ライフサイエンスコーパス: pantoprazole

1 tients to receive either daily IV placebo or pantoprazole.

2 er half-time for acid recovery observed with pantoprazole.

3 ucing agent was seen following inhibition by pantoprazole.

4 or omeprazole and approximately 46 hours for pantoprazole.

5 and 16.5 (42.9) days in the hospital for no pantoprazole.

6 e was more effective and less costly than no pantoprazole.

7 for pantoprazole vs $65 423 ($75 661) for no pantoprazole.

8 omeprazole, and 2.33 (95% CI, 1.30-4.18) for pantoprazole.

9 log-rank p = 0.33: adjusted hazard ratio for pantoprazole: 1.68 [95% CI, 0.97-2.90]; p = 0.06).

10 herapy group, 44 patients treated with 40 mg pantoprazole, 1000 mg amoxicillin and 500 mg clarithromy

11 Intravenous pantoprazole, 160-240 mg/day administered in divided dos

12 ted complication or pneumonia (placebo: 1 vs pantoprazole: 2), and one patient was diagnosed with Clo

13 vofloxacin (LVX) consumption were prescribed pantoprazole 40 mg 2x/day, amoxicillin 1000 mg 12/12 h a

14 ylori treatments (Group A, n = 103) received pantoprazole 40 mg 2x/day, amoxicillin 1000 mg 12/12 h a

15 ters") and HVs before and after PPI therapy (pantoprazole 40 mg once daily for 4 weeks).

16 ous patients were randomly allocated to PPI (pantoprazole 40 mg/day) or placebo for 12 months.

17 Daily intravenous pantoprazole (40 mg) or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride).

18 aily for the first 5 days, followed by 40 mg pantoprazole, 500 mg clarithromycin and 500 mg tinidazol

19 h at least one of the alternative PPIs (8/52 pantoprazole, 6/52 omeprazole, 5/52 esomeprazole, 3/52 r

20 inute infusions of the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole (80-120 mg every 8-12 hours) in controlling

21 Pantoprazole, 80 mg every 12 hours, was effective in 17

22 7,598-participant randomized trial comparing pantoprazole (8791) with placebo (8807).

23 , the 5 most frequently prescribed PIMs were pantoprazole (9.3% of all PIMs prescribed), ibuprofen (6

24 valuates the evidence for the efficacy of IV pantoprazole, a PPI, in preventing ulcer rebleeding afte

25 of this study was to assess the efficacy of pantoprazole, a proton pump inhibitor, as an adjunct to

26 f naproxen, acetaminophen (paracetamol), and pantoprazole; a limited rescue prescription of hydromorp

27 Whereas all PPIs bind to cysteine 813, pantoprazole additionally binds to cysteine 822, deeper

28 to evaluate benefit or harm associated with pantoprazole administration.

29 In conclusion, subjects receiving pantoprazole after elective EVL had significantly smalle

30 ded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of pantoprazole after elective EVL.

31 Patient-important bleeding was reduced with pantoprazole; all other secondary outcomes were similar

32 r omeprazole to 0.27 [95% CI, 0.24-0.29] for pantoprazole and 0.27 [95% CI, 0.25-0.29] for rabeprazol

33 erapy group, 126 patients treated with 40 mg pantoprazole and 1000 mg amoxicillin, twice daily for th

34 MAIN Ninety-one patients (49 pantoprazole and 42 placebo) from 10 centers in Canada,

35 rred in 25 of 2385 patients (1.0%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 of 2377 patients (3.5%) receiving

36 Pantoprazole and omeprazole accounted for 62% and 9% of

37 -2-pyridyl)methylsulfinyl]-1H-benzimidazole (pantoprazole), and 2-[(4-(3-methoxypropoxy)-3-methyl)-2-

38 esomeprazole, 433 for lansoprazole, 421 for pantoprazole, and 405 for rabeprazole.

39 PIs (omeprazole, esomeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole) and 5 ICs (ie, INTERCheck

40 Subjects in the pantoprazole arm received 40 mg pantoprazole intravenous

41 invasive ventilation to receive intravenous pantoprazole (at a dose of 40 mg daily) or matching plac

42 sitivity analysis, US costs were applied for pantoprazole, bleeding, and ICU and hospital stay to all

43 Pantoprazole bound only to either cysteine 813 or 822 in

44 sensitivity analysis comparing famotidine to pantoprazole confirmed this finding (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0

45 or equal to 48 hours to receive 40 mg of IV pantoprazole daily or placebo.

46 minutes) after an initial 80-mg intravenous pantoprazole dose.

47 red upward dose titration, 2 required 120 mg pantoprazole every 12 hours, and 2 required 80 mg every

48 travenously after EVL followed by 40 mg oral pantoprazole for 9 days.

49 cts who received high dose and non-high-dose pantoprazole for confirmed acute PU bleeding at a tertia

50 In this economic evaluation, daily pantoprazole for invasively mechanically ventilated pati

51 of new users of lansoprazole, omeprazole, or pantoprazole from the United Kingdom Clinical Practice R

52 nally, we highlighted five top-ranked drugs (pantoprazole, gabapentin, atorvastatin, fluticasone, and

53 umonia developed in 20.4% of patients in the pantoprazole group and 14.3% in the placebo group (p = 0

54 leeding developed in 6.1% of patients in the pantoprazole group and 4.8% in the placebo group (p = 1.

55 orted in 696 of 2390 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group and in 734 of 2379 patients (30.9%) i

56 However, the ulcers in the pantoprazole group were on average half as large as in t

57 In adjusted analyses, pantoprazole had a 0.27 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) per year gr

58 placebo has been inadequately evaluated, and pantoprazole has the potential to cause harm.

59 Omeprazole and pantoprazole have no activity.

60 A lower bleeding risk was associated with pantoprazole (HR, 0.36 [95% CI = 0.25, 0.54]) and entera

61 (HR, 0.82 [95% CI = 0.63, 1.07]) or without pantoprazole (HR, 0.81 [95% CI = 0.66, 1.00]).

62 eral nutrition and bleeding was similar with pantoprazole (HR, 0.82 [95% CI = 0.63, 1.07]) or without

63 ave demonstrated the efficacy of intravenous pantoprazole in maintaining adequate control of gastric

64 r pantoprazole vs $140 770 ($153 195) for no pantoprazole (incremental cost: -$10 591; 95% CI, -$18 4

65 costly and more effective than care without pantoprazole, indicating both clinical benefits and econ

66 prazole initiators and 923,500 omeprazole or pantoprazole initiators.

67 no interaction between enteral nutrition and pantoprazole (interaction P = 0.94).

68 odologies include optimization en route to a pantoprazole intermediate and development of a represent

69 mg once a day for 28 days) or high-dose PPI (pantoprazole intravenous infusion 8 mg/h for 3 days, the

70 jects in the pantoprazole arm received 40 mg pantoprazole intravenously after EVL followed by 40 mg o

71 Pantoprazole is effective in relieving upper and lower g

72 Intravenous non-high-dose pantoprazole is equally effective as high-dose pantopraz

73 Pantoprazole is frequently administered to critically il

74 The proton pump inhibitor, pantoprazole, is unique in that it binds cysteine 822, l

75 Prescription of omeprazole, pantoprazole, lansoprazole, esomeprazole, or rabeprazole

76 controlled trial, the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole led to a faster rate of eGFR decline as com

77 n contrast, recovery of acid secretion after pantoprazole may depend entirely on new protein synthesi

78 following inhibition by all PPIs, other than pantoprazole, may depend on both protein turnover and re

79 ansoprazole (n = 52), esomeprazole (n = 11), pantoprazole (n = 9), rabeprazole (n = 2), and omeprazol

80 H2RAs (famotidine) or PPIs (pantoprazole, omeprazole, esomeprazole, or lansoprazole)

81 The odds ratio for the effect of pantoprazole on incident CKD was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1

82 post hoc analyses to determine the effect of pantoprazole on kidney function using data from the Card

83 C. difficile was identified in 4.1% pantoprazole patients and in 2.4% placebo patients (p =

84 one of the 17,598 participants randomized to pantoprazole/placebo (51%) had eGFR recorded at baseline

85 and 12 GERD patients pre-treated with 40 mg pantoprazole (PPI) or placebo b.i.d. was performed.

86 The review concludes that IV pantoprazole provides an effective option in the treatme

87 The pantoprazole rate of eGFR change was -1.64 (SD 4.47) ml/

88 Pantoprazole reduces clinically important upper gastroin

89 ng patients undergoing invasive ventilation, pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk of c

90 this post hoc analysis of the COMPASS trial, pantoprazole resulted in a statistically significant gre

91 t intermittent administration of intravenous pantoprazole, the first proton pump inhibitor available

92 For pantoprazole, the mean (SD) stay was 12.4 (11.7) days in

93 harm with the prophylactic administration of pantoprazole to mechanically ventilated critically ill p

94 Patients were treated with pantoprazole until esophageal mucosal healing.

95 idence interval 8.1-12.4) than omeprazole or pantoprazole users (n = 193; 15.3 cases per 100,000 pers

96 r incidence of TB disease than omeprazole or pantoprazole users.

97 r-patient costs were $130 179 ($123 456) for pantoprazole vs $140 770 ($153 195) for no pantoprazole

98 per-patient costs were $60 466 ($58 546) for pantoprazole vs $65 423 ($75 661) for no pantoprazole.

99 Allocation to pantoprazole was associated with a lower risk of patient

100 In 99% of simulations, the strategy of using pantoprazole was more effective and less costly than no

101 Administration of pantoprazole was not associated with any difference in r

102 ntoprazole is equally effective as high-dose pantoprazole when treating low risk patients with a Rock