Oral esomeprazole vs. intravenous pantoprazole: a comparison of the effect on intragastric pH in healthy subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) proton-pump inhibitor therapy is used in patients who cannot take oral medications or require greater acid suppression. Oral esomeprazole produces greater acid suppression than oral pantoprazole; however, no comparative data exist for oral esomeprazole and i.v. pantoprazole. AIM: To compare acid suppression (time with pH>3.0, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0) produced by standard doses of oral esomeprazole and i.v. pantoprazole in healthy subjects. METHODS: A randomized, two-way crossover study in 30 subjects receiving oral esomeprazole (40 mg o.d.) or i.v. pantoprazole (40 mg o.d.) for 5 days followed by a 2-week washout period before the second 5-day drug administration period using the crossover drug regimen. RESULTS: Oral esomeprazole produced greater acid suppression than i.v. pantoprazole on day 1 [pH>3.0 (56.9%, 35.8%; P<0.001), pH>4.0 (43.4%, 25.0%; P<0.001) and pH>5.0 (28.7%, 15.6%; P<0.001)] and on day 5 [pH>3.0 (70.4%, 45.9%; P<0.001), pH>4.0 (59.2%, 33.9%; P<0.001), pH>5.0 (45.5%, 23.9%; P<0.001) and pH>6.0 (19.6%, 12.6%; P=0.045)]. The adverse event profiles indicated both treatments to be safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy subjects, esomeprazole, 40 mg o.d. dispersed in water, produces greater acid suppression than pantoprazole 40 mg i.v. o.d. after 1 and 5 days of medication.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".