omeprazole

gut microbiota alpha/beta diversity

no effect

No significant within-group changes over time or between-group differences or partitions at both V0 and V2 were evidenced by alpha or beta diversity analysis, respectively.

PMID:37307528 · one of two readings recorded this

serum creatinine concentration

no effect

The serum creatinine concentration did not differ significantly after a year, after two and three years in group I and separately in group II (Tables 2 and 3) compared to the baseline values.

PMID:39805983 · one of two readings recorded this

estimated glomerular filtration rate (CKD-EPI creatinine equation), percentage change from baseline after 3 years

decreases, -5.56% (omeprazole plus tacrolimus group) vs 9.13% (famotidine plus tacrolimus group), p = 0.0343, p = 0.0343

Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

However, there was a significant difference between percentage variation of GFR after 3 years of the study (− 5.56% (− 17.24 to 0.00%) vs 9.13% (4.49 to 16.62%), p = 0.0343) (Table 4).

PMID:39805983 · one of two readings recorded this

estimated glomerular filtration rate (CKD-EPI), percentage change from baseline at 3 years

decreases, -5.56% (omeprazole group) vs 9.13% (famotidine group), p = 0.0343, p = 0.0343

However, there was a significant difference between percentage variation of GFR after 3 years of the study (− 5.56% (− 17.24 to 0.00%) vs 9.13% (4.49 to 16.62%), p = 0.0343) (Table 4).

PMID:39805983 · one of two readings recorded this

percentage change in eGFR (CKD-EPI) at 3 years, omeprazole group vs famotidine group

-5.56% (Group I, omeprazole) vs 9.13% (Group II, famotidine), p = 0.0343, p = 0.0343, n = 18

Not recorded as a finding: Comparator is famotidine, an active agent, not absence of omeprazole -- no placebo or no-drug arm exists for this between-group contrast, so it cannot become an outcome edge even though a node (egfr) exists.

However, there was a significant difference between percentage variation of GFR after 3 years of the study (− 5.56% (− 17.24 to 0.00%) vs 9.13% (4.49 to 16.62%), p = 0.0343) (Table 4).

PMID:39805983 · one of two readings recorded this

percentage change in eGFR (CKD-EPI) at 3 years, omeprazole vs famotidine

-5.56% (Group I, omeprazole) vs 9.13% (Group II, famotidine), p = 0.0343, p = 0.0343, n = 18

However, there was a significant difference between percentage variation of GFR after 3 years of the study (− 5.56% (− 17.24 to 0.00%) vs 9.13% (4.49 to 16.62%), p = 0.0343) (Table 4).

PMID:39805983 · one of two readings recorded this

serum creatinine concentration, percentage change from baseline at 3 years

no effect, 4.05% (omeprazole) vs -8.08% (famotidine), p = 0.0545, p = 0.0545

There was also no significant difference between percentage changes of groups in creatinine concentration values after 3 years of the study (4.05 (-2.19 to 17.32%) vs -8.08 (-13.58 to -5.26%), p = 0.0545) (Table 4).

PMID:39805983 · one of two readings recorded this

mouthfeel aversiveness, 0-100mm VAS

no effect

There were no statistically significant differences in mouthfeel between the samples in pairwise comparisons, while for smell, only the menthol/lemon-flavored 20-mg/mL oral solution (sample 447) had a less aversive smell than the unflavored compounded suspension (p = 0.003).

PMID:41927994 · one of two readings recorded this

overall acceptability, 5-point facial hedonic scale

decreases, compounded suspension significantly less acceptable than all other samples, p<0.001, n = 30

This sample was significantly less acceptable than all other samples (p < 0.001), highlighting the distinct poor palatability profile.

PMID:41927994 · both readings recorded this

taste and aftertaste aversiveness, 0-100mm VAS

increases, compounded suspension significantly more aversive taste and aftertaste than all licensed formulations, p<0.001, n = 30

Overall, the compounded 8.4% sodium bicarbonate suspension (sample 382) had a significantly more aversive, unpleasant taste and aftertaste than all the licensed omeprazole formulations (p < 0.001).

PMID:41927994 · one of two readings recorded this

taste and aftertaste aversiveness, 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS)

increases, n = 30

Overall, the compounded 8.4% sodium bicarbonate suspension (sample 382) had a significantly more aversive, unpleasant taste and aftertaste than all the licensed omeprazole formulations (p < 0.001).

PMID:41927994 · one of two readings recorded this

taste and aftertaste aversiveness of omeprazole liquid formulations, 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS)

increases, n = 30

Not recorded as a finding: this platform holds no node for the endpoint

Overall, the compounded 8.4% sodium bicarbonate suspension (sample 382) had a significantly more aversive, unpleasant taste and aftertaste than all the licensed omeprazole formulations (p < 0.001).

PMID:41927994 · one of two readings recorded this

taste and aftertaste aversiveness on a visual analog scale, and overall acceptability on a 5-point facial hedonic scale

increases, compounded 8.4% sodium bicarbonate suspension significantly more aversive in taste and aftertaste than all licensed omeprazole formulations, p<0.001, n = 30

Not recorded as a finding: this platform holds no node for the endpoint

Overall, the compounded 8.4% sodium bicarbonate suspension (sample 382) had a significantly more aversive, unpleasant taste and aftertaste than all the licensed omeprazole formulations (p < 0.001).

PMID:41927994 · one of two readings recorded this

24-hour gastric pH > 6, percentage of time

median 56.3% (IQR 28.0-92.0%) oral omeprazole vs 27.3% (IQR 4.4-77.7%) IV pantoprazole, p = 0.064, n = 124

The median percentage of gastric pH > 6 was 56.3% (IQR 28.0%-92.0%) in the oral group and 27.3% (IQR 4.4%-77.7%) in the IV group (p = 0.064).

PMID:42438169 · one of two readings recorded this

30-day rebleeding

no effect, 3.3% vs 4.8%; risk difference -1.5%, 95% CI -10.1% to 7.0%, n = 124

Rebleeding within 30 days also showed no difference between groups (3.3% vs. 4.8%, RD -1.5%, 95% CI -10.1% to 7.0%).

PMID:42438169 · one of two readings recorded this

72-hour rebleeding requiring endoscopic hemostasis

1.6% (1/61) omeprazole vs 4.8% (3/63) pantoprazole; risk difference -3.1%, 95% CI -11.6% to 4.6%, n = 124

Seventy-two-hour rebleeding occurred in 1.6% (1/61) of the oral omeprazole group and 4.8% (3/63) of the IV pantoprazole group requiring endoscopic hemostasis (risk difference [RD] -3.1%, 95% CI -11.6% to 4.6%).

PMID:42438169 · one of two readings recorded this

percentage of 24-hour gastric pH above 6

median 56.3% (IQR 28.0-92.0%) oral omeprazole vs 27.3% (IQR 4.4-77.7%) IV pantoprazole, p = 0.064

The median percentage of gastric pH > 6 was 56.3% (IQR 28.0%-92.0%) in the oral group and 27.3% (IQR 4.4%-77.7%) in the IV group (p = 0.064).

PMID:42438169 · one of two readings recorded this

rebleeding at 72 hours and 30 days after therapeutic hemostatic endoscopy; 24-hour percentage of time gastric pH > 6

no effect, 3.3% vs. 4.8%, RD -1.5%, 95% CI -10.1% to 7.0%, n = 124

Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

Rebleeding within 30 days also showed no difference between groups (3.3% vs. 4.8%, RD -1.5%, 95% CI -10.1% to 7.0%).

PMID:42438169 · one of two readings recorded this

rebleeding at 72 hours requiring endoscopic hemostasis

1.6% (1/61) oral omeprazole vs 4.8% (3/63) IV pantoprazole, risk difference -3.1%, 95% CI -11.6% to 4.6%, n = 124

Seventy-two-hour rebleeding occurred in 1.6% (1/61) of the oral omeprazole group and 4.8% (3/63) of the IV pantoprazole group requiring endoscopic hemostasis (risk difference [RD] -3.1%, 95% CI -11.6% to 4.6%).

PMID:42438169 · one of two readings recorded this

rebleeding within 30 days

no effect, 3.3% vs 4.8%, RD -1.5%, 95% CI -10.1% to 7.0%, n = 124

Rebleeding within 30 days also showed no difference between groups (3.3% vs. 4.8%, RD -1.5%, 95% CI -10.1% to 7.0%).

PMID:42438169 · one of two readings recorded this

Cmax and AUC0-t intra-subject variability, fed conditions

CV Cmax 46.79%, CV AUC0-t 31.61%

Under fed conditions, high intra-subject variability was observed for Cmax (CV = 46.79%) and AUC0-t (CV = 31.61%).

PMID:42665804 · one of two readings recorded this

Cmax, AUC0-t, AUC0-∞ bioequivalence, fasting conditions

GMR Cmax 101.33%, AUC0-t 101.81%, AUC0-∞ 101.76%; all 90% CIs within 80.00-125.00%

In the fasting study, the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ were 101.33%, 101.81%, and 101.76%, respectively, with all 90% confidence intervals (CIs) falling within the bioequivalence range of 80.00-125.00%.

PMID:42665804 · one of two readings recorded this

direct medical healthcare cost per patient (provider and patient perspective)

decreases, n = 20

From the provider perspective, omeprazole plus standard treatment reduced healthcare costs by 4642.30 Baht per patient compared with standard treatment alone.

PMID:42736784 · one of two readings recorded this

incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (healthcare cost per stricture prevented)

decreases, n = 20

From the provider perspective, omeprazole plus standard treatment reduced healthcare costs by 4642.30 Baht per patient compared with standard treatment alone.

PMID:42736784 · one of two readings recorded this