The pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of S‐tenatoprazole‐Na 30 mg, 60 mg and 90 mg vs. esomeprazole 40 mg in healthy male subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Racemic tenatoprazole 40 mg/day provides more prolonged acid suppression than esomeprazole 40 mg/day. AIM: To compare pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles of tenatoprazole and esomeprazole. METHODS: A single-centre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, 4-way, cross-over study was conducted in 32 healthy male subjects. S-tenatoprazole-Na 30, 60 or 90 mg, or esomeprazole 40 mg was administered once daily for 5 days with 10-day washout intervals. The 24-h intragastric pH was recorded at baseline and on day 5 of each period. RESULTS: On day 5, median pH (5.34 +/- 0.45 and 5.19 +/- 0.52 vs. 4.76 +/- 0.82, respectively, P < 0.002) and percentage time with pH > 4 (80 +/- 11 and 77 +/- 12, vs. 63 +/- 11 respectively, P < 0.0001) for 24-h were higher with S-tenatoprazole-Na 90 mg and 60 mg than esomeprazole. In nocturnal periods, S-tenatoprazole-Na 90 mg, 60 mg and 30 mg were superior to esomeprazole with regard to median pH (5.14 +/- 0.64, 4.94 +/- 0.65, 4.65 +/- 0.86 and 3.69 +/- 1.18 respectively, P < 0.0001) and percentage time with pH > 4 (77 +/- 12, 73 +/- 17, 64 +/- 17 and 46 +/- 17 respectively, P < 0.0001). Proportion of subjects with nocturnal acid breakthrough with S-tenatoprazole-Na 90 mg, 60 mg and 30 mg was significantly less than with esomeprazole (54.8, 43.3, 56.7 and 90.3 respectively, P < 0.04). The proportion of subjects with >16 hrs with pH >4 was significantly higher with S-tenatoprazole-Na 90 mg and 60 mg than with esomeprazole (87.1%, 83.3% and 41.9% respectively, P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: S-tenatoprazole-Na produced significantly greater and more prolonged dose-dependent 24-h and nocturnal acid suppression than esomeprazole. S-tenatoprazole-Na may provide greater clinical efficacy compared with current PPIs for patients with ineffective once-daily therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".