Double-blind comparison [correction of Double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison] of rabeprazole 20 mg vs. omeprazole 20 mg in the treatment of erosive or ulcerative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The European Rabeprazole Study Group

Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors versus vonoprazan in treatment of erosive esophagitis: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and vonoprazan are recommended as first-line therapies for erosive esophagitis (EE). However, it is uncertain how the magnitude of efficacy and safety of first-line therapy, the choice of individual PPIs or vonoprazan in the treatment of EE remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan and PPIs in healing esophageal mucosal injury in patients with EE.

METHODS

Relevant databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials of proton pump inhibitors and vonoprazan in the treatment of reflux esophagitis up to December 2021. Studies on standard-dose PPIs or vonoprazan that were published in Chinese or English and assessed healing effects in EE were included in the analysis. Stata16.0 was used to conduct a network Meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 41 literatures were included with 11,592 enrolled patients. For the endoscopic cure rate, all the PPIs and vonoprazan significantly improve compared to Placebo; Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, Ilaprazole ranked first, followed by esomeprazole, vonoprazan, pantoprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, rabeprazole and placebo therapy ranked the last. For the rate of adverse events, there was no significant difference among all the PPIs, vonoprazan, and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Ilaprazole, esomeprazole and vonoprazan have more advantages in mucosal erosion healing, there was no significant difference in the comparative safety among all interventions.

Clinical Characteristics of Esophageal Motility Disorders in Patients With Heartburn

Background/Aims

Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) contribute to the pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, the causes of EMDs and their impact on gastroesophageal reflux disease-associated symptoms remain unknown. This study aims to elucidate clinical features associated with various types of EMDs in patients with heartburn symptoms.

Methods

Of the 511 patients who underwent high-resolution manometry, 394 who were evaluated for heartburn symptoms were examined. Patients subjected to high-resolution manometry were classified into 4 groups outflow obstruction group, hypermotility group, hypomotility group, and normal motility group. Symptoms were evaluated using 3 questionnaires. Patient characteristics and symptoms for each EMD type were compared with those of the normal motility group.

Results

Of the 394 patients, 193 (48.9%) were diagnosed with EMDs, including 71 with outflow obstruction, 15 with hypermotility, and 107 with hypomotility. The mean dysphagia score was significantly higher in each of the 3 EMD groups compared with those with normal motility. The mean acid reflux and dyspepsia scores were significantly lower in the outflow obstruction group (P < 0.05). The mean body mass index and median Brinkman index were significantly higher in the hypermotility group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.018, respectively), whereas the mean diarrhea and constipation scores were significantly lower in the hypomotility group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The results of our study indicate that different EMDs have distinct characteristics. Cigarette smoking and high body mass index were associated with esophageal hypermotility. Assessment of the dysphagia symptom scores may help identify patients with EMDs.

Clinical utility of salivary pepsin measurement in patients with proton pump inhibitor-refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms: a prospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

Salivary pepsin measurement has been reported to be useful for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This study aimed to clarify the usefulness of salivary pepsin measurement in patients with proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-refractory GERD symptoms without erosive esophagitis.

METHODS

One hundred and two patients were included. Over seven days after terminating PPI treatment, all patients underwent a 24-h pH-impedance test and salivary pepsin measurement. In patients whose main symptoms included laryngopharyngeal symptoms, a hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance (HMII) test was performed, whereas in other patients, a conventional combined multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) test was performed. In the HMII tests, patients were divided into abnormal proximal exposure (APE) and non-APE groups. Salivary pepsin concentrations were compared according to acid exposure time (AET) values and were also compared between the APE and non-APE groups.

RESULTS

The median salivary pepsin concentration in patients with AET > 6% was significantly higher than that in patients with AET ≤ 6% (345.0 [170.0-469.3] ng/mL vs. 120.0 [97.0-290.1] ng/mL, p < 0.01). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of a positive test (> 109 ng/mL) to diagnose patients with AET > 6% were 75.0%, 51.3%, 32.1%, and 86.9%, respectively. There was no significant difference between concentrations in the APE group and concentrations in the non-APE group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with PPI-refractory nonerosive reflux disease, salivary pepsin measurement may help diagnose patients who have conclusive evidence of reflux, whereas it is not adequate for identifying patients with APE.

Vonoprazan versus proton-pump inhibitors for healing gastroesophageal reflux disease: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disease caused by reflux of gastric contents to the esophagus. Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are recommended as a first-line therapy to treat GERD. Recently, a new potassium-competitive acid blocker, vonoprazan, was launched in Japan. We aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of vonoprazan and other PPIs in healing GERD.

METHODS

We used MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to search the literature. Double-blind randomized controlled trials for PPIs and/or vonoprazan that were published in English or Japanese and assessed healing effects in adult GERD patients were included. To estimate the comparative efficacy of treatments, we performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to assess the consistency assumption.

RESULTS

Of 4001 articles identified in the database, 42 studies were eligible. One study was hand-searched and added to the analysis. For the main analysis of healing effects at 8 weeks, odds ratios (ORs) of vonoprazan (20 mg daily) to esomeprazole (20 mg), rabeprazole (20 mg), lansoprazole (30 mg), and omeprazole (20 mg) were 2.29 (95% credible interval, 0.79-7.06), 3.94 (1.15-14.03), 2.40 (0.90-6.77), and 2.71 (0.98-7.90), respectively. Subgroup analysis for patients with severe esophagitis at baseline showed significantly higher ORs for vonoprazan versus most of the comparator PPIs.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis shows that the GERD healing effect of vonoprazan is higher than that of rabeprazole (20 mg) but not higher than other PPIs. Subgroup analysis indicated that vonoprazan is more effective than most PPIs for patients with severe erosive esophagitis.

Oral Ppi VS IV Ppi in Hospitalized Patient

Objectives: Of this study have been produced in order to promote effective use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and (H2RAs) histamine II receptor antagonists at AL-Zahraa University Hospital (ZUH) in Lebanon. The aims: Of the study are to ensure PPIs use is limited to situations where there is indicated and there is a clear evidence of benefit, in order to decrease the cost when possible without affecting the patient’s clinical outcome. Setting: Medical and surgical in-patients floors at AL-Zahraa University Hospital (ZUH) were used for this study, which include 57medical and 43 surgical beds. Methods: In this study 100 patients files were reviewed for appropriate IVPPIs uses in two separate time intervals, over six months period started on January 1st, 2016 and ended on June 30th, 2016 and divided into two equal separate time intervals, pre implementation and post implementation of restriction dispensing policy, in order to determine the proper indication and the cost impact of restriction procedure. The main outcomes measure the cost difference between pre and post restriction periods. Results: During the pre-restriction period, the majority of IVPPIs vials were dispensed to patients able to tolerate oral medications with no proper indications to IVPPIs use, the daily consumption of IVPPIs were 48 vials (960 $) in the pre-restriction period as compared to only 2 vials (40$) in the post restriction period, therefore the associated daily cost was reduced from 960$ to 40$. Conclusion: This study highlighted the impact of proper use of PPIs based on implantation of the dispensing authorization restriction form of IVPPIS use which based on the international protocols for peptic ulcer drugs uses, leading to statistically significant in hospital patient’s daily cost reduction by 24 folds.

Evaluation of Esophageal Mucosal Integrity in Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

BACKGROUND

Impaired esophageal mucosal integrity plays a role in causing symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Recently, the assessment of esophageal baseline impedance (BI) using the multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) test was suggested as a surrogate technique for the study of esophageal mucosal integrity and was reported to be useful in distinguishing GERD from non-GERD. However, measuring BI requires a 24-h testing period, is complicated, and causes considerable patient discomfort.

SUMMARY

Recently, endoscopy-guided catheters that can measure mucosal impedance (MI) and mucosal admittance (MA), which is the inverse of impedance, were developed, and their usefulness in measuring MI and MA for the diagnosis of GERD has been reported. In these studies, esophageal MI values were significantly lower in patients with GERD than in those without GERD. In contrast, esophageal MA was significantly higher in patients with GERD than in those without. Furthermore, we reported that MA is inversely correlated with BI and correlated with acid exposure time. Key Messages: Endoscopy-guided real-time measurement of MI and MA may allow the estimation of mucosal integrity and may be a useful diagnostic tool for patients with GERD in a manner similar to 24-h MII-pH monitoring.

Comparative effectiveness and acceptability of the FDA-licensed proton pump inhibitors for erosive esophagitis: A PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study compared the effectiveness and acceptability of all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in erosive esophagitis (EE): Dexlansoprazole 60 mg, Esomeprazole 40 mg, Esomeprazole 20 mg, Pantoprazole 40 mg, Lansoprazole 30 mg, Rabeprazole 20 mg, Omeprazole 20 mg.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Totally, 25 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met study selection criteria and were incorporated in this network meta-analysis (NMA) study.

RESULTS

For the NMA, eligible RCTs of adults with EE verified by endoscopic examination were randomly assigned to the licensed PPIs at least 4 weeks of continuous therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the endoscopic healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks. Heartburn relief rates were a secondary efficacy outcome. The rates of withdrawal were analyzed as a safety outcome. In comparison to the common comparator omeprazole 20 mg, esomeprazole 40 mg provided significantly healing rates at 4 weeks [odds ratio (OR), 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI, 1.24-1.71)] and 8 weeks [1.58 (1.29-1.92)], and improved the heartburn relief rates [1.29 (1.07-1.56)]. In comparison to lansoprazole 30 mg, esomeprazole 40 mg provided significantly healing rates at 4 weeks [1.30 (1.10-1.53)] and 8 weeks [1.37 (1.13-1.67)], and improved the heartburn relief rates [1.29 (1.03-1.62)]. In terms of acceptability, only dexlansoprazole 60 mg had significantly more all-cause discontinuation than omeprazole 20 mg [1.54 (1.03-2.29)], pantoprazole 40 mg [1.68 (1.08-2.63)], and lansoprazole 30 mg [1.38 (1.02-1.88)].

CONCLUSION

The standard-dose esomeprazole 40 mg had more superiority in mucosal erosion healing and heartburn relief. Esomeprazole 40 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg, esomeprazole 20 mg, and lansoprazole 30 mg showed more benefits in effectiveness and acceptability than other interventions.

Clearance of bile and trypsin in rat lungs following aspiration of human gastric fluid

Purpose: In the clinical setting, there is no reliable tool for diagnosing gastric aspiration. A potential way of diagnosing gastric fluid aspiration entails bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) with subsequent examination of the BAL fluid for gastric fluid components that are exogenous to the lungs. The objective of this study was to determine the longevity of the gastric fluid components bile and trypsin in the lung, in order to provide an estimate of the time frame in which assessment of these components in the BAL might effectively be used as a measure of aspiration. Materials and Methods: Human gastric fluid (0.5 mg/kg) was infused in the right lung of intubated male Fischer 344 rats (n = 30). Animals were sacrificed at specified times following the experimentally induced aspiration, and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) was collected. Bile concentrations were analyzed by an enzyme-linked chromatogenic method, and the concentration of trypsin was quantified using an ELISA. Data were analyzed using non-linear regression and a one-phase decay equation. Results: In this experimental model, the half-life of bile was 9.3 hours (r² = 0.81), and the half-life of trypsin was 9.0 hours (r² = 0.68). Conclusions: The half-lives of bile and trypsin in the rodent aspiration model suggest that the ability to detect aspiration may be limited to a few days post-aspiration. If studies using rats are any indication, it may be most effective to collect BAL samples within the first 24 hours of suspected aspiration events in order to detect aspiration.

