced constipation (OIC) to address these questions. RESULTS: Respondents rank ordered their preferences and the following eight symptoms generated >80% endorsement as important to improve: improvement in having bowel movements without rectal pain, soft stools that are not loose or watery, regular bowel movements, a reduction in rectal straining, relief from feeling bloated, feeling less fear about having OIC when following their opioid medication regime, a desire to worry less overall about having a bowel movement, and with less 'stomach' area pain. When asked 'how important is it you to have 1 more bowel movement per week", over 90% endorsed it was 'somewhat', 'very', or 'extremely important' with nearly 70% (n = 354) endorsing the 'extremely' or 'very important' response options. In multivariate models, being in more overall pain or reporting fewer than 3 bowel movements per week were found to be independent predictors of the importance. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the notable range of OIC symptoms most desired by patients to improve and demonstrate that bowel movements of only one more per week were important to register a meaningful improvement. The latter is particularly helpful for those assessing the minimal clinically important difference in treating this condition.

A fixed-dose combination of naproxen and esomeprazole magnesium has comparable upper gastrointestinal tolerability to celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: results from two randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are associated with poor upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tolerability and increased ulcer risk, but patient adherence to gastroprotective co-therapy is frequently inadequate. A fixed-dose combination of enteric-coated naproxen 500 mg and immediate-release esomeprazole magnesium 20 mg was evaluated: efficacy is reported by Hochberg et al. (Curr Med Res Opin 2011;27:1243-53); tolerability findings are reported here. PATIENTS AND METHODS. In two 12-week double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase III studies (PN400-307 and PN400-309), patients aged ≥ 50 years with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis randomly (2:2:1) received naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium BID, celecoxib 200 mg QD, or placebo. Tolerability end-points included: modified Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment (mSODA); heartburn severity; and UGI adverse events (AEs). RESULTS. Overall, 619 (PN400-307) and 615 (PN400-309) patients were randomized; mSODA scores improved (baseline to week 12) in each group, with no significant treatment differences between naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium and celecoxib (95% CIs: PN400-307: -0.4, 1.9; PN400-309: -1.8, 0.6). Naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium-treated patients reported significantly more heartburn-free days versus celecoxib (95% CIs: PN400-307: 2.1, 12.7; PN400-309: 2.5, 13.4). UGI AE incidence (PN400-307: 17.3%; PN400-309: 20.3%) was similar between treatment groups. UGI AEs resulted in few discontinuations (< 4%, either study). CONCLUSIONS. Naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium has comparable UGI tolerability to celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis.

Long-term safety of naproxen and esomeprazole magnesium fixed-dose combination: phase III study in patients at risk for NSAID-associated gastric ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term safety of enteric-coated naproxen 500 mg and immediate-release esomeprazole magnesium 20 mg fixed-dose combination (FDC) in patients at risk of NSAID-associated upper gastrointestinal (UGI) ulcers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase III study, Helicobacter pylori-negative patients aged ≥50 years or 18-49 years with history of uncomplicated ulcer within the past 5 years, who had osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or other condition requiring daily NSAIDs for ≥12 months received naproxen/esomeprazole twice daily for 12 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00527904. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adverse events (AEs), vital signs, physical examination, and laboratory tests. Subgroup analyses included age and low-dose aspirin (LDA) use. Predefined NSAID-associated UGI and cardiovascular AEs were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 239 patients treated (safety population), 135 completed ≥348 treatment days (12-month completers). AE incidence was approximately 70%; dyspepsia, constipation, upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, back pain, and contusion were most frequent (≥5% patients, either population). Treatment-related AEs occurred in 28.0% and 23.7% of patients in the safety and 12-month completer populations, respectively; 18.8% of patients withdrew due to AEs (safety population). Few serious AEs and no deaths occurred. In the safety population, AE incidence was 71.4% and 76.9% in patients aged <65 years (n = 161) and ≥65 years (n = 78), respectively, and 67.6% and 75.8% in LDA users (n = 74) and non-users (n = 165), respectively. Predefined UGI and cardiovascular AEs were observed in 18.8% and 6.3% of patients, respectively, in the safety population, and 16.3% and 5.2%, respectively, in 12-month completers. Dyspepsia and hypertension were most common. Additional assessments showed no unexpected findings. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these outcome measures, long-term treatment with FDC naproxen/esomeprazole is not associated with any new safety issues, including predefined UGI and cardiovascular AEs, in patients requiring NSAID therapy who are at risk of UGI complications.

Effects of esomeprazole on acid output in patients with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome or idiopathic gastric acid hypersecretion.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral esomeprazole in the control of gastric acid hypersecretion in patients with hypersecretory states. METHODS: In this 12-month, open-label, multicenter study, acid output (AO) was evaluated at baseline, day 10, and months 3, 6, and 12. The starting dose of esomeprazole was 40 mg or 80 mg twice daily. On day 10, patients with controlled AO were maintained on the same dose, while those with uncontrolled AO had their doses increased (maximum dose 240 mg/day) until control was attained. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was performed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study by EGD, gastric analysis, and adverse events. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (19 with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome [ZES], 2 with idiopathic gastric acid hypersecretion [IGH]) completed the study. Of the 20 patients with controlled AO at day 10, 18 (90%) had sustained AO control for the rest of the study. At 12 months, AO was controlled in 14 of 16 patients receiving esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily, in all 4 patients receiving esomeprazole 80 mg twice daily, and in the 1 patient receiving esomeprazole 80 mg 3 times daily. At 6 and 12 months, no patient had endoscopic evidence of mucosal disease. Esomeprazole was well tolerated; 1 patient had a serious adverse event (hypomagnesemia) attributed to treatment that resolved with magnesium supplementation during continued treatment. CONCLUSION: Esomeprazole in appropriately titrated doses controls AO over 12 months in patients with hypersecretory states and is well tolerated.

Effect of timing of dosing in relation to food intake on the pharmacokinetics of esomeprazole.

AIM: To investigate the pharmacokinetics of esomeprazole before a high-fat meal vs. fasting. METHODS: This open-label, randomized, crossover study consisted of two 5-day dosing periods of esomeprazole 40 mg per day. On days 1 and 5, subjects received esomeprazole 15 min before a high-fat meal (fed) or 4 h before a non-high-fat meal (fasting). RESULTS: On days 1 and 5, ratio of fed to fasting area under the plasma concentration-time curve [0.56, 90% confidence interval (CI) 0.50, 0.64, and 0.78, 90% CI 0.74, 0.82, respectively] and peak plasma concentration (0.34, 90% CI 0.28, 0.41, and 0.47, 90% CI 0.41, 0.52, respectively) were outside of the limits of bioequivalence. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole bioavailability was reduced when taken within 15 min before eating a high-fat meal vs. that while fasting.

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.

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.

Treatment of chronic posterior laryngitis with esomeprazole.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of acid-suppressive therapy with the proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole on the signs and symptoms of chronic posterior laryngitis (CPL) in patients with suspected reflux laryngitis. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group trial that compared twice-daily esomeprazole 40 mg with placebo for 16 weeks. METHODS: Eligible patients had a history of one or more CPL symptoms (throat clearing, cough, globus, sore throat, or hoarseness) and laryngoscopic signs indicating reflux laryngitis based on CPL index (CPLI) scores measured during a screening laryngoscopy. Patients were randomized to treatment if their 7-day screening diary-card recordings showed a cumulative primary symptom score of 9 or higher and they had 3 or more days with moderately severe symptoms based on a 7-point scale. Efficacy was assessed by changes in symptoms as recorded by patients and investigators and by changes in CPLI scores based on laryngoscopic examinations. RESULTS: The patients' primary CPL symptom at final visit (primary efficacy end point) was resolved in 14.7% (14/95) and 16.0% (8/50) of patients in the esomeprazole and placebo groups, respectively (P=.799). Esomeprazole and placebo were not significantly different for change from baseline to the final visit in mean total CPLI (-1.66+/-2.13 vs. -2.0+/-2.55, respectively; P=.446) or any other secondary efficacy end points based on patient diary card or investigator assessments. CONCLUSION: This study provides no evidence of a therapeutic benefit of treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily for 16 weeks compared with placebo for signs and symptoms associated with CPL.

Effects of esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily on asthma: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

RATIONALE: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common in patients with asthma, suggesting an interaction between the two conditions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of gastric acid suppression with the proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole on asthma outcomes in subjects with persistent moderate to severe asthma treated with antiinflammatory asthma medication. METHODS: In this double-blind study, subjects were randomized to receive esomeprazole 40 mg or placebo twice daily for 16 wk. According to nocturnal respiratory symptoms (NOC) and GERD, subjects were divided into three strata: GERD-/NOC+, GERD+/NOC-, and GERD+/NOC+. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 770 subjects were randomized. There was no statistically significant improvement in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) over placebo in the overall study population: 6.3 L/min (p = 0.061). Over the whole treatment period, in GERD+/NOC+ subjects (n = 350), esomeprazole provided an 8.7-L/min improvement (p = 0.03) in morning PEF, and a 10.2-L/min improvement (p = 0.012) in evening PEF over placebo. Among 307 subjects taking long-acting beta2-agonists, improvements over placebo were observed in morning PEF (12.2 L/min, p = 0.017) and in evening PEF (11.1 L/min, p = 0.024); these improvements were more pronounced in GERD+/NOC+ subjects. Esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily was well tolerated and no safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole improved PEF in subjects with asthma who presented with both GERD and NOC. In subjects without both GERD and NOC, no improvement could be detected.