The safety, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of immediate-release formulation containing esomeprazole 20 mg/sodium bicarbonate 800 mg in healthy adult male

Dasohm Kim, Min Soo Park, Byung Won Yoo, Taegon Hong, Shin Jung Park, Choon Ok Kim, Dasohm Kim, Min Soo Park, Byung Won Yoo, Taegon Hong, Shin Jung Park, Choon Ok Kim

Abstract

Background: Esomeprazole is the most effective treatment for acid-related disorders and is widely used with enteric coating due to rapid degradation in the acidic environment. However, the enteric-coated formulation delays absorption and onset of action. To overcome this limitation, an immediate-release formulation containing esomeprazole 20 mg and sodium bicarbonate 800 mg (IR-ESO) was developed.

Purpose: To evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics of IR-ESO compared to those of esomeprazole 20 mg (ESO).

Methods: A randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, two-treatment, two-sequence crossover study was conducted in 40 healthy male subjects. Subjects received either IR-ESO or ESO for 7 days. After single and multiple dosing, blood samples were collected for PK analysis, and intragastric pH was assessed by 24-hr pH monitoring.

Results: Plasma esomeprazole exposure of IR-ESO was similar to that of ESO after single and multiple dosing. Time to peak concentration of IR-ESO (0.50-0.75 hr) was shorter than that of ESO (1.25-1.50 hr). Percentage changes in 24-hr integrated gastric acidity from baseline for IR-ESO were similar to those for ESO. In addition, mean time to maintain gastric pH >4 for 24 hr was similar for both drugs (IR-ESO 55.5-69.9% vs ESO 56.8-70.2%). Evaluation of time to first reach pH 4 after dosing indicated that IR-ESO showed a faster onset than ESO. All subjects found the drug tolerable, and there were no significant differences in adverse events between two drugs.

Conclusion: This study showed that IR-ESO produced a rapid, safe and sustained gastric acid suppression (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03211143).

Keywords: 24-hr pH monitoring; esomeprazole; immediate-release esomeprazole; sodium bicarbonate.

Conflict of interest statement

Shin Jung Park is a full-time employee of Chong Kun Dang Pharmaceutical Corp. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.

© 2019 Kim et al.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mean plasma concentration-time profiles (A) after a single administration on day 1 and (B) after multiple administrations on day 7. Notes: The vertical bars represent SD. Reference, esomeprazole 20 mg once daily for 7 days. Test, esomeprazole 20 mg/sodium bicarbonate 800 mg once daily for 7 days.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Median intragastric pH over a 24-hr interval with esomeprazole 20 mg/sodium bicarbonate 800 mg (test) or esomeprazole 20 mg (reference) at baseline, (A) after a single administration on day 1 and (B) after multiple administrations on day 7. Notes: Reference, esomeprazole 20 mg once daily for 7 days. Test, esomeprazole 20 mg/sodium bicarbonate 800 mg once daily for 7 days.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Median intragastric pH within 2 hrs with esomeprazole 20 mg/sodium bicarbonate 800 mg (test) or esomeprazole 20 mg (reference) at baseline, (A) after a single administration on day 1 and (B) after multiple administrations on day 7. Notes: Reference, esomeprazole 20 mg once daily for 7 days. Test, esomeprazole 20 mg/sodium bicarbonate 800 mg once daily for 7 days.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Mean percentage (%) of time with gastric pH >4 over a 24-hr period following treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg/sodium bicarbonate 800 mg (test) or esomeprazole 20 mg (reference) or at baseline. Notes: The vertical bars represent SD. Reference, esomeprazole 20 mg once daily for 7 days. Test, esomeprazole 20 mg/sodium bicarbonate 800 mg once daily for 7 days.

