Effect on Intragastric pH of a PPI with a Prolonged Plasma Half-Life: Comparison between Tenatoprazole and Esomeprazole on the Duration of Acid Suppression in Healthy Male Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the inhibitory effect of a novel proton pump inhibitor (PPI), tenatoprazole 40 mg once daily, with esomeprazole 40 mg once daily on intragastric acidity. METHODS: A randomized, investigator-blind, two-way, crossover study was conducted in 30 healthy Helicobacter pylori negative male volunteers. Tenatoprazole 40 mg or esomeprazole 40 mg was administered once daily for 7 consecutive days with a 4-wk washout period between treatments. Ambulatory 24-h intragastric pH was recorded at baseline, after 7 days' treatment, and 3 and 5 days after treatment was stopped. RESULTS: At presumed steady-state (day 7), median 24-h pH values were 5.02 and 4.79 for tenatoprazole and esomeprazole, respectively. There was a significant difference between tenatoprazole and esomeprazole during the nocturnal period when mean pH was 4.64 +/- 0.67 versus 3.61 +/- 0.90, respectively (p < 0.0001), as well as a significantly higher mean percentage of time with pH >4 on tenatoprazole (72.5 +/- 14.9 vs 62.2 +/- 13.6, p < 0.0001). The effect of tenatoprazole was still present 5 days after treatment withdrawal especially during the night-time. The mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve and elimination half-time was significantly higher in the tenatoprazole group as compared with the esomeprazole group. CONCLUSION: Tenatoprazole 40 mg daily provides a prolonged duration of acid suppression and a shorter nocturnal acid breakthrough in healthy volunteers, even after stopping the drug. Thus, tenatoprazole may provide greater clinical efficacy for patients in whom a once daily PPI is ineffective. Further studies are indicated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".