Skip to main content
Log in

Stereoselective Disposition of Proton Pump Inhibitors

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Clinical Drug Investigation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is estimated that about half of all therapeutic agents are chiral, but most of these drugs are administered in the form of the racemic mixture, i.e. a 50/50 mixture of its enantiomers. However, chirality is one of the main features of biology, and many of the processes essential for life are stereoselective, implying that two enantiomers may work differently from each other in a physiological environment. Thus, receptors or metabolizing enzymes would recognize one of the ligand enantiomers in favour of the other. With one exception, all presently marketed proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) — omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole and rabeprazole — used for the treatment of gastric acid-related diseases are racemic mixtures. The exception is esomeprazole, the S-enantiomer of omeprazole, which is the only PPI developed as a single enantiomer drug. The development of esomeprazole (an alkaline salt thereof, e.g. magnesium or sodium) was based on unique metabolic properties that clearly differentiated esomeprazole from omeprazole, the racemate. At comparable doses, these properties led to several clinical advantages, for example higher bioavailability in the majority of patients, i.e. the extensive metabolizers (EMs; 97% in Caucasian and 80–85% in Asian populations), lower exposure in poor metabolizers (PMs; 3% in Caucasian and 15–20% in Asian populations) and lower interindividual variation. For the other, i.e. racemic, PPIs there are some data available on the characteristics of the individual enantiomers, and we have therefore undertaken to analyse the current literature with the purpose of evaluating the potential benefits of developing single enantiomer drugs from lansoprazole, pantoprazole and rabeprazole. For lansoprazole, the plasma concentrations of the S-enantiomer are lower than those of the R-enantiomer in both EMs and PMs, and, consequently, the variability in the population or between EMs and PMs is not likely to decrease with either of the lansoprazole enantiomers. Furthermore, plasma protein binding differs between the two lansoprazole enantiomers, in that the amount of the free S- enantiomer is two-fold higher than that of the R-enantiomer. This will counteract the difference seen in total plasma concentrations of the enantiomers. Also, studies using expressed human cytochrome P450 isoenzymes show that the metabolism of one enantiomer is significantly affected by the presence of the other, which is likely to result in different pharmacokinetics when administering a single enantiomer. For pantoprazole, there is a negligible difference in plasma concentrations between the two enantiomers in EMs, while the difference is substantial in PMs. The difference in AUC between PMs and EMs would decrease to some extent, but in the majority of the population the variability and efficacy would not be altered with a single enantiomer of pantoprazole. The metabolism of the enantiomers of rabeprazole displays stereoselectivity comparable to that of lansoprazole, i.e. the exposure of the R-enantiomer is higher than that of the S- enantiomer in EMs as well as in PMs, which, by analogy to lansoprazole, makes them less suitable for development of a single enantiomer drug. Furthermore, the chiral stability of the rabeprazole enantiomers may be an issue because of significant degradation of rabeprazole to its sulfide analogue, which is subject to non-stereoselective metabolic regeneration of a mixture of the two enantiomers. In conclusion, in contrast to esomeprazole, the S-enantiomer of omeprazole, minimal if any clinical advantages would be expected in developing any of the enantiomers of lansoprazole, pantoprazole, or rabeprazole as compared with their racemates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Table I
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agranat I, Caner H, Caldwell J. Putting chirality to work: the strategy of chiral switches. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002; 1: 753–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Creutzfeldt W. Chiral switch, a successful way for developing drugs: example of esomeprazole [in German]. Z Gastroenterol 2000; 38(11): 893–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Andersson, T. Single-isomer drugs: true therapeutic advances. Clin Pharmacokinet 2004; 43: 279–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Abelö A, Andersson TB, Antonsson M, et al. Stereoselective metabolism of omeprazole by human cytochrome P450 enzymes. Drug Metab Dispos 2000; 28: 966–72

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Andersson T, Hassan-Alin M, Hasselgren G, et al. Pharmacokinetic studies with esomeprazole, the (S)-isomer of omeprazole. Clin Pharmacokinet 2001; 40: 411–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Röhss K, Lind T, Wilder-Smith C. Esomeprazole 40 mg provides more effective intragastric acid control than lansoprazole 30 mg, omeprazole 20 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg and rabeprazole 20 mg in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 60: 531–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Miner Jr P, Katz PO, Chen Y, et al. Gastric acid control with esomeprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole: a five-way crossover study. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2616–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hassan-Alin M, Andersson T, Niazi M, et al. A pharmacokinetic study comparing single and repeated oral doses of 20 and 40mg omeprazole and its two optical isomers, S-omeprazole (esomeprazole) and R-omeprazole, in healthy subjects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 60: 779–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Katsuki H, Hamada A, Nakamura C, et al. Role of CYP3A4 and CYP2C19 in the stereoselective metabolism of lansoprazole by human liver microsomes. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 57: 709–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim KA, Kim MJ, Park YU, et al. Stereoselective metabolism of lansoprazole by human liver cytochromes P450 enzymes. Drug Metab Dispos 2003; 31: 1227–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Katsuki H, Yagi H, Arimori K, et al. Determination of R(+)- and S(−)-lansoprazole using chiral stationary-phase liquid chromatography and their enantioselective pharmacokinetics in humans. Pharm Res 1996; 13: 611–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim KA, Shon JH, Park JY, et al. Enantioselective disposition of lansoprazole in extensive and poor metabolizers of CYP2C19. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002; 72: 90–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Miura M, Tada H, Suzuki T, et al. Simultaneous determination of lansoprazole enantiomers and their metabolites in plasma by liquid chromatography with solid phase extraction. J Chromatogr B 2004; 804: 389–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Miura M, Tada H, Yasui-Furukori N, et al. Pharmacokinetic differences between the enantiomers of lansoprazole and its metabolite, 5-hydroxylansoprazole, in relation to CYP2C19 genotypes. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 60: 623–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Miura M, Kagaya H, Tada H, et al. Comparison of enantioselective disposition of rabeprazole versus lansoprazole in renaltransplant recipients who are CYP2C19 extensive metabolizers. Xenobiotica 2005; 35: 479–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Tanaka M, Yamazaki H, Hakusui H, et al. Differential stereo-selective pharmacokinetics of pantoprazole, a proton pump inhibitor in extensive and poor metabolizers of pantoprazole: a preliminary study. Chirality 1997; 9: 17–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tanaka M, Ohkubo T, Otani K, et al. Stereoselective pharmacokinetics of pantoprazole, a proton pump inhibitor, in extensive and poor metabolizers of S-mephenytoin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 69: 108–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Cass QB, Degani ALG, Cassiano NM, et al. Enantiomeric determination of pantoprazole in human plasma by multidimensional high-performance liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr B 2001; 766: 153–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Miura M, Kagaya H, Tada H, et al. Enantioselective disposition of rabeprazole in relation to CYP2C19 genotypes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 61: 315–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lindberg P, Brändstrom A, Wallmark B, et al. Omeprazole: the first proton pump inhibitor. Med Res Rev 1990; 10: 1–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lind T, Cederberg C, Ekenved G, et al. Effect of omeprazole — a gastric proton pump inhibitor — on pentagastrin stimulated acid secretion in man. Gut 1983; 24: 270–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Junghard O, Hassan-Alin M, Hasseigren G. The effect of the area under the plasma concentration vs time curve and the maximum plasma concentration of esomeprazole on intragastric pH. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 58: 453–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Andersson T. Pharmacokinetics, metabolism and interactions of acid pump inhibitors: focus on omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole. Clin Pharmacokinet 1996; 31: 9–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Andersson T, Miners JO, Veronese ME, et al. Identification of human liver cytochrome P450 isoforms mediating omeprazole metabolism. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 36: 521–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Li XQ, Weidolf L, Simonsson R, et al. Enantiomer/enantiomer interactions between the S- and R-enantiomers of omeprazole in human cytochrome P450 enzymes: major role of CYP2C19 and CYP3A4. J Pharmacol Experiment Ther 2005; 315: 777–87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tybring G, Böttiger Y, Widen, et al. Enantioselective hydroxylation of omeprazole catalyzed by CYP2C19 in Swedish white subjects. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 62: 129–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hardman JG, Limbird LE, Gilman AG, editors. Goodman & Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pichard L, Curi-Pedrosa R, Bonfils C, et al. Oxidative metabolism of lansoprazole by human liver cytochromes P450. Mol Pharmacol 1995; 47: 410–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Shon DR, Kwon JT, Kim HK, et al. Metabolic disposition of lansoprazole in relation to the S-mephenytoin 4′-hydroxylation phenotype status. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 61: 574–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schultz HU, Hartman M, Steinijans VW, et al. Lack of influence of pantoprazole on the disposition kinetics of theophylline in man. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1991; 29: 369–75

    Google Scholar 

  31. Yasuda S, Ohnishi A, Ogawa T, et al. Pharmacokinetic properties of E3810, a new proton pump inhibitor, in healthy male volunteers. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994; 32: 466–73

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Yasuda S, Horai Y, Tomono Y, et al. Comparison of the kinetic disposition and metabolism of E3810, a new proton pump inhibitor, and omeprazole in relation to S-mephenytoin 4′-hydroxylation status. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 58: 143–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Ishizaki T, Horai Y. Cytochrome P450 and the metabolism of proton pump inhibitors: emphasis on rabeprazole. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999; 3: 27–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Van den Branden M, Ring BJ, Binkley SN, et al. Interaction of human liver cytochrome P450 in vitro with LY307640, a gastric proton pump inhibitor. Pharmacogenetics 1996; 6: 81–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ieri I, Kishimoto Y, Okochi H, et al. Comparison of the kinetic disposition of and serum gastrin change by lansoprazole versus rabeprazole during an 8-day dosing scheme in relation to CYP2C19 polymorphism. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 57: 485–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pai V, Pai N. Randomized, double-blind, comparative study of dexrabeprazole 10mg versus rabeprazole 20mg in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13(30): 4100–2

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Andersson T, Röhss K, Bredberg E, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of esomeprazole, the S-isomer of omeprazole. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001; 15: 1563–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Lind T, Rydberg L, Kylebäck A, et al. Esomeprazole provides improved acid control versus omeprazole in patients with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000; 14: 861–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Andersson T, Bredberg E, Sunzel M, et al. Pharmacokinetics (PK) and effect on pentagastrin stimulated peak acid output (PAO) of omeprazole (O) and its 2 optical isomers, S-omeprazole/esomeprazole (E) and R-omeprazole (R-O) [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2000; 118(A-5): 500

    Google Scholar 

  40. Röhss K, Lundin C, Rydholm H, et al. Esomeprazole 40 mg provides more effective acid control than omeprazole 40 mg. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 2432–3

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kahrilas PJ, Falk GW, Johnson DA, et al. Esomeprazole improves healing and symptom resolution as compared with omeprazole in reflux oesophagitis patients: a randomized controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000; 14: 1249–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Richter JE, Kahrilas PJ, Johanson J, et al. Efficacy and safety of esomeprazole compared with omeprazole in GERD patients with erosive esophagitis: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 656–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Castell DO, Kahrilas PJ, Richter JE, et al. Esomeprazole (40 mg) compared with lansoprazole (30 mg) in the treatment of erosive esophagitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 575–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Labenz J, Armstrong D, Lauritsen K, et al. A randomized comparative study of esomeprazole 40mg versus pantoprazole 40mg for healing erosive oesophagitis: the EXPO study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 21(6): 739–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Labenz J, Armstrong D, Lauritsen K, et al. Esomeprazole 20mg vs. pantoprazole 20mg for maintenance therapy of healed erosive oesophagitis: results from the EXPO study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 22(9): 803–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Huber R, Kohl B, Sachs G, et al. The continuing development of proton pump inhibitors with particular reference to pantopra- zole. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1995; 9: 363–78

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Shirai N, Furuta T, Moriyama Y, et al. Effects of CYP2C19 genotypic differences in the metabolism of omeprazole and rabeprazole on intragastric pH. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001; 15: 1929–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Regårdh CG, Gabrielsson M, Hoffmann KJ, et al. Pharmacokinetics and metabolism of omeprazole in animals and man: an overview. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 1985; 108: 79–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Miura M, Satoh S, Tada H, et al. Stereoselective metabolism of rabeprazole-thioether to rabeprazole by human liver microsomes. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 62: 113–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This review was funded by AstraZeneca Mölndal.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tommy Andersson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andersson, T., Weidolf, L. Stereoselective Disposition of Proton Pump Inhibitors. Clin. Drug Investig. 28, 263–279 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-200828050-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-200828050-00001

Keywords

Navigation