throbber
R E V I E W S
`
`A PROTON-PUMP INHIBITOR
`EXPEDITION: THE CASE HISTORIES OF
`OMEPRAZOLE AND ESOMEPRAZOLE
`
`Lars Olbe, Enar Carlsson and Per Lindberg
`
`Thirty years ago, disorders associated with inappropriate levels of gastric acid were a major
`problem for which treatment options were limited, and approaches to the control of gastric acid
`secretion were thus the focus of considerable drug discovery efforts. Here, we summarize how
`one such programme led to the development of the proton-pump inhibitor omeprazole (Losec,
`Prilosec), a conceptually new drug that proved clinically superior to previous antisecretory drugs
`in the treatment of acid-related disorders, and which became the world’s best-selling drug in the
`late 1990s. We then describe how the antisecretory and clinical effects were further improved by
`the development of esomeprazole (Nexium), a single enantiomer of omeprazole, which was
`launched in 2000.
`
`GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX
`DISEASE
`Any symptomatic clinical
`condition with or without
`change in tissue structure that
`results from the reflux of gastric
`acid into the esophagus.
`
`HEARTBURN
`A burning sensation starting in
`the upper part of the abdomen
`and moving through the chest
`towards the throat.
`
`PEPTIC ULCERS
`Ulcers in the upper
`gastrointestinal tract, in which
`gastric acid is a key promoter.
`
`AstraZeneca R&D,
`431 83 Mölndal, Sweden.
`Correspondence to L.O.
`e-mail:
`lars.olbe@astrazeneca.com
`doi: 10.1038/nrd1010
`
`Gastric acid has been known for many decades to be a
`key factor in normal upper gastrointestinal functions,
`including protein digestion and calcium and iron
`absorption, as well as providing some protection against
`bacterial infections. However, inappropriate levels of
`gastric acid underlie several widespread pathological
`conditions, including GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE
`(GERD), for which HEARTBURN is the most common
`symptom, and PEPTIC ULCERS, which cause pain and suffer-
`ing in millions of people, and which, only thirty years
`ago, could be life-threatening if untreated. Treatment
`options then, however, were limited. For example, for
`peptic ulcers, the main treatment was administration
`of antacids to neutralize excess gastric acid (which
`promotes ulcer formation and prevents healing), but
`this provided only temporary relief. The alternative was
`an operation (gastrectomy, in which part of the stomach
`is removed, and/or vagotomy, in which nerves to the
`stomach are sectioned). The surgery could, however,
`have serious side effects. Pharmacological control of the
`complex mechanism of gastric acid secretion has there-
`fore long been desirable.
`The medical treatment of acid-related diseases — in
`particular peptic ulcers and GERD — had a break-
`through in the late 1970s with the introduction of the
`
`antisecretory drug cimetidine, an antagonist of the hista-
`mine 2 (H2) receptor, which has a key role in one of the
`pathways leading to gastric acid secretion. Cimetidine,
`and later comparable compounds with the same mecha-
`nism of action, have a marked gastric acid inhibitory
`effect, and considerably improved the lives of millions of
`people, as well as reducing the need for surgery.
`However, H2-receptor antagonists have a relatively short
`duration of action.
`From the late 1960s onwards, the pharmaceutical
`company Astra was also pursuing a programme
`aimed at finding a drug to inhibit acid secretion. In
`the 1970s, this led to the development of specific
`inhibitors of the proton pump in the acid-secreting
`parietal cells of the stomach, activation of which is
`now known to be the final step in acid secretion.
`These compounds were shown to be very potent
`inhibitors of gastric acid secretion, and demonstrated
`a surprisingly long-lasting duration of action. Ome-
`prazole — the first proton-pump inhibitor used in
`clinical practice — was launched in 1988 as Losec in
`Europe, and in 1990 as Prilosec in the United States.
`Omeprazole introduced a new approach for the effec-
`tive inhibition of acid secretion and the treatment of
`acid-related diseases, and was quite quickly shown to
`
`132 | FEBRUARY 2003 | VOLUME 2
`
`www.nature.com/reviews/drugdisc
`
`Page 1 of 8
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2051
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`be clinically superior to the H2-receptor antagonists.
`None of the subsequently developed proton-pump
`inhibitors based on the omeprazole structure (but
`outside the original chemical patents) introduced by
`other companies have been shown to be significantly
`superior to omeprazole in clinical practice.
`During the 1990s, Astra tested several hundreds of
`compounds chemically based on the parent compound
`of omeprazole in order to find a proton-pump
`inhibitor with properties superior to omeprazole.
`Finally, esomeprazole emerged. Omeprazole is a race-
`mate consisting of two optical isomers (enantiomers),
`one being the mirror image of the other. The S isomer
`— esomeprazole — subsequently proved to be the first
`drug that is signficantly superior to omeprazole both as
`a gastric-acid inhibitor and for the clinical manage-
`ment of GERD. As predicted, the cause of the superior-
`ity of esomeprazole was higher bioavailability, which
`resulted in higher plasma concentrations than achiev-
`able with the R isomer. At the parietal-cell level, both
`isomers are equally effective, as both are transformed to
`the same active inhibitor within the parietal cell.
`Esomeprazole was launched as Nexium in 2000 by
`AstraZeneca. In this article, we summarize the develop-
`ment of omeprazole, focusing on the key discoveries
`and challenges, and then describe the subsequent
`development of esomeprazole (a more detailed history
`of the development of omeprazole can be found in the
`book Proton Pump Inhibitors1; see also REF. 2).
`
`Background
`In the late 1960s, the pharmaceutical company Hässle
`(a research company within Astra) decided to start a
`gastrointestinal research division with the aim of finding
`a potent drug for the inhibition of gastric acid secretion
`to be used in patients with peptic ulcers. To this end, a
`gastrointestinal laboratory was created, and the first
`project in this laboratory resulted in an antisecretory
`compound that was very effective in the rat, which was
`used as a screening model. However, the compound was
`completely ineffective in man, indicating that new
`screening models were needed.
`
`The omeprazole project
`In 1972, the gastric acid inhibitory project was restarted
`with a new approach. Anesthetized dogs were used as an
`initial screening model, followed by tests on conscious
`GASTRIC FISTULA DOGS. A literature search found a paper
`describing an antisecretory compound (CMN 131)
`developed by the pharmaceutical company Servier3; this
`compound, however, showed severe acute toxicity, and
`further research into this compound was consequently
`cancelled. As it seemed a reasonable assumption that the
`thioamide group in the chemical structure of CMN 131
`(FIG. 1) was responsible for the toxicity, the new approach
`aimed to eliminate this group by incorporating it into,
`or in between, heterocyclic ring systems. By 1973, the
`first hit was discovered — the benzimidazole H 124/26
`(FIG. 1), which was a powerful antisecretory compound
`without acute toxicity, and which therefore became the
`lead compound.
`
`R E V I E W S
`
`Patent problem. After H 124/26 had been identified, it
`was discovered that it was already covered by a patent
`owned by an Hungarian company, which described the
`compound as a drug for the treatment of tuberculosis.
`However, a metabolite of H 124/26, which was not
`included in the Hungarian patent, was found to be an
`even more potent antisecretory compound4. The
`metabolite H 83/69 was the sulphoxide of H 124/26 —
`named timoprazole (FIG. 1) — and it became the new lead
`compound. At this stage, the site of inhibitory action in
`the pathway leading to acid secretion was not known.
`
`Toxicological challenges. Long-term toxicological stud-
`ies of timoprazole revealed that it caused enlargement
`of the thyroid gland — later shown to be due to inhibi-
`tion of iodine uptake — as well as atrophy of the thymus
`gland. Thiourea compounds are well-known inhibitors
`of iodine uptake in the thyroid. A literature search of
`the chemistry of thiourea compounds showed a few
`substituted mercapto-benzimidazoles having no effect
`on iodine uptake, and the introduction of these sub-
`stituents into timoprazole resulted in elimination of the
`effects on the thyroid and thymus, without reducing the
`antisecretory effect. Tests on several substituted benzi-
`midazoles showed that separation of the inhibition of
`acid secretion from the inhibition of iodine uptake
`was obtained in a specific range of lipophilicity of
`these compounds5. The most potent antisecretory com-
`pound without thyroid/thymus effects was H 149/94,
`which was named picoprazole (FIG. 1).
`However, in extended toxicological studies of pico-
`prazole, as well as one previous compound, a few treated
`dogs developed NECROTIZING VASCULITIS. Fortunately from
`the perspective of the project, one of the control dogs
`also developed necrotizing vasculitis. It was shown that
`all the dogs with vasculitis emanated from one male
`dog, and all had antibodies against intestinal worms,
`which were probably obtained after deworming. New
`toxicological studies in another beagle strain, and in
`non-parasitized dogs in another laboratory, were com-
`pletely clean. Picoprazole was used in a concept study in
`human volunteers, and showed a potent antisecretory
`action of very long duration6.
`
`Compound optimization. Simpler in vitro techniques
`were essential in order to test a large number of different
`substituted benzimidazoles for the optimal inhibition of
`gastric acid secretion. The isolated gastric-acid-secreting
`mucosa of the guinea pig was introduced as an appro-
`priate in vitro model7. Later on, isolated rabbit acid-
`secreting glands were used8, and a micromethod for
`isolating acid-secreting glands from human gastric
`biopsies was developed9. These techniques allowed the
`testing of a large number of compounds, including tests
`on the human target tissue.
`At about this time, evidence was emerging that the
`activation of a newly discovered proton pump (an
`H+K+-ATPase) in the secretory membranes of the parietal
`cell was the final step in acid secretion10,11. Immuno-
`histological data obtained using antibodies against a
`crude preparation from the secretory membranes of
`
`GASTRIC FISTULA DOGS
`Dogs provided with a cannula
`into the stomach or into
`separated pouches of the
`stomach.
`
`NECROTIZING VASCULITIS
`An immunologically induced
`process causing an
`inflammatory reaction and
`necrosis in blood vessels.
`
`NATURE REVIEWS | DRUG DISCOVERY
`
`VOLUME 2 | FEBRUARY 2003 | 1 3 3
`
`Page 2 of 8
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2051
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`Omeprazole was found to be the most potent
`inhibitor of stimulated gastric acid secretion in rats and
`dogs in vivo15, and no effects on iodine uptake, no induc-
`tion of thymus atrophy, no necrotizing vasculitis and no
`other signs of toxicity were found in initial safety studies.
`An Investigational New Drug (IND) application was filed
`in 1980, and omeprazole was taken into human trials in
`1982, which had highly encouraging results16–18. However,
`there were still further challenges to address.
`
`Further toxicological problems. Lifelong toxicological
`studies of very high doses of omeprazole in rats revealed
`the development of endocrine tumours (carcinoids)
`in the stomach, which led to the halting of all clinical
`studies in 1984. The carcinoids originated from entero-
`chromaffine-like (ECL) cells, a type of endocrine cell in
`the gastric mucosa that synthesize and secrete histamine
`in response to stimulation by the gastric hormone
`gastrin. However, longer-term stimulation by gastrin
`has a potent trophic action on ECL cells. Combining
`this with the fact that gastrin was known to be released
`in increasing amounts from the antrum of the stomach
`as the amount of acid secretion decreases suggested a
`possible explanation for the observed effects of lifelong
`very high doses of omeprazole in rats: the elimination of
`gastric acid secretion, resulting in massive hypergas-
`trinemia. This was shown to be the cause of the ECL cell
`hyperplasia in omeprazole-treated rats, as the hyper-
`plasia did not occur in rats subjected to resection of the
`gastric antrum19. Furthermore, the ECL cell carcinoids
`were also produced in lifelong studies of rats adminis-
`tered a H2-receptor antagonist (ranitidine) in high
`doses20, as well as by a surgical procedure that created
`massive hypergastrinemia21. These data allowed clinical
`studies with omeprazole to be restarted.
`
`Resumption of clinical studies. Omeprazole was found
`to be significantly superior to previous treatment
`regimens of H2-receptor antagonists in patients with
`duodenal17,18,22 and gastric ulcers23. A particularly
`notable superiority of omeprazole compared with the
`H2-receptor antagonist ranitidine was found in GERD
`patients24–26, in which the healing rates were about twice
`as high with omeprazole. On the basis of these studies,
`omeprazole was launched in Europe as Losec in 1988.
`Clinical doses of omeprazole produce a modest
`hypergastrinemia in the same range as the surgical
`procedure vagotomy27, and neither treatment has pro-
`duced ECL cell carcinoids over long-term (that is,
`greater than 10 years) follow-up. Massive hypergastrine-
`mia in man is seen in patients with gastrin-producing
`tumours, and these patients develop hyperplasia of
`the ECL cells, but not ECL cell carcinoids. Obviously,
`the response of the ECL cells to hypergastrinemia is
`different in man and rat.
`
`Mechanism of action of omeprazole. The success of
`omeprazole in the clinic can be ascribed to the very
`effective inhibition of gastric acid secretion achieved
`through specific inhibition of the gastric H+K+-ATPase.
`This proton pump is located in the secretory membranes
`
`NN
`
`H
`
`N
`
`S
`
`[H 124/26] (1973)
`
`CO2CH3
`
`CH3
`
`NN
`
`H
`
`CH3
`
`SO
`
`N
`
`OCH3
`
`Picoprazole
`[H 149/94] (1976)
`
`N
`
`N
`
`H
`
`CH3
`
`SO
`
`• •
`
`OCH3
`
`N
`
`Esomeprazole
`(1983)
`
`OCH3
`
`H3C
`
`R E V I E W S
`
`N
`
`S
`
`NH2
`
`[CMN 131]
`
`NN
`
`H
`
`SO
`
`N
`
`Timoprazole
`[H 83/69] (1974)
`
`NN
`
`H
`
`CH3
`
`SO
`
`OCH3
`
`N
`
`H3C
`
`Omeprazole
`[H 168/68] (1979)
`
`Figure 1 | Chemical milestones in the development of proton-pump inhibitors and the
`year of synthesis.
`
`parietal cells revealed strong immunoreactivity in the
`parietal cell region of the stomach, but also some
`activity in the thyroid gland12. Coupled with knowledge
`of the side effects of timoprazole on the thyroid dis-
`cussed earlier, these findings raised the intriguing possi-
`bility that benzimidazoles such as timoprazole could be
`inhibitors of the H+K+-ATPase. Research was initiated in
`this area in parallel with the further development of
`benzimidazoles, and it was indeed subsequently shown
`that substituted benzimidazoles inhibit gastric acid
`secretion by blocking the H+K+-ATPase13,14. The mode
`of action of substituted benzimidazoles, and the impli-
`cations of this for their clinical benefits, are discussed
`further in a following section.
`How could the antisecretory effect of substituted
`benzimidazoles be optimized? As weak bases accumu-
`late in the acidic compartment of the parietal cell close
`to the proton pump, substituents were added to the
`pyridine ring of timoprazole to obtain a higher pKa
`value, thereby maximizing the accumulation within
`the parietal cell. The result was compound H 168/68,
`which was named omeprazole (FIG. 1). It was later
`shown in a thorough mechanistic investigation that
`the higher pKa value of the omeprazole pyridine ring
`(~1 pKa unit higher than that in timoprazole) also
`increased the rate of acid-mediated conversion to the
`active species (the sulphenamide; see the section
`below on mechanism of action), which is the major
`factor determining acid inhibitory activity5. Also, the
`5-methoxy substitution pattern in the benzimidazole
`moiety of omeprazole made the compound much
`more stable to conversion at neutral pH compared with,
`for example, the ester substitution in the benzimidazole
`moiety of picoprazole (FIG. 1).
`
`134 | FEBRUARY 2003 | VOLUME 2
`
`www.nature.com/reviews/drugdisc
`
`Page 3 of 8
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2051
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`R E V I E W S
`
`of the parietal cell of the gastric mucosa and constitutes
`the final step of acid secretion28 (FIG. 2a). Therefore,
`blockade of this pump results in a more specific inhi-
`bition of acid secretion compared with blockade of
`the more widely distributed H2 and cholinergic recep-
`tors. Furthermore, as omeprazole interacts with the
`final step of acid production, the inhibition of gastric
`
`acid secretion is independent of how acid secretion is
`stimulated29,30 — an important advantage over other
`pharmacological approaches to inhibiting acid secre-
`tion. For example, the inhibition of acid secretion by
`H2-receptor antagonists can be overcome by food-
`induced stimulation of acid secretion via gastrin or
`cholinergic receptors.
`
`a
`
`Histamine H2
`receptor antagonists
`
`Muscarinic
`M3 receptor
`
`Acetylcholine
`Muscarinic
`antagonists
`
`Histamine
`
`Histamine H2 receptor
`
`Gastrin
`
`CCK2 receptor
`
`cAMP-
`dependent
`pathway
`
`Ca2+-
`dependent
`pathway
`
`+
`
`+
`
`Parietal
`cell
`
`H+
`
`K+
`
`H+K+-ATPase
`
`Proton pump
`inhibitors
`
`Cl –
`
`Acid (HCl)
`
`Gastric gland
`lumen
`
`b
`
`Blood
`
`Parietal cell canaliculus lumen
`
`OCH3
`
`OCH3
`
`OCH3
`
`H+K+-ATPase
`
`OCH3
`
`H3C
`
`CH3
`
`H3C
`
`CH3
`
`N
`
`N
`
`H
`
`O
`
`S
`
`CH3
`
`H+
`
`N
`
`N
`
`H
`
`O
`
`S
`
`CH3
`
`3 steps
`
`N
`
`S
`
`N
`
`N
`
`SH
`
`N
`
`N
`
`S
`
`NH
`
`S
`
`H+K+-ATPase
`
`CH O3
`
`N
`
`CH O3
`
`NH+
`
`H3C
`Omeprazole
`
`H3C
`
`OCH3
`
`OCH3
`
`Sulphenamide intermediate
`
`Enzyme–inhibitor complex
`
`Figure 2 | Proton-pump inhibition. a | Gastric acid is secreted by parietal cells of the stomach in response to stimuli such as the
`presence of food in the stomach or intestine and the taste, smell, sight or thought of food. Such stimuli result in the activation of
`histamine, acetylcholine or gastrin receptors (the H2, M3 and CCK2 receptors, respectively) located in the basolateral membrane of
`the parietal cell, which initiates signal transduction pathways that converge on the activation of the H+K+-ATPase — the final step of
`acid secretion. Inhibition of this proton pump has the advantage that it will reduce acid secretion independently of how secretion is
`stimulated, in contrast to other pharmacological approaches to the regulation of acid secretion; for example, the inhibition of acid
`secretion by H2 receptor antagonists can be overcome by food-induced stimulation of acid secretion via gastrin or acetylcholine
`receptors. b | Proton-pump inhibitors such as omeprazole are prodrugs that are converted to their active form in acidic
`environments. Omeprazole is a weak base, and so specifically concentrates in the acidic secretory canaliculi of the parietal cell,
`where it is activated by a proton-catalysed process to generate a sulphenamide29. The sulphenamide interacts covalently with the
`sulphydryl groups of cysteine residues in the extracellular domain of the H+K+-ATPase — in particular Cys 813 — thereby inhibiting
`its activity30. The specific concentration of proton-pump inhibitors such as omeprazole in the secretory canaliculi of the parietal cell
`is reflected in their favourable side-effect profile.
`
`NATURE REVIEWS | DRUG DISCOVERY
`
`VOLUME 2 | FEBRUARY 2003 | 1 3 5
`
`Page 4 of 8
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2051
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`R E V I E W S
`
`OCH3
`
`OCH3
`
`NN
`
`H
`
`OCH3
`
`N
`
`CH3
`O
`S
`
`Omeprazole
`
`Non-chiral oxidation
`
`H3C
`
`Mg(OCH3)2
`
`H3C
`
`OCH3
`
`N
`
`CH3
`O
`
`S
`
`N
`
`N
`1/2 Mg
`
`Esomeprazole magnesium
`(100% ee)
`
`OCH3
`
`NN
`
`H
`
`Asymmetric oxidation
`(Ti-mediated)
`
`OCH3
`
`H3C
`
`CH3
`
`N
`
`S
`
`H3C
`
`OCH3
`
`N
`
`CH3
`O
`
`S
`
`N
`
`N
`
`H
`
`OCH3
`
`Esomeprazole
`(94% ee)
`
`Figure 3 | Synthesis of omeprazole and esomeprazole. The large-scale production of esomeprazole is achieved by asymmetric
`oxidation of the same sulphide intermediate as is used in the production of omeprazole, which gives a 94% enantiomeric excess
`(ee). This is increased to 100% by preparing a magnesium salt of of esomeprazole and then performing a crystallization.
`
`So, how does omeprazole inhibit the H+K+-ATPase?
`In whole-body autoradiographic studies in mice,
`omeprazole was found to label only the tubulovesicles
`and secretory membranes of the parietal cell, which
`contain the H+K+-ATPase5. Electrophoretic analyses of
`such membranes, purified after administration of radio-
`labelled omeprazole, demonstrated that the radiolabel
`specifically associated with the 92-kDa proteins known
`to hold the catalytic subunit of H+K+-ATPase5. From
`this, it could be concluded that omeprazole binds only
`to the H+K+-ATPase in the gastric mucosa and nowhere
`else in the body.
`However, omeprazole itself is not the active inhibitor
`of the H+K+-ATPase. The transformation of omeprazole
`in acid is required to inhibit the H+K+-ATPase (FIG. 2b)
`in vitro and in vivo, whereas intact omeprazole is devoid
`of inhibitory action. Isolated H+K+-ATPase is blocked by
`omeprazole only after pretreatment of omeprazole with
`acid, and neutralization of the acidic secretory canaliculi
`of isolated gastric gland and parietal cell preparations by
`permeable buffers, which blocks the acid-catalysed
`transformation of omeprazole, prevents the inhibition of
`acid secretion. Furthermore, in vivo blockade of acid
`secretion using an H2-receptor antagonist prior to
`omeprazole administration decreases the inhibitory
`action of omeprazole. Investigations of the acid decom-
`position of omeprazole have revealed an intermediate
`compound — a sulphenamide — that effectively inhibits
`the H+K+-ATPase preparation in vitro 31 and which reacts
`rapidly with mercaptans (for example, β-mercap-
`toethanol) to form a disulphide adduct. As the H+K+-
`ATPase inhibition is associated with the modification of
`mercapto groups in the enzyme, such disulphide adducts
`can be considered as models of the enzyme–inhibitor
`complex, and the sulphenamide formed from omepra-
`zole can be considered to be the active inhibitor, which
`binds covalently to the cysteine residues (in particular,
`Cys 813) of the H+K+-ATPase (FIG. 2b).
`
`Omeprazole has several characteristics that are
`important for its unique mechanism of action. First,
`omeprazole is lipophilic, which means that it easily
`penetrates cell membranes. Second, it is a weak base,
`which means that it concentrates in acid compartments.
`Third, it is very unstable in an acidic solution. The half-
`life of omeprazole at pH 1 is ~2 minutes, whereas at
`pH 7.4 it is ~20 hours. So, omeprazole is a prodrug that
`accumulates within the acid space of the target cell,
`where it is transformed to the active inhibitor.
`Whereas the half-life of omeprazole in blood
`plasma is rather short — 1–2 hours in man — the
`half-life of the inhibitory complex is much longer. On
`the basis of the duration of action in humans, the
`half-life at the site of action is estimated to be ~24
`hours. Dissociation of the enzyme–inhibitor complex
`is probably a result of the effect of endogenous
`glutathione32,33, which leads to reactivation of the
`enzyme and the release of the omeprazole sulphide.
`The fact that the sulphide is found in the gastric juice
`is consistent with this idea. Reactivation of the acid-
`producing capacity may also in part be due to de novo
`synthesis of enzyme molecules34.
`
`Esomeprazole (Nexium)
`Omeprazole — need for improvement? Omeprazole
`showed a significant inter-individual variability, both
`regarding its pharmacokinetics and effect on acid secre-
`tion, and a significant number of patients with acid-
`related disorders needed higher or multiple doses to
`achieve symptom relief and healing. This difference in
`response was especially pronounced between slow and
`rapid metabolizers.
`In western countries, ~2–4% of individuals lack one
`of the isoenzymes — 2C19 — of the P450 enzyme
`family in the liver35. This isoenzyme is important for
`the metabolism of a number of drugs, including
`omeprazole35. Individuals lacking this isoenzyme
`
`136 | FEBRUARY 2003 | VOLUME 2
`
`www.nature.com/reviews/drugdisc
`
`Page 5 of 8
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2051
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`R E V I E W S
`
`metabolize these drugs at a slower rate and are therefore
`called slow metabolizers. Among people from South
`East Asia and Japan, up to 20% are slow metabolizers35.
`On the basis of this knowledge, Astra started a new
`acid inhibitor research program in 1987 with the aim of
`finding a compound with reduced clearance by the
`liver — that is, increased bioavailability. Chemical
`approaches were used to change the substitution pattern
`on the pyridine and benzimidazole rings. More than 30
`scientists synthesized and screened several hundred com-
`pounds in the search for one that could possibly surpass
`omeprazole. During 1989–1994, four compounds passed
`the hard preclinical tests and demonstrated superior
`bioavailability compared with omeprazole in rats, and
`were then tested in humans. When all the key para-
`meters — pharmacokinetic properties, acid inhibitory
`effect and safety issues — were assessed, only one com-
`pound exceeded omeprazole: it was one of its optical
`isomers, the S isomer or esomeprazole.
`
`Optical isomers and consequences in biology. Around
`150 years ago, Louis Pasteur found that a solution of
`deposits from old wine casks could either rotate a
`beam of plane-polarized light to the right, to the left
`or not at all. He also found that an organic acid iso-
`lated from this tartar crystallized in two forms, and
`that a solution of one crystal form rotated the light to
`the left and the other form to the right, whereas a mix-
`ture of equal amounts of the two forms did not rotate
`the beam of light at all. Pasteur had detected iso-
`merism and is, therefore, the pioneer of stereochem-
`istry. Chemical compounds containing an atom
`(usually sulphur or carbon) bound to four different
`groups can occur in two forms, each of which is a
`non-superimposable mirror image of the other.
`Except for this ability to rotate plane-polarized light,
`their chemical structures and physicochemical prop-
`erties are the same36.
`In biology, stereochemistry is very important. Drug
`targets, such as enzymes and ion channels, as well as their
`endogenous ligands, hormones and signal substances,
`
`are the results of stereoselective biosynthesis. This
`means that drug targets recognize drug isomers and
`that the two isomers of a racemate often differ in their
`potency owing to different affinities for the target
`receptor, have different pharmacokinetic properties
`owing to different affinity for metabolizing enzymes or
`have different toxicological properties. Against this
`background and progress in chemical technology37,38,
`which has made it possible to synthetically produce
`pure isomers on a large scale, the regulatory authori-
`ties now require the development of a pure isomer
`whenever possible.
`
`Omeprazole is a racemate. The chemical structure of
`omeprazole contains a sulphoxide group (FIG. 1) and is
`therefore a racemate composed of the two isomers S
`and R in the proportion 1:1. As the two isomers of
`omeprazole have the same physicochemical proper-
`ties, they both undergo a non-enzymatic, proton-
`catalysed transformation to the active molecular
`species — the non-chiral sulphenamide (FIG. 2b). In
`accordance with this, we also found that the two iso-
`mers showed identical dose–response curves when
`tested in vitro for the inhibition of acid production in
`isolated gastric glands39.
`At this stage, however, we could not dismiss the idea
`of a possible difference in metabolism between the two
`isomers, but we needed larger amounts of the pure iso-
`mers. Isomer-selective production using microbial and
`enzymatic systems were only partly successful. We
`became more focused on the new idea of separating
`isomers via chromatography of diastereomers40. As a
`spin-off from our previous work, we identified a
`technique to use a temporary covalent diastereomeric
`complex with mandelic acid for chromatographic
`separation. Not only did we obtain hundreds of
`milligrams of the single isomers, but we also realized
`that alkaline salts, as opposed to the neutral forms,
`were crystalline and, moreover, that they were stable
`against racemisation. We now had the prerequisites
`for in vivo testing.
`
`90.7%
`
`64.5%
`
`25.3%
`
`b
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Inhibition (%)
`
`R-omeprazole
`Omeprazole
`S-omeprazole (esomeprazole)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`R-omeprazole
`
`Omeprazole
`
`Time after dose (hours)
`
`S-omeprazole
`(esomeprazole)
`
`1,500
`
`1,250
`
`1,000
`
`750
`
`500
`
`250
`
`a
`
`Mean plasma concentration (nmol/L)
`
`0
`
`0
`
`Figure 4 | Effects of racemic omeprazole and its enantiomers. a | Drug plasma concentrations and b | inhibition of
`pentagastrin-stimulated gastric acid secretion in healthy subjects (n = 4) after oral administration of 15 mg of R-omeprazole,
`omeprazole and esomeprazole at time 0 (REF. 42).
`
`NATURE REVIEWS | DRUG DISCOVERY
`
`VOLUME 2 | FEBRUARY 2003 | 1 3 7
`
`Page 6 of 8
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2051
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`The large-scale production of esomeprazole is now
`successfully achieved by asymmetric oxidation of the
`same sulphide intermediate as is used in the production
`of omeprazole (FIG. 3). Drawing inspiration from the
`work on titanium-mediated asymmetric oxidation
`reported by K. Barry Sharpless, who won the Nobel
`Prize for Chemistry in 2001, and H.B. Kagan, and on the
`basis of some key changes in the process parameters, the
`ENANTIOMERIC EXCESS could be increased from 4% to 94%.
`In the production method, the optical purity is further
`enhanced by the preparation of esomeprazole magne-
`sium salt with subsequent crystallization41.
`
`Isomer pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.
`Initial in vivo experiments were carried out with the
`pure isomers and the racemates in rats and dogs to
`assess the the plasma concentration following oral
`doses and the effects on stimulated acid secretion. In
`the rat, the R isomer showed significantly higher
`bioavailability and more potent inhibition of acid
`secretion than the S isomer and the racemate. In the
`dog, however, no differences could be detected between
`the two isomers. If the initial in vivo experiments had
`been performed solely in dogs, we would have probably
`stopped further work with the isomers. On the basis of
`the initial findings in rats, however, we took the deci-
`sion to continue the project and compare the isomers
`in man. We found about the same magnitude of differ-
`ence between the isomers as in the rat, but, to our sur-
`prise, the S isomer had the highest bioavailability and
`oral potency in inhibiting gastric acid secretion in
`man42 (FIG. 4), owing to stereoselective metabolism of
`omeprazole43.
`In man, 40 mg of esomeprazole taken orally
`showed much higher and more prolonged plasma
`concentration curves than 20 mg esomeprazole (FIG. 5).
`The 40-mg esomeprazole dose also showed significantly
`
`Esomeprazole 20 mg
`Esomeprazole 40 mg
`Omeprazole 20 mg
`
`R E V I E W S
`
`ENANTIOMERIC EXCESS
`If one enantiomer is present
`to a greater extent, an
`enantiomeric excess exists
`where: enantiomeric excess =
`(measured specific rotation of
`mixture/specific rotation for the
`pure enantiomer) × 100.
`
`4,000
`
`3,000
`
`2,000
`
`1,000
`
`Mean plasma concentration (nmol/L)
`
`0
`
`0
`
`more potent inhibition of gastric acid secretion than
`the 20 mg esomeprazole, 20 and 40 mg omeprazole as
`well as the standard doses of the other commercially
`available proton-pump inhibitors44. Consequently,
`40 mg of esomeprazole was chosen as the standard
`dose when esomeprazole was launched as Nexium in
`2000. Reassurance on the safety of a high standard
`dose of esomeprazole was provided by the extensive
`experience of continuous treatment with both 20 mg
`and 40 mg of omeprazole45, in contrast to the situation
`in which the choice of standard 20 mg dose of
`omeprazole was made. At that time, the safety of the
`drug was more uncertain, as it was a completely new
`type of drug, and the choice of dose had to be the
`lowest possible that still retained sufficient activity.
`
`Clinical results. In GERD, the most common acid-
`related disease, esomeprazole has been shown to be
`clinically superior to other proton-pump inhibitors,
`such as omeprazole and lansoprazole. There is signifi-
`cantly higher symptom relief during treatment with
`esomeprazole46,47, and significantly higher healing
`rates, which are well above 90% in patients with eso-
`phagitis46,48,49. The remission rate during maintenance
`treatment is also significantly higher with esomeprazole
`in comparison with placebo and lansoprazole50,51.
`It is now known that most peptic ulcers are caused
`by infection with Helicobacter pylori, with gastric acid
`still being a key promoter. Elimination of H. pylori is
`now the clinical approach of choice52. At present, anti-
`biotics alone are not sufficient to achieve high enough
`cure rates, and so two antibiotics are combined with an
`antisecretory agent, such as a proton-pump inhibitor,
`in ‘triple therapies’. For esomeprazole, one-week triple
`the

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