Scientific Evidence

Suspect screening and untargeted analysis using UHPLC-qToF are two advanced analytical approaches now used to achieve an extensive chemical profile of samples, which are then typically confirmed through targeted analysis. These techniques can detect a large number of chemical features simultaneously and are currently being introduced into the study of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) and into the study of the extent of human chemical exposure (the exposome). Here is described the use of these techniques to characterize chemical mixtures derived from the OECD 301F ready biodegradability test (RBT) of a chemical and natural formulation currently used to treat reflux disease and functional dyspepsia. Untargeted analysis clearly evidenced a different behavior between formulations containing only natural products with respect to that containing synthetic and non-naturally occurring substances. Suspect screening analysis improved the untargeted analysis of the omeprazole-based medicine, leading to the tentative identification of a number of omeprazole-derived transformation products, thereby enabling their preliminary quali-quantitative evaluation. Targeted analysis was then performed to confirm the preliminary data gained from the suspect screening approach. The validation of the analytical method for the quantitative determination of omeprazole and its major metabolite, omeprazole sulphide, has provided robust data to evaluate the behavior of omeprazole during the OECD 301F test. Using advanced analytical approaches, the RBT performed on the two products under investigation confirmed that omeprazole is not readily biodegradable, while the medical device made of natural substances has proven to be readily biodegradable.

INTRODUCTION: In the treatment of upper GI endoscopy-negative patients with heartburn and epigastric pain or burning, antacids, antireflux agents, and mucosal protective agents are widely used, alone or as add-on treatment, to increase response to proton-pump inhibitors, which are not indicated in infancy and pregnancy and account for significant cost expenditure.

METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter trial assessing the efficacy and safety of mucosal protective agent Poliprotect (neoBianacid, Sansepolcro, Italy) vs omeprazole in the relief of heartburn and epigastric pain/burning, 275 endoscopy-negative outpatients were given a 4-week treatment with omeprazole (20 mg q.d.) or Poliprotect (5 times a day for the initial 2 weeks and on demand thereafter), followed by an open-label 4-week treatment period with Poliprotect on-demand. Gut microbiota change was assessed.

RESULTS: A 2-week treatment with Poliprotect proved noninferior to omeprazole for symptom relief (between-group difference in the change in visual analog scale symptom score: [mean, 95% confidence interval] -5.4, -9.9 to -0.1; -6.2, -10.8 to -1.6; intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations, respectively). Poliprotect's benefit remained unaltered after shifting to on-demand intake, with no gut microbiota variation. The initial benefit of omeprazole was maintained against significantly higher use of rescue medicine sachets (mean, 95% confidence interval: Poliprotect 3.9, 2.8–5.0; omeprazole 8.2, 4.8–11.6) and associated with an increased abundance of oral cavity genera in the intestinal microbiota. No relevant adverse events were reported in either treatment arm.

DISCUSSION: Poliprotect proved noninferior to standard-dose omeprazole in symptomatic patients with heartburn/epigastric burning without erosive esophagitis and gastroduodenal lesions. Gut microbiota was not affected by Poliprotect treatment. The study is registered in Clinicaltrial.gov (NCT03238534) and the EudraCT database (2015-005216-15).