Search

Background: Lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet, which rapidly disintegrates on the tongue or in water, provides a dosing alternative for patients with difficulty in swallowing. Gastric and nasogastric tubes are increasingly placed in patients with more severe swallowing disorders., Aim: This study assessed the pharmacokinetic profile of lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet dispersed in a small volume of water and administered through a small-bore nasogastric tube., Methods: Forty healthy adult men and women (18-43 years) received two single 30 mg lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet doses (one administered directly onto the tongue without water, and one dispersed in water and administered via nasogastric tube) in a randomized, crossover fashion., Results: The total plasma exposure to lansoprazole was comparable following both dosing regimens; mean AUC values for the lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet nasogastric dispersion were < or =8.6% greater than those for the intact lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet. Lansoprazole Cmax for the lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet nasogastric dispersion was 20.9% greater than that for the intact lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet, a difference of no clinical significance., Conclusions: Dispersion of the lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet in a small volume of water and administering via nasogastric tube does not reduce the pharmacokinetic profile of the intact lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet. This alternative dosing method may be useful in patients with nasogastric or gastric tubes.

Aim: To compare the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of lansoprazole 30 mg administered intravenously in 0.9% NaCl or in polyethylene glycol, or orally., Methods: Twenty-nine subjects received lansoprazole orally on days 1-7 and intravenous lansoprazole in NaCl on days 8-14. Blood samples were collected on days 1, 7, 8 and 14. Fasting basal acid output and pentagastrin-stimulated maximal acid output were determined on days -1, 8, 9 and 15. Thirty-six different subjects received one of four regimen sequences: intravenous lansoprazole in NaCl, intravenous in polyethylene glycol, per orally, or intravenous placebo, each for 5 days. Twenty-four hour intragastric pH was recorded on days 1 and 5., Results: Intravenous and per oral lansoprazole for 7 days produced equivalent basal acid output and maximal acid output suppression. Pharmacokinetics and mean pH values with intravenous lansoprazole in NaCl or polyethylene glycol were equivalent. Both produced mean pH and percentages of time pH above 3, 4, 5 and 6 that were significantly greater than did per orally., Conclusions: Intravenous lansoprazole inhibits acid secretion as effectively in NaCl as in polyethylene glycol, and its onset of action is faster than per oral lansoprazole.

Background: Many individuals with acid-related gastrointestinal disorders have difficulty in swallowing oral agents., Aim: To compare the bio-availability of a single dose of lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet with that of an intact capsule., Methods: One hundred and twenty healthy subjects participated in two prospective, Phase I, open-label, two-period cross-over studies to receive lansoprazole, 15 mg or 30 mg. Within each study, subjects were randomized into two parallel cohorts consisting of 30 subjects per regimen, dispensed in opposing sequence over two periods separated by a 7-day washout period. Blood samples were collected on day 1 of both periods to determine the pharmacokinetic parameters., Results: Tmax occurred at 1.8 and 2.0 h with the 15-mg and 30-mg tablets, respectively. Dose proportional increases in Cmax, AUCt and AUC infinity were observed in the 15-mg and 30-mg groups. The terminal elimination half-lives (t1/2) were identical in both dose groups (1.18 h). Lansoprazole administered as the orally disintegrating tablet was bio-equivalent to the intact capsule formulation with respect to Cmax, AUCt and AUC infinity., Conclusions: Lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablets, 15 mg and 30 mg, are bio-equivalent to the respective dose administered as the intact capsule. This novel dosage formulation represents an option for patients who have difficulty in swallowing oral agents.

Objective: To compare the 24-h intragastric pH effects of lansoprazole, 30 mg administered nasogastrically, with pantoprazole, 40 mg administered i.v., Methods: Healthy adults were enrolled in an open label, two-way crossover, single-center study. Thirty milligrams of lansoprazole (administered nasogastrically in apple juice) or pantoprazole (i.v.) were administered once daily at 8:00 AM for 5 consecutive days with at least a 2-wk washout period between the regimens. Ambulatory 24-h intragastric pH was monitored at baseline and on days 1 and 5 of each treatment period. Blood specimens were collected on days I and 5 for pharmacokinetic parameter determinations., Results: Thirty-three adults completed both crossover periods, with the exception of one patient with a zero lansoprazole plasma concentration on day 1 of period 2. Lansoprazole, 30 mg per nasogastric tube, produced significantly higher mean 24-h intragastric pH values relative to pantoprazole, 40 mg i.v., on both day 1 (3.05 vs 2.76, p < 0.002) and day 5 (3.65 vs 3.45, p = 0.024). Lansoprazole sustained the intragastric pH above 3 (days 1 and 5), 4, and 5 (day 1) significantly longer relative to pantoprazole. Lansoprazole's time to the maximum observed concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve over the 24-h time interval increased significantly from day I to day 5 (1.7 h vs 2.0 h and 1865 ng x h/ml vs 2091 ng x h/ml, respectively), and a significant increase in half-life relative to day 1 (0.96 h) was observed on day 5 (1.03 h) during pantoprazole treatment., Conclusion: Lansoprazole, 30 mg administered nasogastrically, effectively controls intragastric pH and is an alternative to i.v. pantoprazole in patients who are unable to swallow solid dosage formulations.

Objective: Our objective was to compare four management strategies for heartburn: therapy with an H2-receptor antagonist (ranitidine), therapy with a proton pump inhibitor (lansoprazole), crossover from ranitidine to lansoprazole ("step-up" therapy), and crossover from lansoprazole to ranitidine ("step-down" therapy)., Methods: This was a controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial comprising 593 adults with heartburn, randomized to one of four groups for 20 wk. Subjects received either ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. for 20 wk, or lansoprazole 30 mg once daily for 20 wk, or ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. for 8 wk [corrected] followed by lansoprazole 30 mg once daily for 12 wk ("step-up"), or lansoprazole 30 mg once daily for 8 wk followed by ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. for 12 wk ("step-down"). Outcome measures were based on self-reports in daily diaries of 24-h heartburn severity, measured by maximum daytime and nighttime severity, and percentage of 24-h heartburn-free days measured by absence of both daytime and nighttime heartburn., Results: Median heartburn severity was significantly lower (p < 0.05) for lansoprazole (0.25) than the other groups (0.46 ranitidine, 0.44 "step-up," 0.35 "step-down"). The lansoprazole group had a significantly higher percentage of 24-h heartburn-free days (median 81.4%, p < 0.01) than other groups (66.6, 66.9, and 73.6%, respectively). In the "step-up" and "step-down" groups, heartburn was less severe, and percentages of 24-h heartburn-free days were higher during lansoprazole treatment regardless of treatment sequence., Conclusion: Proton pump inhibitor treatment provides more consistent heartburn relief than an H2-receptor antagonist, or "step-up" or "step-down" therapy.

Objective: Lansoprazole has undergone extensive clinical evaluation for the treatment of acid-peptic diseases. The aim of this study was to define the safety profile of lansoprazole and compare it to that of other therapeutic agents evaluated in the same controlled trials., Methods: The clinical safety profile of lansoprazole and comparative agents (placebo, ranitidine and omeprazole) was reviewed for 3281 patients who participated in short term (up to 8 weeks) and long term (up to 56 months) clinical trials conducted in the US. Adverse events, laboratory value changes and gastric biopsy changes that occurred during treatment were compared statistically for differences between treatments., Results: The incidence of adverse events and number of patients discontinuing treatment because of adverse events was similar for lansoprazole and comparative agents. Other than elevated serum gastrin levels, a known effect of proton pump inhibitors, no trends in laboratory changes were observed. Median values for gastrin levels remained within the normal range; about 2% of patients had gastrin levels >400 pg/ml at any time, while <1% had 2 or more gastrin values >500 pg/ml. Values returned to baseline levels after therapy was discontinued. No significant changes in gastric endocrine cell growth from baseline to final visit were observed, nor was there evidence of dysplasia or neoplasia., Conclusion: Lansoprazole is well tolerated for both short and long term treatment of acid-related disease. The tolerability of lansoprazole is comparable to that of ranitidine, omeprazole and placebo in the treatment of these diseases.