References

    1. Joelsson B, Johnsson F. Heartburn–the acid test. Gut. 1989;30(11):1523–1525. doi:10.1136/gut.30.11.1523
    1. Miner P. Relief of symptoms in gastric acid‐related diseases–correlation with acid suppression in rabeprazole treatment. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20:20–29. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.02162.x
    1. Huang J-Q, Hunt RH. pH, healing rate, and symptom relief in patients with GERD. Yale J Biol Med. 1999;72(2–3):181.
    1. Vanderhoff BT, Tahboub RM. Proton pump inhibitors: an update. Am Fam Physician. 2002;66(2):273–280.
    1. Castell DO, Kahrilas PJ, Richter JE, et al. Esomeprazole (40 mg) compared with lansoprazole (30 mg) in the treatment of erosive esophagitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(3):575. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05560.x
    1. Castell D. Review of immediate-release omeprazole for the treatment of gastric acid-related disorders. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2005;6(14):2501–2510. doi:10.1517/14656566.6.14.2501
    1. Shi S, Klotz U. Proton pump inhibitors: an update of their clinical use and pharmacokinetics. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;64(10):935–951. doi:10.1007/s00228-008-0538-y
    1. Horn J, Howden C. Review article: similarities and differences among delayed-release proton-pump inhibitor formulations. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;22:20–24. doi:10.1111/apt.2005.22.issue-s3
    1. Small RE. Advances in proton pump inhibitor therapy: an immediate-release formulation of omeprazole. Pharmacol Ther. 2005;30:698–715.
    1. Howden C. immediate‐release proton‐pump inhibitor therapy–potential advantages. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;22:25–30. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02709.x
    1. McQuaid KR, Laine L. Early heartburn relief with proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3(6):553–563.
    1. Richter JE, Kahrilas PJ, Johanson J, et al. Efficacy and safety of esomeprazole compared with omeprazole in GERD patients with erosive esophagitis: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(3):656–665. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.3600_b.x
    1. Abdel-Hamid H. Modified PPIs (a search for the better). Al-Azhar Assiut Med J. 2016;14(1):8. doi:10.4103/1687-1693.180455
    1. Gardner J, Perdomo C, Sloan S, et al. Integrated acidity and rabeprazole pharmacology. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2002;16(3):455–464. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.2002.01158.x
    1. Lind T, Rydberg L, Kylebäck A, et al. Esomeprazole provides improved acid control vs. omeprazole In patients with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2000;14(7):861–867. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.2000.00813.x
    1. Missaghi S, Young C, Fegely K, Rajabi-Siahboomi AR. Delayed release film coating applications on oral solid dosage forms of proton pump inhibitors: case studies. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2010;36(2):180–189. doi:10.3109/03639040903468811
    1. Röhss K, Lind T, Wilder-Smith C. Esomeprazole 40 mg provides more effective intragastric acid control than lansoprazole 30 mg, omeprazole 20 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg and rabeprazole 20 mg in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;60(8):531–539. doi:10.1007/s00228-004-0804-6
    1. Miner P Jr, Katz PO, Chen Y, Sostek M. Gastric acid control with esomeprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole: a five-way crossover study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(12):2616. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07710.x
    1. Benetti C, Flammini L, Vivo V, et al. Esomeprazole immediate release tablets: gastric mucosa ex vivo permeation, absorption and antisecretory activity in conscious rats. J Control Release. 2016;239:203–210. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.08.032
    1. Walker D, Shing RNK, Jones D, Gruss H-J, Reguła J. Challenges of correlating pH change with relief of clinical symptoms in gastro esophageal reflux disease: a phase III, randomized study of Zegerid versus Losec. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0116308. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116308
    1. Tutuian R, Castell D, Xue S, Katz P. The acidity index: a simple approach to the measurement of gastric acidity. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19(4):443–448. doi:10.1111/apt.2004.19.issue-4
    1. Hunt RH. Importance of pH control in the management of GERD. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(7):649–657.
    1. Robinson M. current perspectives on hypergastrinaemia and enterochromaffin-like-cell hyperplasia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1999;13:5–10. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.1999.00033.x

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner