throbber
N.J.V. Belt
`D. Burgef
`C.W. Howdenb
`
`J. Wilkinson1
`
`/?.//. Hunt
`
`Divisions of Gastroenterology
`McMaster University Medical
`Centre. Hamilton. Ontario.
`Canada, and
`University of South Carolina.
`Columbia. South Carolina. USA
`
`Key Words
`Reflux oesophagitis
`Gastric acid
`Pathophysiology
`Meta-analysis
`
`Digestion 1992:51(suppl I ):59—67
`
`Appropriate Acid Suppression
`for the Management of Gastro-
`Oesophageal Reflux Disease
`
`Abstract
`Gastro-ocsophageal rellux disease (GORD) results from an
`abnormally prolonged dwell time of acidic gastric contents in
`the oesophagus. Although GORD is primarily a motor disor­
`der, the injurious effects of gastric acid are central to the
`pathogenic process of oesophagitis, and the severity of disease
`correlates with the degree and duration of oesophageal acid
`exposure. In the majority of patients with mild disease, oesopha­
`geal acid exposure occurs predominantly during post-prandial
`periods. Conventional doses of PU-rcceptor antagonists cannot
`overcome the integrated stimulus to acid secretion resulting
`from a meal, and are thus relatively ineffective in preventing
`daytime, post-prandial oesophageal acid exposure. In patients
`with more severe grades of oesophagitis, there are abnormally
`high levels of nocturnal acid exposure, with the intra-oesophag-
`eal pH being less than 4.0 for 36% of the time, compared with
`5% of the time in patients with mild GORD. Control of noctur­
`nal acid secretion thus becomes increasingly important. This
`may be made worse by relative gastric acid hypersecretion in
`some patients with severe GORD. The long duration of action
`and effective inhibition of meal-stimulated acid secretion prob­
`ably explains the superiority of omeprazole in treating GORD.
`Preliminary meta-analysis shows that the healing rate of erosive
`oesophagitis at 8 weeks by antisecretory agents is directly
`related to the duration of suppression of gastric acid secretion
`achieved over a 24-hour period (r=0.87; p<0.05).
`
`R.H. Hunt.
`Divisions of Gastroenterology
`McMaster University Medical Centre
`1200 Main Street West
`Hamilton. Ontario L8N 3Z5 (Canada)
`
`© 1992
`Karger AG. Basel
`0012-2823/92/
`0517-0059 $ 2.75/0
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1015 PAGE 1
`
`

`

`In Western society, approximately 7% of
`the population suffer from gastro-oesophageal
`reflux disease (GORD) [1], Reflux of gastric
`contents into the oesophagus produces the
`symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation,
`which largely account for the widespread use of
`over-the-counter antacid medications [2].
`GORD is primarily a motor disorder, and
`dysfunction of the lower oesophageal sphincter
`(LOS) is probably the most significant abnor­
`mality [3]. Transient relaxations of the LOS
`lasting up to 35 seconds and independent of
`normal peristaltic activity, are seen in 60-83%
`of reflux episodes. Studies are needed to deter­
`mine whether the postural control of transient
`LOS relaxations that is seen normally in
`healthy subjects is impaired in patients with
`reflux disease. Studies to date indicate that
`some suppression occurs, but that this is against
`a background of a higher overall occurrence,
`so that in the supine position patients with
`reflux disease have a significantly higher rate of
`transient LOS relaxations than controls. Com­
`plete cessation of LOS tone for periods of up to
`10 minutes can account for 22% of reflux epi­
`sodes, especially in patients with the more
`severe forms of disease [4], Once reflux has
`occurred, impaired clearance of gastric con­
`tents from the oesophagus contributes to the
`prolonged dwell time of acid in the lower oeso­
`phagus.
`
`The Injurious Action of Acid
`
`Despite the spectrum of motor abnormal­
`ities described in reflux oesophagitis, gastric
`acid is central to the development of mucosal
`injury. The pH dependency of oesophageal
`mucosal injury has been demonstrated in vari­
`ous animal models [5, 6]. Goldberg et al.
`showed that perfusion of the feline oesophagus
`over a 1-hour period with hydrochloric acid
`produced oesophagitis only when solutions of
`
`pH equal to or less than 1.3 were utilized [5].
`The addition of porcine pepsin to the perfusate
`increased the severity of oesophagitis and also
`caused inflammation to occur with solutions of
`between pH 1.3 and 2.3. Pepsin solutions
`above pH 2.3 did not cause mucosal injury in
`this study, reflecting the in vitro activation of
`porcine pepsin at a pH below 2.5. Similar
`results were reported by Zaninotto et al., who
`observed mucosal erosions in rabbit oesopha­
`gus perfused with pepsin solutions at pH 1.5
`and 2.0. but not when solutions of pH 3.0 or
`4.0 were used [6]. Bile salts may also increase
`the injurious effects of acid by increasing the
`permeability of the oesophageal mucosa to
`hydrogen ions |7|. This may play a role in a
`subgroup of patients with complicated Barrett’s
`oesophagus [8].
`The sensation of pain in the oesophagus is
`also pH-dependent [0]. Smith et al. measured
`the time taken to sense pain caused by infusing
`solutions of varying pH in patients with symp­
`tomatic GORD. They found a positive correla­
`tion (r=0.77) between the time elapsed before
`pain sensation and the pH of the solution
`infused. The most significant difference was
`seen between pH 1.0 and 2.0. Between pH 2.0
`and 4.0, the time progressively increased,
`before levelling off above pH 4.0.
`A threshold of pH 4.0 was suggested by
`Johnson and DcMeester to discriminate be­
`tween aggressive and non-aggressive reflux
`during oesophageal pH monitoring [10],
`Schindlbeck et al. have evaluated this thresh­
`old formally by applying discriminant analysis
`to define optimal thresholds for evaluating
`pathological reflux [ll|. They found that a
`maximum sensitivity (93.3%) and specificity
`(92.9%) could be achieved by considering the
`percentage of time above pH 4.0 and applying
`thresholds of 10.5% of the time in the upright
`position and 6.0% of the time in the supine
`position as levels of ‘normal’ oesophageal acid
`exposure. Furthermore, although other pH
`
`60
`
`Bell/Burget/Howden/Wilkinson/
`Hunt
`
`Acid Suppression and GORD
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1015 PAGE 2
`
`

`

`thresholds could differentiate between normal
`and pathological reflux, pi I 4.0 proved optimal
`[ 12].
`Oesophageal pH monitoring has shown that
`the severity of oesophageal reflux disease is
`related to the degree of oesophageal acid expo­
`sure, there being a progressive increase in the
`percentage of time that oesophageal pH is less
`than 4.0 from mild to complicated disease and
`Barrett’s oesophagus [13-15], De Caestecker
`ct al. showed correlation coefficients of
`0.49-0.70 (all p<0.001) between oesophageal
`acid exposure in the supine, upright, total and
`post-prandial periods, anti the grade of oeso­
`phagitis [16]. The same holds true for symp­
`toms. with their severity increasing with oeso­
`phageal acid exposure, both in patients with
`erosive oesophagitis and in those with a macro-
`scopically normal oesophagus [17].
`The time taken for intra-oesophageal pH to
`return to 4.0 or above is also influenced by the
`pH of the refluxate; the lower the pH of the
`refiuxatc, the longer the clearance time. Diffu­
`sion of hydrogen ions into the unstirred, and
`presumably mucous, layer of the oesophagus is
`thought to be an important determinant of
`clearance [18]. The amount of hydrogen ions
`that diffuse is dependent firstly upon the dwell
`time of acidic gastric contents within the oeso­
`phageal lumen. In some patients with reflux
`disease, this dwell time is substantially pro­
`longed by oesophageal body dysfunction. Sec­
`ondly, the concentration of hydrogen ions in
`the refluxate influences the rate at which the
`unstirred layer is acidified. The lower the pH of
`the unstirred layer, the longer it will take for
`salivary bicarbonate to neutralize this acidity,
`and return intra-oesophageal pH to values that
`are non-injurious.
`
`Patterns of Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux
`
`It has been widely held that nocturnal reflux
`is the most important factor in the pathogenesis
`
`of reflux disease. Twenty-four-hour oesophag­
`eal pH studies have, however, shown that this
`is incorrect for the majority of patients with
`reflux disease who have mild erosive oesopha­
`gitis or no endoscopic abnormality. In these
`patients, most reflux occurs in the daytime
`post-prandial periods, and especially in the
`early evening, with relatively little reflux dur­
`ing the night 114. 16. 17, 19. 20], With more
`severe oesophagitis, there
`is progressively
`greater acid exposure, which is predominantly
`due to an increase in nocturnal reflux. In this
`situation, the aggressiveness of the gastric con­
`tents and the effectiveness of nocturnal oeso­
`phageal clearance become very important. The
`longest period of unbuffered basal gastric out­
`put occurs at night, and there is impaired clear­
`ance of acid from the oesophagus and reduced
`neutralization by salivary bicarbonate due to
`the effects of sleep on salivation and oesophag­
`eal motility. The supine position is likely to
`contribute to impairment of oesophageal acid
`clearance, but, as yet, there are no data that
`address this factor in a controlled manner. The
`increased importance of nocturnal oesophag­
`eal acid exposure has been demonstrated by
`Robertson et al., who found that patients with
`complicated oesophagitis had a mean noctur­
`nal oesophageal acid exposure time of 35.6%,
`compared with 5.2% in patients with reflux dis­
`ease who had either patchy erosions or no
`endoscopic abnormality. The corresponding
`values for the daytime period were similar in
`the two groups: 17% and 13%. respectively
`[14].
`The effects of prolonged oesophageal acid
`exposure may be compounded by gastric acid
`hypersecretion in some patients. Johansson et
`al. found pathologically high pentagastrin-
`stimulated peak acid outputs in 66% of a group
`of 100 patients referred to a surgical clinic for
`evaluation of reflux oesophagitis [21]. In
`another study from the same centre, the age-
`and body-weight-corrected maximum acid out­
`
`61
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1015 PAGE 3
`
`

`

`put was found to be above the normal range in
`76% of 4 1 patients with confirmed oesophagitis
`[22], An earlier study, however, showed no
`correlation between maximally stimulated acid
`output and oesophageal acid exposure, as
`measured by oesophageal pH monitoring [23].
`It is interesting that this latter study failed to
`show a correlation between the pH of basal
`acid secretion and oesophageal acid exposure,
`but did find that the volume of basal acid secre­
`tion correlated with the percentage of time that
`oesophageal pH was less than 4.0.
`A study from Finland showed that basal
`acid output did not vary with the severity of
`symptoms of oesophagitis, but that men with
`ulcerative oesophagitis had significantly higher
`basal and maximum acid outputs than those
`with reflux disease without endoscopic abnor­
`malities [24], A similar trend was also seen in
`female patients, but failed to reach statistical
`significance owing to the small number of
`patients studied.
`Although the data on maximally stimulated
`acid secretion by pentagastrin are confusing, it
`is possible that patients with oesophagitis may
`have an exaggerated meal-stimulated acid
`response, which would be more relevant to
`the pathophysiology of GORD. Such studies
`on meal-stimulated gastric acid secretion in
`patients with GORD have not yet been per­
`formed. Collen ct al. prospectively evaluated
`gastric acid output in a group of 23 patients
`with chronic heartburn [25]. Twelve of these
`patients remained symptomatic, despite 3
`months of standard antisecretory therapy with
`ranitidine. These patients had significantly
`higher basal acid outputs than those who
`responded to ranitidine. When compared with
`patients whose symptoms responded,
`the
`refractory patients had a significantly greater
`upright, but not supine, acid exposure time.
`Nine of the 12 patients with refractory GORD
`(39% of the total) had gastric acid hypersecre­
`tion, defined as a basal acid output of greater
`
`than 10 mmol/hour. Ten of these 12 non-
`responders had Barrett’s oesophagus, com­
`pared with only I of the 11 initial responders.
`These data need to be interpreted with cau­
`tion. as they may be substantially influenced
`by
`rebound hypersecretion secondary
`to
`IT-receptor antagonist withdrawal. This is
`because the measurements were made after a
`minimum 72 hours’ withdrawal of antisecre­
`tory therapy, a time at which rebound hyper­
`secretion is at a maximum [26-28]. Thus,
`rebound hypersecretion could have caused
`misclassification of some of these patients as
`hypersecretors.
`Patients with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome
`(ZES) also have a high incidence of reflux
`oesophagitis, which appears to be related to
`the high basal gastric acid output in such
`patients [29]. Sixty-one per cent of a group of
`122 patients with ZES were found to have
`symptomatic or endoscopic evidence of oeso­
`phagitis, and 23% had moderate to severe dis­
`ease [30].
`
`Medical Treatment of Reflux
`Oesophagitis
`
`The aims of medical therapy of GORD are
`to relieve the symptoms, to heal established
`oesophageal mucosal damage and to prevent
`the development of complications. In order to
`do this, treatment needs to either prevent the
`reflux of acidic gastric contents into the oeso­
`phagus. or to eliminate or reduce the injurious
`action of acid to a level that will allow healing
`of the oesophageal epithelium. At present,
`there are no agents that are fully effective in
`correcting motor defects that cause pathologi­
`cal oesophageal acid exposure.
`The prokinetic agents bethanecol. metoclo-
`pramide, domperidonc and cisapride have all
`been used for reflux oesophagitis, with varying
`success. Of these, only cisapride is free from
`
`62
`
`Bcli/Burget/Howden/Wilkinson/
`Hunt
`
`Acid Suppression and GORD
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1015 PAGE 4
`
`

`

`troubling side-effects [31]. It increases the LOS
`pressure and enhances oesophageal acid clear­
`ance by stimulating peristalsis via selective
`stimulation of postganglionic neurones of the
`myenteric plexus. Cisapride is significantly bet­
`ter than placebo and. in divided doses of 40 mg
`daily over a 6-12-week period, is as effective as
`ranitidine, 150 mg twice daily, or cimetidinc,
`400 mg twice or four times daily [32|. The effect
`on oesophageal acid exposure, however, is
`insufficient to produce a consistently high
`response rate in severe grades of GORD.
`Sucralfate binds to damaged epithelium and
`may act as a barrier to acid and pepsin. There is
`some evidence that it binds epidermal and
`fibroblast growth factors, and may thus pro­
`mote healing. When administered as a suspen­
`sion, sucralfate. 1 g four times daily, results in
`symptomatic relief and endoscopic improve­
`ment similar to that achieved with IL-receptor
`antagonists [32].
`The most established and effective treat­
`ment for reflux oesophagitis is to reduce the
`acidity and volume of gastric contents available
`for reflux by pharmacological gastric acid sup­
`pression. Cimetidine has been prescribed for
`GORD for 15 years, and it produces more
`rapid symptomatic relief than placebo, but has
`a lesser effect on the improvement of endo­
`scopic grading [33]. Ranitidine is effective in
`the symptomatic relief of reflux disease and
`produces improvement in endoscopic appear­
`ances in 48-88% of cases within 6-8 weeks,
`depending upon the endoscopic grading and
`severity of GORD. Complete resolution of
`oesophageal erosions or ulceration is, how­
`ever, seen less frequently, occurring in only
`27^45% of patients. Similar results have been
`obtained with the newer H2-receptor antag­
`onists famotidine and nizatidine. The proton
`pump inhibitor omeprazole is significantly
`superior to the IL-receptor antagonists, with
`complete healing of erosive oesophagitis in
`67-92% of patients at 4 weeks, and similarly
`
`high rates of symptom relief. This is especially
`true for the more severe grades of oesophagitis
`[33], Omeprazole seems to work solely by sup­
`pressing gastric acid secretion, as it has been
`shown to have no major effect on oesophageal
`motility or on the number of post-prandial
`reflux episodes [34],
`
`Tailoring Acid Suppression
`to the Disease
`
`As already described, gastro-ocsophageal
`reflux is increased in the majority of patients,
`mainly in the post-prandial and early evening
`periods. LL-receptor antagonists, however,
`cannot easily overcome the integrated stimulus
`to acid secretion produced by a meal [35, 36].
`This may explain the relative ineffectiveness of
`conventional doses of these agents in reflux dis­
`ease. Divided doses of IL-receptor antagonists
`carry no advantage over single night-time
`dosing[37,38]. Schaubet al. found that neither
`ranitidine, 150 mg twice daily, nor an increased
`dose of 300 mg twice daily, altered the 22-hour
`intra-oesophageal pH profile when compared
`with pretreatment recordings [39], Attempts to
`improve the effect of ranitidine on reducing
`evening reflux, by dosing immediately after the
`evening meal rather than at bedtime, have also
`been unsuccessful ¡40]. IL-receptor antag­
`onists arc more effective at reducing intragas-
`tric acidity when acid secretion is not otherwise
`stimulated, and this is probably the basis for
`their moderate efficacy in GORD. There is a
`modest therapeutic gain when the effects of
`cisapride on oesophageal acid clearance are
`added to the effects of ranitidine on the pH of
`the refiuxate. but it is questionable whether the
`gains arc sufficient to justify' combination ther­
`apy [41-43].
`Inhibitors of the parietal cell H+, K+-
`ATPase, the acid pump, such as omeprazole,
`effectively suppress gastric acid secretion
`
`63
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1015 PAGE 5
`
`

`

`throughout the clay, and can overcome meal-
`stimulated acid production. Targeting acid
`suppression for GORD during the day remains
`important, even for the higher grades of oeso­
`phagitis, as daytime acid exposure remains an
`important factor. In addition, though, noctur­
`nal reflux is substantially more important in
`this patient group. Thus, the most effective
`therapy is likely to be one that suppresses both
`daytime and night-time acid secretion. In a
`direct comparison with cimetidine, omepra­
`zole, 40 mg once daily, healed erosive and
`ulcerative oesophagitis in 71% of patients in 8
`weeks. 60% of whom had grades III—IV oeso­
`phagitis, compared with 23% healing on cime­
`tidine. 400 mg four times daily [44], Twenty-
`four-hour oesophageal pH-monitoring showed
`that omeprazole abolished both nocturnal and
`daytime oesophageal acid exposure in those
`patients with healed oesophagitis, whereas
`three of the five patients healing on cimetidine
`still had more than 5% daytime reflux. Those
`patients failing to heal on omeprazole had no
`change in their mean nocturnal acid exposure.
`Those patients with gastric acid hypersecre­
`tion may require higher doses of antisecretory
`drugs. Collen ct al. found that symptomatic
`relief could be obtained in their group of acid
`hypersecrctors resistant to conventional doses
`of ranitidine by increasing the dose to as much
`as 1800 mg daily [25], Basal acid output had to
`be suppressed to below 1 mmol/hour for heart­
`burn to be relieved. Combined intra-oesophag-
`eal and intragastric 24-hour pi 1-monitoring
`studies support the view that an incomplete
`response to omeprazole is primarily due to
`inadequate suppression of acid secretion in a
`small proportion of patients treated with up to
`60 mg daily [45], It would appear that in these
`patients division of dosage will lead to better
`control of the pH of refluxate throughout the
`24 hours.
`Thus, optimal treatment for reflux oesopha­
`gitis can be achieved by abolishing oesopha-
`
`Patients
`healed
`(%)
`
`Duration intragastric
`pH>4.0 (hours)
`
`Fig. 1. Relationship between the healing of erosive
`oesophagitis at 8 weeks and the duration, in hours, out
`of the 24-hour period, that the intragastric acidity is
`raised above pH 4.0.
`
`geal acid exposure throughout both the day­
`time and night-time periods. The less effective
`the LOS is in preventing reflux of gastric con­
`tents into the oesophagus, the more necessary
`it is to raise the pH of the stomach contents to
`above 4.0 throughout the 24 hours.
`We have performed a meta-analysis of
`treatment trials of reflux oesophagitis, in which
`healing was assessed endoscopically. These
`results have been correlated with 24-hour gas­
`tric acid suppression data for each drug and
`dosage regimen, obtained from a previous
`meta-analysis using patients with duodenal
`ulcer [46]. We contend that using acid suppres­
`sion data from patients with duodenal ulcer is
`more appropriate than data from normal
`volunteers, as they also have a higher incidence
`of gastric acid hypersecretors than the normal
`population, and there are limited gastric acid
`suppression data available from patients with
`GORD.
`
`64
`
`Bell/Burgct/Howclcn/Wilkinson/
`Hunt
`
`Acid Suppression and GORD
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1015 PAGE 6
`
`

`

`Patients
`healed
`(%)
`
`Duration intra-
`oesophageal
`pH<4.0
`(% total time)
`
`Duration intra-oesophageal
`pH<4.0 (% total time)
`
`Duration intragastric
`pH>4.0 (hours)
`
`Fig. 2. Relationship between the healing of erosive
`oesophagitis at 8 weeks and oesophageal aeid exposure.
`
`Fig. 3. Relationship between the duration of sup­
`pression of intragastrie acidity in hours and oesophageal
`acid exposure.
`
`Duration
`intragastric
`pH>4.()
`(hours)
`
`till Omeprazole
`□ Ranitidine
`rT7! Famotidine
`
`Fig. 4. Duration, in hours, of
`the 24-hour period that the intragas­
`tric pH is raised above 4.0 for some
`commonly prescribed drugs. 060.
`omeprazole. 60 mg once daily: 030,
`omeprazole. 30 mg once daily: 020,
`omeprazole. 20 mg once daily;
`R3N. ranitidine. 3(H) mg at bed­
`time: R150, ranitidine, 150 mg
`twice daily; F40. famotidine. 40 mg
`at bedtime; C8N, eimetidine. 800
`mg at bedtime; C40. eimetidine,
`400 mg four times daily; C4B. cime-
`tidine. 400 mg twice daily; C1G.
`eimetidine. 200 mg three times daily
`and 400 mg at bedtime: ANT. ant­
`acid. 150 mmol seven times daily.
`
`Preliminary results show a correlation co­
`efficient of 0.87 (p<0.05) between the healing
`rate of oesophagitis at 8 weeks and the dura­
`tion, in hours, that the intragastric pH is main­
`tained above 4.0 (fig. 1). A similar finding is
`
`seen with pH thresholds of 3.0 and 5.0, but the
`relationship is not so strong. Eight-week heal­
`ing of GORD follows an inverse relationship
`with oesophageal acid exposure (r=0.83;
`p<0.05) (fig.2). This finding is not surprising,
`
`65
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1015 PAGE 7
`
`

`

`given the close relationship between the dura­
`tion of suppression of intragastric acidity to
`above pH 4.0 and the inhibition of oesopha­
`geal acid exposure, as expressed as time below
`pi I 4.0 (fig.3). This is despite the variability in
`oesophageal pH studies, owing to electrode
`position or day-to-day variation in the degree
`of reflux [47. 48].
`The response to antisecretory drugs can
`therefore be predicted by the duration of sup­
`pression of intragastric acidity to above pH 4.0.
`over a 24-hour period, achieved bv each treat­
`ment regimen. Figure 4 shows some commonly
`prescribed treatments that achieve this goal.
`As can be seen, omeprazole has a clear advan­
`
`tage, and this is reflected in its ability to heal
`reflux oesophagitis.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The extent of oesophageal mucosal injury
`is determined by the degree and duration of
`oesophageal acid exposure, which, in turn, is
`related to the pH of the gastric contents. The
`effect of antisecretory therapy on GORD can
`be predicted from the duration of suppression
`of intragastric acidity to above pH 4.0 achiev­
`ed by each drug regimen, and the length of
`treatment.
`
`References
`
`1 N'ebel OT. Fornes MF. Castell DO:
`Symptomatic gastro esophageal re­
`flux: Incidence and precipitating
`factors. Am .1 Dig Dis 1976:21:
`953-956.
`2 Graham DY. Smith JL. Patterson
`KJ: Why do apparently healthy peo­
`ple use antacid tablets? Am .1 Gas­
`troenterol 1983:78:257-260.
`3 Dent .1: Recent views on the patho­
`genesis of gastro-ocsophagcal reflux
`disease, in Tylgal GNU (cd). Bail-
`litre's Clinical Gastroenterology.
`London. Baillitrc Tindall. 1987. I.
`pp 727-745.
`4 Dent .1. Holloway RU. Toouli J.
`Dodds W.I: Mechanisms of lower
`oesophageal
`sphincter
`incompe­
`tence in patients with symptomatic
`gastro-ocsophagcal
`reflux. Gut
`1988:29:120-128.
`5 Goldberg III. Dodds W.I. (tee S.
`Montgomery C, Zboralske F: Role
`of acid and pepsin in acute experi­
`mental esophagitis. Gastroenterol­
`ogy 1969:56:223-230.
`6 Zaninotto G. Coslantini M. Di-
`Mario F. el al: Oesophagitis and pH
`of the refluxale: experimental and
`clinical study. Gut 1990:31 :A602.
`
`7 Safaie-Shirazi S. DenBestcnL. Zikc
`WI.: Rffect of bile salts on the ionic
`permeability of the esophageal mu­
`cosa and their role in the production
`of esophagitis. Gastroenterology
`1975:68:728-733.
`8 Attwood SKA. DeMccster TR.
`Bremmer CG. Barlow AP. Hinder
`RA: Alkaline gastroesophageal re­
`flux: Implications in the develop­
`ment of complications in Barrett's
`columnar-lined
`lower esophagus.
`Surgery 1989:106:764-770.
`9 Smith JL. Opcrkun AR. Larkai K.
`Graham DY : Sensitivity of the eso­
`phageal mucosa to pi I in gastroeso­
`phageal reflux disease. Gastroen­
`terology 1989:96:683-689.
`10 Johnson
`I.F. DeMccster TR:
`Twenty-four hour pH monitoring of
`the distal esophagus. A quantitative
`measure of gastroesophageal re­
`flux. Am J Gastroenterol 1974:62:
`325-332.
`11 Schindlbcck NE. Heinrich C. König
`A. Dendorfer A. Pace F. Mtiller-
`Lissner SA: Optimal thresholds,
`sensitivity, and specificity of long
`term pll-mctry for the detection of
`gastroesophageal
`reflux disease.
`Gastroenterology 1987:93:85-90.
`
`12 Schindlbcck NE. Ippisch 11. Klauser
`ACi. MUller-L.issner SA: Which pi I
`threshold is best in esophageal pH
`monitoring? Am J Gastroenterol
`1991:86:1138-1141.
`13 Gillen P. Keeling P. Byrne P.I. I len-
`ncssv TPJ: Barrett's oesophagus:
`pll profile. Br J Surg 1987:74:
`774-776.
`14 Robertson D. Aldersley M. Shep­
`herd II. Smith C'L: Patterns of acid
`reflux in complicated oesophagitis.
`Gut 1987:28:1484-1488.
`15 Fiorucci S. Santucci !.. Farroni F.
`Pclli MA. Morelli A: Effect of ome­
`prazole on gastroesophageal reflux
`in Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gas­
`troenterol 1989:84:1263-1267.
`16 De Caestecker JS. Blackwell .IN.
`Prydc A. Heading RC: Daytime
`gaslro-oesophageal reflux is impor­
`tant in oesophagitis. Gut 1987:28:
`519-526.
`17 Joclsson B. Johnsson F: Heartburn:
`the
`acid
`test. Gut:
`1989:30:
`1523-1525.
`18 Shaker R. Kahrilas PJ. Dodds W.I.
`I logan WJ : Esophageal clearance of
`small amounts of acid. Gastroen­
`terology 1986:90: A 1628.
`
`66
`
`Bcll/Burget/Howden/Wilkinson/
`I litnt
`
`Acid Suppression and GORD
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1015 PAGE 8
`
`

`

`19 Gudmundsson K. Johnsson F. Joels-
`soii IS: The lime pattern of gastro­
`esophageal reflux. Scand .1 Gastro­
`enterol 1988:23:75-79.
`2d Kruse-Andersen S. Wallin L. Mad­
`sen T: Reflux patterns and related
`oesophageal motor activity in gas-
`tro-oesophageal reflux disease. Gut
`1990;31:633-638.
`21 Johansson K-F. Ask P. Boeryd B.
`Fransson S-G. Tibhling L: Oeso­
`phagitis. signs of reflux, and gastric
`acid secretion in patients with symp­
`toms of gaslro-oesophageal reflux
`disease.
`Scand
`.1 Gastroenterol
`1986;21:837-847.
`22 Johansson K-F. Tibbling L: Gastric
`secretion and reflux pattern in reflux
`oesophagitis before and during rani­
`tidine treatment. Scand .1 Gastroen­
`terol 1986:21:487-492.
`23 Boesbv S: Relationship between
`gastro-ocsophagcal sphincter pres­
`sure. and gastric acid secretion.
`Scand
`.1 Gastroenterol
`1977:12:
`547-551.
`24 Matikaincn M: Gastric acid secre­
`tion. oesophageal acid reflux, and
`oesophagitis in patients with symp­
`tomatic gastro-ocsophagcal reflux.
`Scand
`.1 Gastroenterol
`1981:16:
`1043-1048.
`25 Collen MJ. Lewis JH. Benjamin
`SB: Gastric acid hypersecretion in
`refractory gastroesophageal reflux
`disease. Gastroenterology 1990:98:
`654-661.
`26 Fullarton GM. McLauchlan G.
`Macdonald A. Crcan GP. McColl
`KEL: Rebound nocturnal hyperse­
`cretion after four weeks treatment
`with an 11; receptor antagonist. Gut
`1989:30:449-454.
`27 Prewett EJ. Hudson M. Nwokolo
`CU. Sawyerr AM. Pounder RE:
`Nocturnal intragastric acidity dur­
`ing and after a period of dosing
`with either ranitidine or omepra­
`zole. Gastroenterology 1991:100:
`873-877.
`28 Nwokolo CU. Smith JTl.. Sawyerr
`AM. Pounder RE: Rebound intra­
`gastric acidity after abrupt with­
`drawal of histamine H
`receptor
`blockade. Gut 1991:32:1455-1460.
`
`29 Hirschowitz BI: High prevalence of
`esophagitis in Zollingcr-Ellison syn­
`drome vs low prevalence in non-ZE
`DU with BAO>15 mEq/h. Gas-
`t rocnterology 1990:98: A59.
`30 Miller LS. Vinayek R. Fruclu II.
`Gardner JD. Jensen RT. Maton
`PN: Reflux esophagitis in patients
`with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome.
`Gastroenterology 1990:98:341-346.
`31 Verlinden M: Review article: A role
`for
`gastrointestinal
`prokinetic
`agents in the treatment of reflux
`esophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol
`Ther 1989:3:113-131.
`32 Tytgat GNJ. Nio CY. Schotborrgh
`R11 : Reflux esophagitis. Scand .1
`Gastroenterol I990:25(suppl 175):
`1- 12.
`33 Bell N.IV. Hunt RH: The role of
`gastric acid suppression in the treat­
`ment of gastro-oesophageal reflux
`disease. Gut 1992:33:118-124.
`34 DowntonJ. Dent .1. Heddle R .etal:
`Elevation of gastric pi I heals peptic
`oesophagitis - A role for omepra­
`zole. .1 Gastroenterol Hepatol 1987:
`2:317-324.
`35 Hannan A. Chesner I. Mann S.
`Wall R: Can I L-antagonists alone
`completely block food stimulated
`acidity? Eur J Gastroenterol I lepa-
`tol 1991;3:533-537.
`36 Merki I IS. Wilder-Smilh C. Walt R.
`Halter F: The cephalic and gastric
`phases of gastric acid secretion dur­
`ing Hi-antagonisl treatment. Gas­
`troenterology 1991:101:599-606.
`37 BoveroE.C'hcli R. Barbara L.ct al:
`Short-term
`treatment of
`reflux
`oesophagitis with ranitidine 300 mg
`node. Italian multicentre study.
`Hepatogastroentcrology
`1987:34:
`155-159.
`38 Halvorsen L. Lee FI. Wesdorp ICE.
`Johnson NJ. Mills JG. Wood JR:
`Acute treatment of reflux oesopha­
`gitis: a multicentre study to compare
`150 mg ranitidine twice daily with
`300 mg ranitidine at bedtime. Ali­
`ment Pharmacol Ther 1989:3:
`171-181.
`39 Schaub N. Mevrick Thomas J.
`MisiewiczJJ. Lovell D. Trotman IF:
`Investigation of ranitidine 150 mg
`Ixl or 300 mg bd in the treatment of
`reflux disease. Hepatogastroentcr-
`ologv 1986:33:208-213.
`
`40
`
`41
`
`42
`
`43
`
`44
`
`45
`
`46
`
`47
`
`48
`
`Johnson NJ. Laws S. Mills JG.
`Wood JR: Effect of three ranitidine
`dosage regimens in the treatment of
`reflux oesophagitis: results of a mul­
`ticentre trial. Fur J Gastroenterol
`Hepatol 1991:3:769-774.
`Wcinbcck M: Docs cisapride added
`to H.-receptor blocking treatment
`improve healing rates in patients
`with esophagitis? Digestion 1986;
`34:144.
`JP. Brandstatler G.
`Galmiche
`Evreux M. cl al: Combined therapy
`with cisapride and cimctidinc
`in
`severe reflux oesophagitis: a double-
`blind controlled trial. Gut 1988:29:
`675-681.
`Holloway RI I. Downton .1. Mitchell
`B. Dent J: Effect of cisapride on
`post prandial gastro-ocsophagcal
`reflux. Gut 1989:30:1187-1193.
`Dchn TCB. Shepherd HA. Colin-
`Jones D. Keltlewcll MGW. Carroll
`NJH: Double blind comparison of
`omeprazole (411 mgod) versus eime-
`tidine (41)11 mg qd) in the treatment
`of symptomatic erosive reflux oeso­
`phagitis. assessed endoscopieally.
`histologically and by 24 It pH moni­
`toring. Gut 1990:31:509-513.
`Klinkenberg-Knol EC. Mcuwissen
`SGM: Combined gastric and oeso­
`phageal 24-hour pi I monitoring and
`oesophageal manometry in patients
`w ith reflux disease resistant to treat­
`ment with omeprazole. Aliment
`Pharmacol Ther 1990:4:485-495.
`Burget DW. Chiverton SG. Hunt
`RII: Is there an optimal degree of
`acid suppression in healing duode­
`nal ulcer? A model of the relation­
`ship between ulcer healing and
`acid suppression. Gastroenterology
`1990:99:345-351.
`Murphy DW, Yuan Y. Castell DO:
`Docs the intraesophagea! pH probe
`accurately detect acid reflux? Simul­
`taneous recording with
`two pH
`probes in humans. Dig Dis Sci 1989;
`34:649-656.
`Johnsson F. Joelsson B: Reproduci­
`bility of ambulatory oesophageal
`pH monitoring. Gut
`1988:29:
`886-889.
`
`67
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1015 PAGE 9
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket