Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 107–110 | Cite as

Factors associated with non-response in proton pump inhibitor users: a study of lansoprazole therapy

  • E.R. Heerdink
  • H.G.M. Leufkens
  • A.A.M.C. Claessens
  • C.B.H.W Lamers
  • J.Th.M. van Eijk


Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) demonstrate high healing rates of 85‐98% in clinical trials. Due to the limited knowledge regarding response and non‐response to lansoprazole in daily practice and for the reason that resistance to PPIs is scarce, we investigated factors possibly associated with non‐response. Methods: Data were used from a prospective, open label, observational follow‐up study in which 10,008 lansoprazole users were followed over time. The study was designed according to the SAMM guidelines. A matched nested case‐control design was used to compare non‐responding (cases) and responding (controls) lansoprazole users. Non‐response was defined as worsening or non‐improvement of symptoms at the first evaluation after at least 8 weeks of use, response as disappearance or improvement of symptoms within 8 weeks of use. Controls were matched for the evaluating physician.Results: A total of 186 non‐responders and 372 responders to PPI treatment were identified as cases and controls. Age of over 60 years, heavy smoking and previous use of PPIs were significantly more common in non‐responding patients compared with responding patients. There were no differences found between the reported diagnosis regarding response. Conclusion: In daily clinical practice, previous use of PPIs, heavy smoking and an age > 60 years were significantly associated with non‐response to treatment with lansoprazole. Previous use of PPIs in non‐responding patients might suggest resistance to PPIs. The knowledge that non‐response drives non‐response may encourage physicians to follow PPI users with previous PPI use more closely.

Effectiveness Daily practice Lansoprazole Non response Pharmacoepidemiology Proton pump inhibitor 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Langtry HD, Wilde MI. Lansoprazole. An update of its pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy in the management of acid-related disorders. Drugs 1997;54:473-500.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wilde MI, McTavish D. Omeprazole. An update of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in acid-related disorders. Drugs 1994;48:91-132.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lanza F, Goff J, Scowcroft C, Jennings D, Greski-Rose P and the lansoprazole study group. Double-blind comparison of lansoprazole, ranitidine, and placebo in the treatment of acute duodenal ulcer. Am J Gastroenterol 1994;89:1191-200.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ekström P, Carling L, Unge P, Anker-Hansen O, Sjöstedt S, Sellström H. Lansoprazole versus omeprazole in active duodenal ulcer. Scand J Gastroenterol 1995;30:210-5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Avner DL, Movva R, Nelson KJ, McFarland M, Berry W, Erfling W. Comparison of once daily doses of lansoprazole (15, 30, and 60 mg) and placebo in patients with gastric ulcer. Am J Gastroenterol 1995;90:1289-94.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ashida K, Sakaguchi M, Tanaka M, Takiuchi H, Egashira Y, Katsu K. Clinical study on the pathophysiology and treatment of PPI-resistant ulcers. J Clin Gastroenterol 1995;20Suppl 2:S67-S71.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leufkens H, Claessens A, Heerdink E, Eijk J van, Lamers C. A prospective follow-up study of 5,669 users of lansoprazole in daily practice. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1997;11:887-97.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meyboom RHB, Egberts ACG, Gribnau FWJ, Hekster YA. Pharmacovigilance in perspective. Drug Saf 1999;21:429-47.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Robinson M, Lanza F, Avner D, Haber M. Effective maintenance treatment of reflux esophagitis with low-dose lansoprazole. Ann Intern Med 1996;124:859-67.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bader J-P, Stanescu L. Problems with patients' compliance in peptic ulcer therapy. J Clin Gastroenterol 1989;11Suppl 1:S25-S8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leufkens HG, Urquhart J. Variability in patterns of drug usage. J Pharm Pharmacol 1994;46Suppl 1:433-7.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Delvaux M, Escourrou J. Endoscopy in peptic ulcer disease: diagnosis, prognosis and management. Endoscopy 1992;24:41-4.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steenland K, Deddens J. Increased Precision Using Countermatching in Nested Case-Control Studies. Epidemiology 1997;8:238-42.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Obara K, Kuwana T, Ishihata R, Kondo Y, Ejiri Y, Yokogi K et al. Clinical effectiveness of lansoprazole in patients with gastric ulcers: evaluation of quality of ulcer healing based on endoscopic ultrasonographic findings. J Clin Gastroenterol 1995;20Suppl 2:S36-S9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matsukawa Y, Tomita Y, Nishinarita S, Horie T, Kato K, Arakawa Y et al. Efficacy of lansoprazole against peptic ulcers induced by anti-inflammatory drugs: endoscopic evaluation of ulcer healing. J Int Med Res 1997;25:190-5.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ainsworth MA, Hogan DL, Koss MA, Isenberg JI. Cigarette smoking inhibitis acid-stimulated mucosal bicarbonate secretion. Ann Int Med 1993;119:882-6.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Graham DY, Colon-Pagan J, Morse RS, Johnson TL, Walsh JH, McCullough AJ et al and the omeprazole duodenal ulcer study group. Ulcer recurrence following duodenal ulcer healing with omeprazole, ranitidine or placebo: a doubleblind, multicenter, 6 month study. Gastroenterology 1992;102:1289-94.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fass R, Murthy U, Hayden CW et al. Omeprazole 40 mg once a day is equally effective as lansoprazole 30 mg twice a day in symptom control of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who are resistant to conventional-dose lansoprazole therapy-a prospective, randomized, multi-centre study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000;14:1595-603.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoshino E, Umeda N, Sano J, Miki K, Yahagi N, Oka M et al. Lansoprazole for maintenance therapy of peptic ulcer therapy: weekend full-dose or everyday half-dose administration? J Clin Gastroenterol 1995;20Suppl 2:S72-S4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • E.R. Heerdink
    • 1
  • H.G.M. Leufkens
    • 1
  • A.A.M.C. Claessens
    • 2
  • C.B.H.W Lamers
    • 3
  • J.Th.M. van Eijk
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacoepidemiology and PharmacotherapyUtrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS)UtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.KendleUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyLeiden University Medical CentreLeidenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Medical Sociology, Health Care Studies, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations