Comparative efficacy of esomeprazole and omeprazole: Racemate to single enantiomer switch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both omeprazole and its S enantiomer (esomeprazole) have been available and used to treat symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and conditions associated with excessive stomach acid secretion for more than a decade. Controversy exists over improved efficacy of S enantiomer (esomeprazole) over parent racemate (omeprazole). However, a comparison of the clinical outcomes of these products may reveal the rationale for switching from the racemate to single enantiomer. Since enantiomers of omeprazole are equipotent, we compared the outcomes of equal doses of each product to see if both actually differ in their efficacy's or the reported superiority of S enantiomer is just a dose effect. METHODS: A web search was carried out for randomized controlled trials with head-to-head comparisons of omeprazole and S-omeprazole. The data were abstracted and after calculating the odd ratios (OR) for the outcomes reported in each study, the combined overall odd ratios (OR') were estimated. The random effect inverse variance method with omeprazole as the reference (OR" = 1) was used. RESULTS: Out of 1171 studies, 14 were deemed eligible. There was no significant difference in the therapeutic success between omeprazole and S-omeprazole as a part of triple therapy for the treatment of H. pylori in both intention-to-treat (OR', 1.06; CI, 0.83, 1.36; p = 0.63) as well as per-protocol analysis (OR', 1.07; CI, 0.84, 1.36; p = 0.57). For the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, S-omeprazole was significantly but marginally superior to the racemate (OR', 1.18; CI, 1.01, 1.38; p = 0.04). The two products were equipotent in all metrics used to assess intragastric pH except for the % patients maintaining a 24 h gastric pH above 4 (1.57; CI, 1.04, 2.381; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The therapeutic benefit of chiral switch of omeprazole is questionable considering the substantially greater economic burden involved.
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 | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".