Skip to main content
PMC home page
Current Therapeutic Research, Clinical and Experimental logoLink to Current Therapeutic Research, Clinical and Experimental
. 2005 Jul;66(4):345–363. doi: 10.1016/j.curtheres.2005.08.012

Effects of pantoprazole 20 mg in mildgastroesophageal reflux disease: Once-daily treatment in the acute phase, and comparison of on-demand versus continuous treatment in the long term

Werner Janssen 1, Eberhard Meier 2, Gudrun Gatz 3, Bernd Pfaffenberger 3,*
PMCID: PMC3964567  PMID: 24672134

Abstract

Background:

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic disorder,and although effective short-term treatment strategies are known, the rate of relapse within 1 year is as high as 90% despite successful acute treatment. Consequently, most patients with GERD require an effective long-term management strategy to achieve adequate symptom control and maintain mucosal healing.

Objective:

The present study was undertaken to compare the control ofGERD symptoms during long-term (24-week) treatment with pantoprazole 20 mg used on-demand or continuously in patients with mild GERD after complete relief of acute GERD symptoms.

Methods:

Patients with endoscopically confirmed Savary/Miller grade 0(normal mucosa) or I (patchy red lesions without white coating or with central white coating) GERD were enrolled in this multinational, multicenter study comprising 2 phases. In the first phase, which was open label, patients were treated with pantoprazole 20 mg QD for 4 weeks. The presence and intensity of the symptoms of heartburn, acid regurgitation, and pain on swallowing were assessed. In the second phase, which was an open-label, 24-week, randomized design, only patients completely free of GERD symptoms after acute treatment were included. During this phase, on-demand treatment with pantoprazole 20 mg was directly compared with continuous treatment. The rate of failure to control GERD symptoms after 24 weeks of treatment was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Subsequently, the difference between treatments (on-demand minus continuous) and its 95% CI were calculated, and the on-demand treatment was tested for noninferiority using a predefined noninferiority margin of 20%. The mean daily symptom loads were compared between the treatment groups using the 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test on a 5% α level. The point estimate of the difference was determined using the Hodges-Lehman estimator and the 1-sided 95% CI according to Moses. The number of patients unwilling to continue due to insufficient control of heartburn, acid regurgitation, and pain on swallowing was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier (time-to-event) analysis. Analysis was performed in the same manner as for the rate of failure to control GERD symptoms, but the 95% CI was interpreted for statistical superiority.

Results:

A total of 558 patients were enrolled in this study. At the end of theacute phase, 82.1% of patients in the per-protocol (PP) population and 79.1% in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population were relieved of all GERD symptoms, and subsequently entered the long-term phase. After 24 weeks of treatment, analysis of the failure rates revealed that on-demand treatment was noninferior to continuous treatment because the 95% CI was completely below 20% (ITT, 12.1% difference [95% CI, −∞ to 18.9%]; PP, 10.1% difference [95% CI, −∞ to 17.7%]). The higher perceived mean (SD) daily symptom load in the on-demand group (ITT, 1.26 [1.491 vs 0.82 [1.341) was balanced by the reduced tablet intake in that group (PP, 0.51 [0.31 ] vs 0.97 [0.11 ] tablets/d; P < 0.001). With respect to the rate of patients unwilling to continue treatment, no statistically significant difference was observed between the on-demand and continuous groups (ITT/PP, 0.95/1.13 vs 0.95/1.26).

Conclusions:

In this study of pantoprazole 20 mg tablets in patients withmild GERD, patients receiving on-demand treatment benefited despite their higher symptom load. The similar rates of unwillingness to continue treatment in both groups might suggest that patients were satisfied with the on-demand treatment strategy. On-demand treatment with pantoprazole 20 mg was found to be noninferior compared with continuous therapy with regard to symptom control. Both on-demand and continuous treatments were well tolerated.

Key words: drug administration schedule, follow-up study, gastroesophagealreflux/drug therapy, heartburn, long-term care, treatment outcome, pantoprazole, continuous, on-demand, as needed

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.0 MB).

References

  • 1.Dent J., Brun J., Fendrick A.M., Genval Workshop Group An evidencebased appraisal of reflux disease management-The Genval Workshop Report. Gut. 1999;44(Suppl 2):S1–S16. doi: 10.1136/gut.44.2008.s1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lind T., Havelund T., Lundell L. On demand therapy with omeprazole for the long-term management of patients with heartburn without oesophagitis-a placebocontrolled randomized trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1999;13:907–914. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.1999.00564.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Talley N.J., Lauritsen K., Tunturi-Hihnala H. Esomeprazole 20 mg maintains symptom control in endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: A controlled trial of ‘on-demand’ therapyfor 6 months. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2001;15:347–354. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2001.00943.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Talley N.J., Venables T.L., Green J.R. Esomeprazole 40 mg and 20 mg is efficacious in the long-term management of patients with endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: A placebo-controlled trial of on-demand therapy for 6 months. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002;14:857–863. doi: 10.1097/00042737-200208000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kao A.W., Sheu B.S., Sheu M.J. On-demand therapy for Los Angeles Grade A and B reflux esophagitis: Esomeprazole versus omeprazole. J Formos Med Assoc. 2003;102:607–612. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Johnsson F., Mourn B., Vilien M. On-demand treatment in patients with oesophagitis and reflux symptoms: Comparison of lansoprazole and omeprazole. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2002;37:642–647. doi: 10.1080/00365520212499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tsai H.H., Chapman R., Shepherd A. Esomeprazole 20 mg on-demand is more acceptable to patients than continuous lansoprazole 15 mg in the long-term maintenance of endoscopy-negativegastro-oesophageal reflux patients: The COMMAND study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20:657–665. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.02155.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cooper A.L., Baxter G. Efficacy of lansoprazole on demand therapy in the treatment of non-erosive ref lux disease and functional ulcer-like dyspepsia. Gut. 2003;52(Suppl 6):A137. Abstract. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ponce J., Arguello L., Bastida G. On-demand therapy with rabeprazole in nonerosive and erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease in clinical practice: Effectiveness, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction. Dig Dis Sci. 2004;49:931–936. doi: 10.1023/b:ddas.0000034551.39324.c3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bytzer P., Blum A., De Herdt D., Dubois D., Trial Investigators Six-month trial of on-demand rabeprazole 10 mg maintains symptom relief in patients with non-erosive ref lux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20:181–188. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.01999.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Galmiche J.P., Shi G., Simon B. On-demand treatment of gastro-oesophageal ref lux symptoms: A comparison of ranitidine 75 mg with cimetidine 200 mg or placebo. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1998;12:909–917. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.1998.00384.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wilhelmsen I., Hatlebakk J.G., Olafsson S., Berstad A. On demand therapy of reflux oesophagitis—a prospective study of symptoms, patient satisfaction and quality of life. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1999;13:1035–1040. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.1999.00575.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bytzer P., Blum A.L. Personal view: Rationale and proposed algorithms for symptombased proton pump inhibitor therapy for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20:389–398. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.02093.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hungin A.P., Rubin G., O'Flanagan H. Factors influencing compliance in long-term proton pump inhibitor therapy in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1999;49:463–464. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gerson L.B., Robbins A.S., Garber A. A cost-effectiveness analysis of prescribing strategies in the management of gastroesophageal ref lux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:395–407. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.01759.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Meineche-Schmidt V., Juhl H.H., Ostergaard J.E. Costs and efficacy of three different esomeprazole treatment strategies for long-term management of gastrooesophageal reflux symptoms in primary care. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19:907–915. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.01916.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Metz D.C., Bochenek W.J., Pantoprazole US GERD Study Group Pantoprazole maintenance therapy prevents relapse of erosive oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;17:155–164. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01410.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Plein K., Hotz J., Wurzer H. Pantoprazole 20 mg is an effective maintenance therapy for patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000;12:425–432. doi: 10.1097/00042737-200012040-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Escourrou J., Deprez P., Saggioro A. Maintenance therapy with pantoprazole 20 mg prevents relapse of ref lux oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1999;13:1481–1491. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.1999.00651.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Scholten T, Dekkers CP, Schütze K, et al. On-demand therapy with pantoprazole20 mg as effective long-term management of reflux disease in patients with mild GERD: The ORION trial. Digestion. In press. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 21.Kaspari S, Kupcinskas L, Heinze H, et al. On-demand therapy with pantoprazole20 mg as effective long-term management of patients suffering from mild GERD. Ear J Gastroenterol Hepatol. In press. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 22.Savary M., Miller G. Gassmann; Soluthurn, Switzerland: 1977. (The Esophagus Textbook and Endoscopy Atlas). [in German] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Siewert J.R., Ottenjann R., Heilmann K. Therapy and prevention of reflux esophagitis. Results of a multicenter study with cimetidine. I: Epidemiology and results of acute therapy. Z Gastroenterol. 1986;24:381–395. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products . International Conference on Harmonisation-World Health Organization. Guideline for Good Clinical Practice[EMEA Web site] WHO; Geneva, Switzerland: 2002. http://www.emea.eu.int ICH Topic E6. Accessed July 26, 2005. Accessed July 26, 2005. Accessed July 26, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.WMA; Ferney-Voltaire, France: 1989. http://www.wma.net (World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Recommendations Guiding Medical Doctors in Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects [WMA Website]). [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hollander M., Wolfe D.A. 2nd ed. Wiley and Sons; New York, NY: 1999. Nonparametric Statistical Methods. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Top P.A.H., van der Eijk I., Schook C.E. Efficacy and safety of pantoprazole used continuously or intermittently in patients with mild gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Gut. 2003;52(Suppl 6):A178. Abstract. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lacevic N., Vukobrat Bijedic Z., Gavrankapetanovic F. Efficacy of continued and ‘on-demand’ regimens of pantoprazole 20 mg in mild gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gut. 2003;52(Supp16):A128. Abstract. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Engels L.G., Klinkenberg-Knol E.C., Dekkers C.P.M. Esomeprazole continuous versus on-demand maintenance therapy in 1052 gastroesophageal reflux disease patients: Similar satisfaction but superior quality of life for once daily treatment. Gut. 2003;52(Supp16):A130. Abstract. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Current Therapeutic Research, Clinical and Experimental are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES