Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26573220›Full record

ArticleDaru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences2015

Comparative efficacy of esomeprazole and omeprazole: Racemate to single enantiomer switch.

Waheed Asghar, Elliot Pittman, Fakhreddin Jamali

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Waheed AsgharFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Alberta, 11361 - 87 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E1, Canada.
Elliot PittmanFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Alberta, 11361 - 87 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E1, Canada.
Fakhreddin JamaliFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Alberta, 11361 - 87 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E1, Canada. fjamali@ualberta.ca.
University of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBoth 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.

methodsA 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.

resultsOut 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).

conclusionThe therapeutic benefit of chiral switch of omeprazole is questionable considering the substantially greater economic burden involved.

Indexed as

EsomeprazoleGastroesophageal RefluxHelicobacter InfectionsHumansOmeprazoleProton Pump InhibitorsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStereoisomerismEsomeprazoleOmeprazoleProton Pump Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID26573220
PMCPMC4647708
OpenAlexW2213087814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.