Search

Invasive fungal disease (IFD) causes increasing morbidity and mortality in haematological cancer patients. Reliable cost data for treating IFD in German hospitals is not available. Objective of the study was to determine the institutional cost of treating the IFD. Data were obtained by retrospective chart review in German hospitals. Patients had either newly diagnosed or relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Direct medical cost was calculated from hospital provider's perspective. A total of 108 patients were enrolled at 5 tertiary care hospitals, 36 IFD patients and 72 controls. The vast majority of IFD patients (74%) were diagnosed with invasive aspergillosis. On average, the hospital stay for IFD patients was 12 days longer than in control patients. All patients in the IFD group and 89% of patients in the control group received antifungal drugs. Mean direct costs per patient were €51 517 in the IFD group and €30 454 in the control group. Incremental costs of €21 063 were dominated by cost for antifungal drugs (36%), hospital stay (32%) and blood products (23%). From the perspective of hospitals in Germany the economic burden of IFD in patients with AML or MDS is substantial. Therefore, prevention of IFD is necessary with respect to both clinical and economic reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Generic omeprazole has been approved in many countries for the treatment of acid-related gastrointestinal disorders. However, clinical studies comparing generic to original proton pump inhibitors are limited. To compare the effect of generic omeprazole 20 mg/day with esomeprazole 20 mg/day on intragastric acidity and to investigate the influence of the CYP2C19 metabolizer status. In this randomised, single-blinded, two-way crossover study, 24 healthy Helicobacter pylori-negative subjects, received generic omeprazole (Omep; Hexal AG, Holzkirchen, Germany) 20 mg once daily or esomeprazole 20 mg once daily for five consecutive days. Twenty-four-hour intragastric pH was recorded on day 5 of each treatment. CYP2C19 status was determined by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism. Over all, there were no statistically significant differences between generic omeprazole and esomeprazole with respect to median intragastric pH (3.5 and 3.9, P = 0.07), the total hours with intragastric pH >4 (10.4 and 11.3, P = 0.29), and during upright (9.6 and 9.1, P = 0.77) or supine (2.2 and 2.2, P = 0.94) position. However, in CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers, esomeprazole was superior to omeprazole, with the percentage of time with intragastric pH >3.0 and pH >3.5 being higher with esomeprazole than with generic omeprazole [Δ = 9% ( P = 0.026) and Δ = 8% ( P = 0.046), respectively]. Overall, generic omeprazole 20 mg appears to provide a similar intragastric acid control when compared with esomeprazole 20 mg. However, esomeprazole might be advantageous in subjects with a rapid CYP2C19 metabolizer status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: Patients with severe or complicated reflux disease may require higher than standard doses of a proton pump inhibitor for sufficient acid suppression.: To test the hypothesis that esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily is superior to pantoprazole 40 mg twice daily in lowering intragastric acidity.: In a randomized, single-blinded, two-way crossover study, healthy subjects received esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily or pantoprazole 40 mg twice daily orally for five consecutive days. Continuous ambulatory 24-h intragastric pH was recorded on day 5 of each treatment.: Thirty subjects were analysed. Esomeprazole provided significantly higher intragastric pH-values over the 24-h period [median intragastric pH 6.4 for esomeprazole and 5.1 for pantoprazole (P < 0.00005)]. Intragastric pH > 4 was maintained for 21.1 h with esomeprazole and 16.8 h with pantoprazole (P <0.0001). An intragastric pH > 4 for more than 16 h was achieved in 96.7 and 56.7% of subjects, respectively (P = 0.0002). During night-time the proportion of time with intragastric pH > 4 was 85.4% with esomeprazole and 63.6% with pantoprazole (P = 0.0001). Nocturnal acid break through occurred less frequently on esomeprazole.: Esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily provides better and more consistent intragastric acid control than pantoprazole 40 mg twice daily. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Triple therapy with a proton pump inhibitor, moxifloxacin, and amoxicillin has been proven effective in first-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection., Aim: To explore 1, the value of triple therapy with esomeprazole, moxifloxacin, and amoxicillin in second-line or rescue treatment of Caucasian patients and 2, the impact of treatment duration on eradication success., Methods: H. pylori-infected patients with at least one previous treatment failure were randomized to oral esomeprazole 20 mg b.i.d., moxifloxacin 400 mg o.d., and amoxicillin 1000 mg b.i.d. for either 7 (EMA-7) or 14 days (EMA-14). Eradication was confirmed by 13C urea breath test. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed in all patients at baseline and in patients who failed treatment., Results: Eighty patients were randomized, and 60% had ≥ 2 previous treatment failures. Pretreatment resistance against clarithromycin and metronidazole was found in 70.5 and 61.5% of cases, respectively. The intention-to-treat eradication rate was significantly higher after EMA-14 compared with EMA-7 (95.0 vs 78.9%, p = .036). No independent risk factor for treatment failure could be identified. There were no serious adverse events. Five of the EMA-14 patients (12.5%) compared with none of the EMA-7 patients discontinued prematurely because of adverse events (p = .031). Post-treatment resistance against moxifloxacin was found in one of seven patients with isolated organisms (14.3%)., Conclusion: Second-line/rescue H. pylori eradication therapy with esomeprazole, moxifloxacin, and amoxicillin is very effective and well tolerated. Fourteen days of treatment significantly increase the eradication rate but also the rate of adverse events., (© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Aim: To investigate a 1-week once-daily triple therapy with esomeprazole, moxifloxacin, and rifabutin for rescue therapy of Helicobacter pylori infection., Methods: Consecutive patients (n = 103) with at least one previous treatment failure and H. pylori infection resistant to both metronidazole and clarithromycin were treated with esomeprazole 40 mg, moxifloxacin 400 mg, and rifabutin 300 mg, given once daily for 7 days. Eradication was confirmed by histology and culture. CYP2C19 status was determined by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism., Results: Intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates were 77.7% (68.4-85.3) and 83.3% (74.4-90.2). Five patients discontinued prematurely (4.8%). Eradication was achieved in 93.1% of poor/intermediate metabolizers and in 78.8% of homozygous extensive metabolizers (p = .14). Eradication rates in patients with one, two, three, and four or more previous failures were 78.3%, 89.6%, 68.6%, and 88.9%, respectively (p = .21). The regimen was effective in seven of nine patients who previously failed quadruple therapy. Post-treatment resistance to moxifloxacin and rifabutin was detected in two (12.5%) and five (31%) patients after treatment failure., Conclusion: Once-daily triple therapy with esomeprazole, moxifloxacin, and rifabutin is a promising, safe, and convenient regimen for rescue therapy of H. pylori infection that may serve as a valuable alternative to quadruple therapy, particularly for patients with intolerance to amoxicillin.