Pharmacokinetics and Acid-suppressive Effects of Esomeprazole in Infants 1-24 Months Old With Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics and acid-suppressive effects of esomeprazole in infants with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, 50 infants 1 to 24 months old with symptoms of GERD, and ≥ 5% of time with intraesophageal pH <4 during 24-hour dual pH monitoring, received oral esomeprazole 0.25 mg/kg (n = 26) or 1 mg/kg (n = 24) once daily for 1 week. Intraesophageal and intragastric pH were recorded at 1 week, and blood samples were taken for pharmacokinetic analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, mean percentages of time with intragastric pH >4 and intraesophageal pH <4 were 30.5% and 11.6%, respectively, in the esomeprazole 0.25 mg/kg group and 28.6% and 12.5% in the esomeprazole 1 mg/kg group. After 1 week of treatment, times with intragastric pH >4 were 47.9% and 69.3% in the esomeprazole 0.25 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg groups, respectively (P < 0.001 vs baseline), and times with intraesophageal pH <4 were 8.4% (P < 0.05 vs baseline) and 5.5% (P < 0.001 vs. baseline), respectively. The mean number of acid reflux episodes of >5 minutes duration decreased from 6 at baseline to 3 and 2 with esomeprazole 0.25 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg, respectively. The geometric mean AUC0-t of esomeprazole were 0.24 and 1.79 µmol · h/L for the 0.25 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg dosages of esomeprazole, respectively. Both esomeprazole dosages were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Oral treatment with esomeprazole 0.25 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg was well tolerated and provided dose-related acid suppression, dose-related exposure to esomeprazole, and decreased esophageal acid exposure in infants 1-24 months old with GERD.

Pharmacokinetics and Acid-suppressive Effects of Esomeprazole in Infants 1-24 Months Old With Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics and acid-suppressive effects of esomeprazole in infants with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, 50 infants 1 to 24 months old with symptoms of GERD, and ≥ 5% of time with intraesophageal pH <4 during 24-hour dual pH monitoring, received oral esomeprazole 0.25 mg/kg (n = 26) or 1 mg/kg (n = 24) once daily for 1 week. Intraesophageal and intragastric pH were recorded at 1 week, and blood samples were taken for pharmacokinetic analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, mean percentages of time with intragastric pH > 4 and intraesophageal pH < 4 were 30.5% and 11.6%, respectively, in the esomeprazole 0.25 mg/kg group and 28.6% and 12.5% in the esomeprazole 1 mg/kg group. After 1 week of treatment, times with intragastric pH >4 were 47.9% and 69.3% in the esomeprazole 0.25 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg groups, respectively (P < 0.001 vs baseline), and times with intraesophageal pH < 4 were 8.4% (P < 0.05 vs baseline) and 5.5% (P < 0.001 vs. baseline), respectively. The mean number of acid reflux episodes of > 5 minutes duration decreased from 6 at baseline to 3 and 2 with esomeprazole 0.25 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg, respectively. The geometric mean AUC0-t of esomeprazole were 0.24 and 1.79 µmol · h/L for the 0.25 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg dosages of esomeprazole, respectively. Both esomeprazole dosages were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Oral treatment with esomeprazole 0.25 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg was well tolerated and provided dose-related acid suppression, dose-related exposure to esomeprazole, and decreased esophageal acid exposure in infants 1-24 months old with GERD.

Pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation--a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicentre, dose-escalation study of AZD1305 given intravenously.

AIM: AZD1305 is a combined ion channel blocker developed for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study was to determine whether AZD1305 was effective in converting AF to sinus rhythm (SR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with AF episodes of duration 3 h to 3 months were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive a maximum 30 min intravenous infusion of AZD1305 or matching placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients converting within 90 min of the start of infusion, after which patients who had not converted were to undergo direct current (DC) cardioversion. Four ascending AZD1305 dose groups were assigned sequentially, with dose rates of 50, 100, 130, and 180 mg/h. A total of 171 patients were randomized. Pharmacological conversion was achieved in 0 of 43 patients (0%) in the placebo group, and in 2 of 26 (8%; P= 0.14 vs. placebo), 8 of 45 (18%; P= 0.006), 17 of 45 (38%; P< 0.001), and 6 of 12 patients (50%; P< 0.001) in AZD1305 dose groups 1-4, respectively. Maximum QTcF (QT interval corrected according to Fridericia's formula) generally increased dose-dependently up to a plateau, although there was wide variation between patients. Two patients experienced torsade de pointes (TdP): one patient without symptoms in dose group 3, and one patient requiring DC defibrillation in dose group 4. Both patients recovered without sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: AZD1305 was effective in converting AF to SR, but was associated with QT prolongation and TdP. The benefit-risk profile was judged as unfavourable and the AZD1305 development programme was discontinued. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00915356.

Pharmacodynamics and systemic exposure of esomeprazole in preterm infants and term neonates with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the pharmacodynamics and systemic exposure of esomeprazole in 26 preterm infants and term neonates with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux and pathologic acid exposure. STUDY DESIGN: Enrolled patients received oral esomeprazole 0.5 mg/kg once daily for 7 days. Twenty-four-hour esophagogastric pH-impedance monitoring was performed at baseline and on day 7. Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed on day 7. Symptoms occurring during the baseline and day 7 studies were recorded on a symptom chart. RESULTS: There were no significant differences from baseline to day 7 of therapy in the frequency of bolus reflux, consistency of bolus reflux (liquid, mixed, or gas), extent of bolus reflux, or bolus clearance time. Acid bolus reflux episodes were reduced on therapy (median 30 vs 8, P < .001), as was the reflux index (mean % time esophageal pH < 4, 15.7% vs 7.1%, P < .001). The estimated geometric mean of area under the plasma concentration time curve during the dosing interval and observed maximum plasma concentration was 2.5 micromol x h/L and 0.74 micromol/L, respectively. The number of gastroesophageal reflux symptoms recorded over 24 hours was lower on therapy (median 22 vs 12, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In preterm infants and term neonates esomeprazole produces no change in bolus reflux characteristics despite significant acid suppression.

Pharmacokinetics and acid-suppressive effects of esomeprazole in infants 1-24 months old with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics and acid-suppressive effects of esomeprazole in infants with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, 50 infants 1 to 24 months old with symptoms of GERD, and >or=5% of time with intraesophageal pH <4 during 24-hour dual pH monitoring, received oral esomeprazole 0.25 mg/kg (n = 26) or 1 mg/kg (n = 24) once daily for 1 week. Intraesophageal and intragastric pH were recorded at 1 week, and blood samples were taken for pharmacokinetic analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, mean percentages of time with intragastric pH >4 and intraesophageal pH <4 were 30.5% and 11.6%, respectively, in the esomeprazole 0.25 mg/kg group and 28.6% and 12.5% in the esomeprazole 1 mg/kg group. After 1 week of treatment, times with intragastric pH >4 were 47.9% and 69.3% in the esomeprazole 0.25 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg groups, respectively (P < 0.001 vs baseline), and times with intraesophageal pH <4 were 8.4% (P < 0.05 vs baseline) and 5.5% (P < 0.001 vs. baseline), respectively. The mean number of acid reflux episodes of >5 minutes duration decreased from 6 at baseline to 3 and 2 with esomeprazole 0.25 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg, respectively. The geometric mean AUC0-t of esomeprazole were 0.24 and 1.79 micromol x h/L for the 0.25 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg dosages of esomeprazole, respectively. Both esomeprazole dosages were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Oral treatment with esomeprazole 0.25 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg was well tolerated and provided dose-related acid suppression, dose-related exposure to esomeprazole, and decreased esophageal acid exposure in infants 1-24 months old with GERD.

Pharmacokinetics of esomeprazole following varying intravenous administration rates.

There are situations where the use of an oral proton pump inhibitors is not possible. In such situations an intravenous route is the preferred alternative. An intravenous formulation of esomeprazole has recently been developed. This study was designed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of single-dose intravenous esomeprazole using different rates of administration. The study was an open randomised, cross-over design in healthy male and female (n = 24). Esomeprazole 40 mg intravenously was administrated as an infusion over 10, 15, 20 or 30 min., or esomeprazole 20 mg intravenously as an injection over 3 min. There was a wash-out period of at least 6 days between dose regimens. It was demonstrated that increasing the rate of intravenous infusion of esomeprazole 40 mg resulted in higher Cmax values (geometric means; 5.2-7.6 micromol/l), but the AUC values remained relatively constant (7.1-7.2 micromor/l). As expected esomeprazole 20 mg administered as a 3 min. intravenous injection had lower Cmax (3.6 micromol/l) and AUC (2.9 micromol.r/l) values than any of the infusions of esomeprazole 40 mg. Intravenous esomeprazole was well tolerated in this study. In conclusion, any variation in the infusion rate of esomeprazole 40 mg intravenously has little effect on the pharmacokinetics of esomeprazole in healthy volunteers, which provides flexibility in the choice of dosing regimens.

Intravenous esomeprazole (40 mg and 20 mg) inhibits gastric acid secretion as effectively as oral esomeprazole: results of two randomized clinical studies.

OBJECTIVES: Two studies compared the effects of intravenous (i.v.) and oral esomeprazole (40 mg and 20 mg) on gastric acid suppression and pharmacokinetics after both single (day 1) and repeated (day 5) dosing. METHODS: Two randomized, two-way, cross-over, comparative studies of similar design were performed in healthy male and female volunteers. In both studies, subjects received esomeprazole as a 30-min i.v. infusion or orally once-daily for 5 days, separated by a wash-out period of at least 13 days. In one study, which was double-blind (double dummy), subjects received 40 mg esomeprazole. In the other open study, subjects were given 20 mg esomeprazole. RESULTS: In total, 40 and 24 subjects were randomized for treatment with 40 mg and 20 mg esomeprazole, respectively. No significant differences were found between i.v or oral administration of esomeprazole with respect to the amount of time with mean intragastric pH>4 throughout day 1 or day 5 of treatment in the 40 mg study (day 1, 10.1 h and 8.8 h versus day 5, 15.9 h and 15.3 h, respectively) and the 20 mg study (day 1, 7.3 h and 6.6 h versus day 5, 11.9 h and 12.3 h, respectively). The area under the plasma concentration-time curve values were higher following i.v. relative to oral administration on day 1 of dosing, with less pronounced differences after repeated (day 5) dosing. Both administration routes were similarly well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole, 40 mg and 20 mg i.v., provides similar levels of intragastric acid control on both day 1 and day 5 of treatment compared with oral administration.

Intravenous Esomeprazole 40mg is Effective for the Control of Intragastric Acid Levels Whether Given as a 3-Minute Injection or a 30-Minute Infusion.

BACKGROUND: An intravenous (IV) formulation of esomeprazole has been developed as an alternative to oral administration. To meet the needs of different clinical situations it would be preferable if an IV dose could be administered as either an injection or an infusion, while producing similar effects. AIM: To compare the effects of IV esomeprazole 40mg given as a 3-minute injection or a 30-minute infusion on intragastric pH during single and repeated once-daily dosing in healthy subjects. METHODS: In this single-centre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, two- way crossover study, subjects were randomised to receive either a 3-minute IV injection or a 30-minute IV infusion of esomeprazole 40mg. Both regimens were given once daily for 10 days. After a washout period of at least 13 days, subjects were crossed over to the other treatment. Intragastric pH monitoring was performed on days 1 and 10. Blood samples were also taken throughout days 1 and 10. RESULTS: Data were available from 41 subjects. Time with intragastric pH >4 was 3.1h/24h at baseline, increasing to almost 8h in association with IV esomeprazole injection or infusion on day 1, and to >13h on day 10. Geometric mean time with pH >4/24h ratios (injection/infusion) were 0.99 on day 1 and 1.03 on day 10. Mean esomeprazole AUC values were approximately 15% higher with the injection than the infusion, but 90% CI limits for geometric mean AUC ratios ranged from 1.07 to 1.23, indicating bioequivalence. CONCLUSIONS: IV esomeprazole 40mg provides similarly potent acid control whether administered by injection or infusion.