Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14664653›Full record

ReviewDrugs2003

Clinical pharmacology of proton pump inhibitors: what the practising physician needs to know.

Malcolm Robinson, John Horn

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 206 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The human proton pump inhibitors inhibitProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Rebuilding trust in proton pump inhibitor therapy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Malcolm RobinsonDepartment of Medicine, Oklahoma Foundation for Digestive Research, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. malcolm-robinson@ouhsc.edu
John Horn
Oklahoma Foundation for Digestive Research · USSeattle University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) [omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole and esomeprazole] are widely utilised for the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, as well as other acid-related disorders. All PPIs suppress gastric acid secretion by blocking the gastric acid pump, H(+)/K(+)-adenosine triphosphatase (ATPase), but the physicochemical properties of these drugs result in variations in the degree of acid suppression, as well as the speed of onset of acid inhibition. Such differences may impact on the clinical performance of PPIs, and this manuscript discusses data that may help clinicians choose between the available PPIs for specific clinical situations and indications. The characteristics of PPIs that have been developed subsequent to omeprazole offer several advantages over this prototype PPI, particularly with respect to the onset of acid suppression and reduced potential for inter-individual pharmacokinetic variation and drug interactions. Newer agents inhibit H(+)/K(+)-ATPase more rapidly than omeprazole and emerging clinical data support potential clinical benefits resulting from this pharmacological property. Although key pharmacokinetic parameters (time to maximum plasma concentration and elimination half-life) do not differ significantly among PPIs, differences in the hepatic metabolism of these drugs can produce inter-patient variability in acid suppression, in the potential for pharmacokinetic drug interactions and, quite possibly, in clinical efficacy. All PPIs undergo significant hepatic metabolism. Because there is no direct toxicity from PPIs, there is minimal risk from the administration of any of them - even to patients with significant renal or hepatic impairment. However, there are significant genetic polymorphisms for one of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes involved in PPI metabolism (CYP2C19), and this polymorphism has been shown to substantially increase plasma levels of omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole, but not those of rabeprazole. Hepatic metabolism is also a key determinant of the potential for a given drug to be involved in clinically significant pharmacokinetic drug interactions. Omeprazole has the highest risk for such interactions among PPIs, and rabeprazole and pantoprazole appear to have the lowest risk.Thus, whereas all PPIs have been shown to be generally effective and safely used for the treatment of acid-mediated disorders, there are chemical, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic differences among these drugs that may make certain ones more, or less, suitable for treating different patient subgroups. Of course, the absolute magnitude of risk from any PPI in terms of drug-drug interactions is probably low - excepting interactions occurring as class effects related to acid suppression (e.g. increased digoxin absorption or inability to absorb ketoconazole).

Indexed as

Anti-Ulcer AgentsProton Pump InhibitorsClinical Trials as TopicCytochrome P-450 Enzyme SystemDuodenal UlcerHalf-LifeHumansLiverSodium-Potassium-Exchanging ATPaseStomach UlcerAnti-Ulcer AgentsCytochrome P-450 Enzyme SystemProton Pump InhibitorsSodium-Potassium-Exchanging ATPase

Identifiers

PMID14664653
OpenAlexW140788451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.