Healing and relapse rates in gastroesophageal reflux disease treated with the newer proton-pump inhibitors lansoprazole, rabeprazole, and pantoprazole compared with omeprazole, ranitidine, and placebo: evidence from randomized clinical trials.

摘要

BACKGROUND: The older proton pump inhibitor (PPI) omeprazole and the newer PPIs lansoprazole, rabeprazole, and pantoprazole are approved for the acute and maintenance treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). OBJECTIVE: On the basis of the results of randomized clinical trials, this study sought to estimate healing and relapse rates in acute and maintenance treatment of GERD with the newer PPIs compared with omeprazole, the histamine2-receptor antagonist ranitidine (the most frequent non-PPI comparator in studies of PPIs), and placebo. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE was conducted to identify randomized, controlled clinical trials that included a PPI in > or =1 treatment arm and assessed the healing of erosive esophagitis endoscopically. The primary outcome for studies of acute therapy was healing rate, and the primary outcome for studies of maintenance therapy was relapse rate. RESULTS: Fifty-three studies were identified, of which 38 involved acute therapy (12 excluded) and 15 maintenance therapy. None of the studies of pantoprazole met the inclusion criteria for maintenance therapy. The 8-week overall healing rate ratios in the comparison of newer PPIs with omeprazole 20 mg/d were as follows: lansoprazole 30 mg/d, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.98-1.06): rabeprazole 20 mg/d, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-1.00); and pantoprazole 40 mg/d, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.90-1.07). In the comparison of any PPI with ranitidine 300 mg/d, the ratios were as follows: lansoprazole, 1.62 (95% CI, 1.46-1.76); rabeprazole, 1.36 (95% CI, 1.20-1.54); pantoprazole, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.33-1.96); and omeprazole, 1.58 (95% CI, 1.41-1.78). Relapse rates over 1 year of treatment were similar between lansoprazole and rabeprazole. Compared with ranitidine, there were statistically significant differences in the rates of resolution of heartburn symptoms (P < 0.002), ulcer healing (P < 0.05), and relapse (P < 0.01). Similar results were seen in the comparison of PPIs with placebo in terms of rates of resolution of heartburn symptoms (P < 0.01), ulcer healing (P < 0.001), and relapse (P < 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the newer PPIs were of similar efficacy to omeprazole in terms of heartburn control, healing rates, and relapse rates. All the PPIs were superior to ranitidine and placebo in healing erosive esophagitis and decreasing relapse rates.