4.7 Article

Potent acid inhibition by vonoprazan in comparison with esomeprazole, with reference to CYP2C19 genotype

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 43, 期 10, 页码 1048-1059

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13588

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [20590718]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K08948, 20590718] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Acid inhibitory effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are influenced by CYP2C19 genotype. In contrast, the potent acid inhibition of vonoprazan is not influenced by CYP2C19 genotype. Aim To compare the acid inhibitory effects of vonoprazan and esomeprazole in relation to CYP2C19 genotype. Methods Twenty-eight healthy Japanese volunteers [7 CYP2C19 poor metabolisers (PMs), 11 intermediate metabolisers (IMs) and 10 rapid metabolisers (RMs)] received four different regimens in a randomised crossover manner: (i) vonoprazan 20 mg twice daily (b.d.), (ii) vonoprazan 20 mg daily, (iii) esomeprazole 20 mg b.d. and (iv) esomeprazole 20 mg daily. The timing of each dosing was 1 h before a meal. Twenty-four-hour intragastric pH monitoring was performed on day 7 on each regimen. Results In the overall genotype group, pH >= 4 holding time ratios (pH 4 HTRs) with vonoprazan b.d., vonoprazan daily, esomeprazole b. d. and esomeprazole daily were 100%, 95%, 91%, and 68% respectively. pH 5 HTRs were 99%, 91%, 84% and 54% respectively. Vonoprazan b. d. potently suppressed acid for 24 h, and was significantly superior to other regimens irrespective of CYP2C19 genotype. Vonoprazan daily was equivalent to esomeprazole b. d. in IMs and PMs, but superior in RMs. CYP2C19 genotype-dependent differences were observed in esomeprazole daily but not in vonoprazan b. d. or daily. Conclusion Vonoprazan 20 mg b. d. inhibits acid irrespective of CYP2C19 genotype, more potently than esomeprazole 20 mg b.d., pH 4 and 5 holding time ratios reached 100% and 99%, respectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据