Objective: The efficacy and safety of dual and triple therapies with a proton pump inhibitor and antibiotic(s) for therapy of Helicobacter pylori-associated duodenal ulcer disease have been compared using results from independent studies using different methods and regimens, making interpretation difficult. In a large, double-blind, multicenter study conducted in the United States, we compared a triple therapy regimen with four dual therapy and one monotherapy regimens in the eradication of H. pylori and the prevention of ulcer recurrence., Methods: Patients with active duodenal ulcer disease or history of duodenal ulcer disease within the past year and H. pylori infection were randomized to receive one of six 14-day treatment regimens: lansoprazole 30 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg, and amoxicillin 1 gm b.i.d.; lansoprazole 30 mg b.id. and either clarithromycin 500 mg b.i.d. or t.i.d.; lansoprazole 30 mg b.i.d. or t.i.d. with amoxicillin 1 gm t.i.d.; or lansoprazole 30 mg t.i.d. alone. No additional acid suppression therapy followed eradication therapy. Primary efficacy endpoints were eradication of H. pylori and ulcer recurrence., Results: Of 396 patients enrolled in the study, 352 met the entry criteria for duodenal ulcer status and H. pylori positivity. At 4-6 wk after the end of therapy, H. pylori was eradicated from 94% (44 of 47) of patients receiving lansoprazole, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin triple therapy, 77% (39 of 51) of those receiving lansoprazole t.i.d./amoxicillin t.i.d., 75% (36 of 48) of those receiving lansoprazole b.i.d./clarithromycin t.i.d., 57% (28 of 49) of those receiving lansoprazole b.i.d./clarithromycin b.i.d., 53% (26 of 49) of those receiving lansoprazole b.i.d./amoxicillin t.i.d., and 2% (1 of 53) of those receiving lansoprazole monotherapy (p < or = 0.05, triple therapy vs each dual therapy and each dual therapy vs monotherapy). Of those patients who were documented as free of ulcer at 4-6 wk after treatment, ulcers recurred within 6 months in 7% of patients receiving triple therapy, as compared with 13-23% of patients receiving dual therapy, and 69% of patients receiving lansoprazole monotherapy. Patients who were H. pylori negative at 4-6 wk after treatment were less likely to have an ulcer recurrence than were patients who were H. pylori positive (11% [10 of 95] vs 47% [20 of 43], respectively, across treatment groups). For triple therapy and dual therapy, a similar proportion of patients reported a drug-related adverse event (23% vs 17-33%, respectively)., Conclusions: In patients with active or a recent history of duodenal ulcer, a 14-day course of lansoprazole-based triple therapy without additional acid suppression therapy is highly effective in the eradication of H. pylori and in preventing ulcer recurrence. Among the dual therapies, higher eradication rates occurred when lansoprazole (with amoxicillin) or clarithromycin (with lansoprazole) was administered t.i.d. vs b.i.d., but the rates were still significantly lower than with lansoprazole triple therapy with all three drugs administered b.i.d.

The relationship between the inhibition of intragastric acidity and healing has been determined for both duodenal and gastric ulcers, with a stronger correlation being evident in duodenal ulcer. Omeprazole is clearly more effective than H2-receptor antagonists in healing duodenal ulcers and in the resolution of attendant symptoms. As the recommended treatment periods are shorter with omeprazole (e.g. 2-4 weeks) than with H2-receptor antagonists (4-8 weeks), omeprazole has also been shown to be more cost-effective. Long-term management strategies for peptic ulcer are evolving rapidly in the light of evidence that Helicobacter pylori eradication reduces or eliminates ulcer relapse. Regimens, such as omeprazole in combination with amoxycillin or clarithromycin, that both eradicate H. pylori and heal ulcers rapidly are appealing because they are simple, well tolerated, convenient and efficient in both healing ulcers and preventing relapse. This comprehensive approach appears to be evolving as the dominant strategy for the future treatment of peptic ulcer diseases. Gastric ulcer disease is also treated more effectively with omeprazole than with H2-receptor antagonists, both in terms of speed and reliability of healing, and in terms of symptom resolution. At 4 weeks, symptom resolution has been specifically examined in six comparative trials; in three of these, omeprazole was superior to the H2-receptor antagonist, and in the other three was at least as good as the H2-receptor antagonist. Omeprazole, 40 mg once daily, effectively heals non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced ulcers in about 90% of cases, even if NSAID therapy is continued, and is probably the treatment of choice for patients with ulcers requiring continued NSAID therapy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

During the early experience with omeprazole, it was recommended that plasma gastrin levels be monitored to identify patients with 4-5-fold increases above baseline. Such patients were thought to be at an increased risk of developing gastric carcinoid tumours. Studies have established that plasma gastrin levels usually rise 2-4-fold during omeprazole therapy, there being considerable inter- and intra-individual variation. Approximately 3.3% of patients have plasma gastrin levels above 400 pg/ml when treated continuously for 1 year. In clinical practice, it is not cost-effective to screen all patients to detect such a small percentage, particularly given the paucity of realistic treatment options in such patients, and the growing evidence that hypergastrinaemia during omeprazole treatment is of little, if any, clinical significance.