Adult and paediatric GERD: diagnosis, phenotypes and avoidance of excess treatments

Detailed investigations and objective measurements in patients with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux should be performed with the intent of making the correct diagnosis, thus enabling choice of appropriate therapy. Establishing the most effective therapy is particularly important in adults who do not respond to standard treatment and in children. The use of PPIs for suspected GERD has increased substantially over the past decade, providing great relief in patients with acid-related symptoms, but also leading to adverse effects and a considerable economic burden. Adults with functional heartburn do not benefit from PPIs, while prolonged PPI use in patients with extraoesophageal symptoms remains a controversial area. Moreover, PPIs are not indicated in infants with GERD unless symptoms are proven to be acid-related. With regard to antireflux surgery, patients must be carefully selected to avoid the need for ongoing PPI treatment postoperatively. Correct diagnosis and phenotyping of patients with symptoms attributed to gastro-oesophageal reflux through detailed investigations is therefore imperative, leading to improved patient outcomes and rationalized use of available treatment options. In this Review, we outline currently available diagnostic tests and discuss approaches to limit any unnecessary medical or surgical interventions.

Systematic review: the effects of long-term proton pump inhibitor use on serum gastrin levels and gastric histology

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have a well-established safety profile. However, concerns have been raised about a potential relationship between PPI-induced hypergastrinaemia and the development of enterochromaffin-like (ECL) cell hyperplasia, neuroendocrine tumours and gastric cancer during long-term therapy.

AIM

To review the effects of long-term PPI use on serum gastrin levels and gastric histopathology.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed on 21 April 2015 to identify studies reporting the effects of long-term (defined as >3 years) PPI use on gastrin levels and gastric histopathology.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies (1920 patients) met the inclusion criteria. During long-term PPI therapy, mean gastrin levels rose to one to three times the upper limit of the normal range (~100 pg/mL), and an increased prevalence of ECL cell hyperplasia was observed (+7.8-52.0%). Helicobacter pylori-positive patients had a significantly increased risk of developing ECL linear/micronodular hyperplasia compared with H. pylori-negative patients [OR: 2.45 (95% CI: 1.47-4.10), P = 0.0006]; however, no evidence of neoplastic changes was found. The risk of corpus atrophy was markedly higher in H. pylori-positive patients than in H. pylori-negative patients [OR: 11.45 (95% CI: 6.25-20.99), P < 0.00001]. Not a single case of gastric adenocarcinoma was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term PPI therapy induced moderate hypergastrinaemia in most patients and an increased prevalence of ECL cell hyperplasia. H. pylori-positive patients receiving long-term PPI therapy were exposed to a higher risk of corpus atrophy than H. pylori-negative patients. No neuroendocrine tumours or gastric cancers were found.

Characteristics of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms -is switching proton pump inhibitors based on the patient's CYP2C19 genotype an effective management strategy?

OBJECTIVE

We investigated factors related to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) -refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms, particularly with respect to acid, the CYP2C19 genotype and psychological aspects.

METHODS

Patients with an Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of GERD (FSSG) score of ≥8 after the initial treatment were switched to therapy with rabeprazole at a dose of 20 mg once daily for eight weeks. We investigated the rate of improvement in PPI-refractory GERD symptoms, background factors, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score and the CYP2C19 genotype. Patients Sixty patients endoscopically diagnosed with reflux esophagitis within the past six months who had received omeprazole at a dose of 20 mg once daily for eight weeks or longer were enrolled.

