MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2147173269 · doi:10.1111/apt.13384

Editorial: towards extended acid suppression - the search continues

2015· editorial· en· W2147173269 sur OpenAlexaff
Carmelo Scarpignato, Richard H. Hunt

Notice bibliographique

RevueAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2015
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Organismes subventionnairesPfizer Pharmaceuticals
Mots-clésGERDMedicineOmeprazoleProton-pump inhibitorRegimenMedical prescriptionInternal medicineGastric acidHelicobacter pyloriLansoprazoleDiseaseGastroenterologyIntensive care medicineRefluxPharmacotherapyPharmacologyStomach

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Acid-suppression therapy with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is associated with well-established benefits in managing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and other acid-related disorders. However, a number of questions still remain unanswered.1, 2 These include management of patients with GERD symptoms who do not respond adequately to PPI therapy, the optimal treatment and prevention of NSAID-related GI injury, best combination of anti-secretory and antibiotic therapy for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection, and treatment of patients with nonvariceal upper GI bleeding. Despite their clinical efficacy, when given once daily, currently available delayed-release PPIs (DR-PPIs) may not adequately control intra-gastric acidity during the night in a significant proportion of both healthy subjects and GERD patients, in whom symptom relief remains suboptimal. According to a US survey,3 although most prescription PPI users are on a once-daily regimen, a substantial proportion of patients take these drugs twice-daily, despite this being off-label. Patients on PPI therapy often continue to experience GERD symptoms and supplement their prescription PPIs with other GERD medications, which may be obtained over-the-counter. One in four patients are dissatisfied with PPI therapy for GERD.3 Over the past decade, many new drugs, or alternative formulations of existing drugs, have been investigated but only two, instant release omeprazole (IR-omeprazole) and modified-release dexlansoprazole (MR-dexlansoprazole), have been introduced in some countries. These new approaches represent a measurable, but small, incremental advance in the pharmacological control of acid secretion over the DR-PPIs,4, 5 but fall short of achieving the pharmacologic profile that has been considered desirable to control acidity in patients with more complex clinical problems.6, 7 Several compounds are under investigation to provide a significant advance over current treatments.8 Some have already entered phase I or II studies, while others are still in preclinical development. Novel PPIs have been synthesised, but few have reached clinical testing. Tenatoprazole (a nonbenzimidazole derivative) and AGN 201904-Z (an omeprazole pro-drug) display a half-life longer than that of current PPIs (about 9 and 4 h, respectively, vs. 1.5–2.0 h) and a better control of intra-gastric acidity at night, with few episodes of nocturnal acid breakthrough (NAB).9 The next generation of drugs that suppress gastric acidity are the acid pump antagonists (also called potassium-competitive acid blockers, P-CABs), which are K+-competitive inhibitors of the gastric proton pump.8, 10 While PPIs have a unique mechanism of action based on their chemistry, P-CABs have a structural specificity for their target, the K+-binding region of the H+,K+-ATPase. P-CABs are lipophilic, weak bases that have high pKa values and are stable at low pH. These properties allow them to concentrate in acidic environments. For example, the concentration of a P-CAB with a pKa of 6.0 would theoretically be expected to be 100,000-fold higher in the parietal cell canaliculus (pH = 1.0) than in the plasma (pH 7.4). On entering an acidic environment, P-CABs are instantly protonated and it is in this form that they are thought to bind to and inhibit the enzyme.8, 10 Therefore, these agents will produce more rapid acid inhibition and will be able to elevate gastric pH to a higher level than PPIs. The main differences between P-CABs and PPIs are outlined in Table 1. Despite sharing the same mechanism of action, P-CABs represent a heterogeneous class of drugs. Indeed, they belong to several different chemical classes, namely imidazopyridines, pyrimidines, imidazonaphthyridines, quinolones, benzimidazole carboxamides and pyrrole derivatives.8 Sakurai et al.11 reported the acid-inhibitory effect of vonozopran, a new P-CAB (20 mg once daily), compared with esomeprazole (20 mg once daily) or rabeprazole (10 mg once daily) in healthy, male volunteers. Acid suppression (evaluated as pH holding time ratios) with vonoprazan was significantly greater than that with esomeprazole or rabeprazole on both days 1 and 7, confirming a more rapid and sustained anti-secretory effect. These results are relevant since they have been obtained in CYP2C19 extensive metabolizers, the dominant genotype both in Japanese and Caucasian populations.12 The mean 24-h intragastric pH was higher than, and the pH 4 holding time similar to, that recently reported after esomeprazole 20 mg q.d.s.13 When compared with standard doses of other PPIs, esomeprazole (40 mg once daily) provided more effective control of gastric acid in patients with symptomatic GERD.14 Vonoprazan appears, therefore, superior to the best PPI currently available and displays a pharmacological profile with the potential to truly address the unmet clinical needs in GERD and other acid-related diseases. Indeed, available clinical data, albeit so far only in Japanese patients, suggest that this is the case.15 Declaration of personal interests: Carmelo Scarpignato has served as a speaker, consultant and/or advisory board member for Alfa Wassermann, AstraZeneca, Boeheringer-Ingelheim, Giuliani Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Recordati, Sigma-Tau, Shire, Takeda and Warner-Chilcott, and has in the past received funding from Giuliani Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer. Richard H Hunt has served as a speaker, a consultant and an advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Danone, GSK, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda. Declaration of funding interests: None.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,032
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,107

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,027
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,004
Communication savante0,0080,010
Science ouverte0,0050,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0180,027
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0320,030

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,384
Écart entre enseignants0,349 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations19
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAlimentary Pharmacology & TherapeuticsMême sujetGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsTravaux en français237 207