RESULTS

In 71.6% of the patients, the FSSG score decreased to <8 after treatment with omeprazole at a dose of 20 mg once daily for ≥8 weeks, resulting in improvements in their GERD symptoms. Significant factors related to omeprazole-refractory GERD symptoms included a longer disease duration (p=0.0004) and higher HADS score (p=0.01). Among the omeprazole-refractory cases, only 23.5% of the patients showed symptom improvement after switching to rabeprazole. There were no significant differences in the average scores for FSSG (p=0.089) or HADS (p=0.182), before or after the drug change. A total of 92% of the rabeprazole poor responders were homo/hetero extensive metabolizers for the CYP2C19 genotype.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that switching the PPI from omeprazole (20 mg once daily) to rabeprazole (20 mg once daily) is not a significant effective therapeutic strategy for improving PPI-refractory GERD symptoms, taking into consideration possible psychometric factors and patients who require stronger acid suppression than that achieved with a double dose of PPIs for PPI-refractory GERD symptoms.

EAES recommendations for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most frequent benign disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Management of GERD has always been controversial since modern medical therapy is very effective, but laparoscopic fundoplication is one of the few procedures that were quickly adapted to the minimal access technique. The purpose of this project was to analyze the current knowledge on GERD in regard to its pathophysiology, diagnostic assessment, medical therapy, and surgical therapy, and special circumstances such as GERD in children, Barrett's esophagus, and enteroesophageal and duodenogastroesophageal reflux.

METHODS

The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has tasked a group of experts, based on their clinical and scientific expertise in the field of GERD, to establish current guidelines in a consensus development conference. The expert panel was constituted in May 2012 and met in September 2012 and January 2013, followed by a Delphi process. Critical appraisal of the literature was accomplished. All articles were reviewed and classified according to the hierarchy of level of evidence and summarized in statements and recommendations, which were presented to the scientific community during the EAES yearly conference in a plenary session in Vienna 2013. A second Delphi process followed discussion in the plenary session.

RESULTS

Recommendations for pathophysiologic and epidemiologic considerations, symptom evaluation, diagnostic workup, medical therapy, and surgical therapy are presented. Diagnostic evaluation and adequate selection of patients are the most important features for success of the current management of GERD. Laparoscopic fundoplication is the most important therapeutic technique for the success of surgical therapy of GERD.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the background of GERD is multifactorial, the management of this disease requires a complex approach in diagnostic workup as well as for medical and surgical treatment. Laparoscopic fundoplication in well-selected patients is a successful therapeutic option.

Efficacy and safety of rabeprazole in children (1-11 years) with gastroesophageal reflux disease

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the efficacy and safety of rabeprazole in children, 1 to 11 years old, with endoscopically/histologically proven gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

Children were randomized to 0.5- or 1.0-mg/kg rabeprazole granule formulation for 12 weeks. The dose was further determined by weight: children 6 to 14.9 kg (low-weight cohort) received 5 or 10 mg and children ≥15 kg (high-weight cohort) received 10 or 20 mg. The primary endpoint was endoscopic/histologic healing at week 12 (defined as grade 0 on the Hetzel-Dent classification scale and/or grade 0 on the Histological Features of Reflux Esophagitis scale).

RESULTS

Overall, 81% (87/108) achieved endoscopic/histologic healing at week 12 with higher healing in the low-weight cohort (82% [5-mg dose], 94% [10-mg dose]) compared with high-weight cohort (76% [10-mg dose], 78% [20-mg dose]). There was a significant (P < 0.001) decrease in the mean Total GERD Symptoms and Severity score from 19.7 points (baseline) to 8.6 points (week 12), with 26% fewer children reporting GERD symptoms at week 12. The average frequency of symptoms per child decreased from 7.7 (week 1) to 4.7 (week 12). The GERD Symptom Relief score showed that 71% of children felt better, 81% were rated "good to excellent" on the Global Treatment Satisfaction scale by the investigator; 77% were rated "good to excellent" on the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale by the parent/caregiver. The most common (>10%) treatment-emergent adverse events included cough and vomiting (14% each), abdominal pain (12%), and diarrhea (11%).

CONCLUSIONS

Rabeprazole was effective and safe in 1- to 11-year-old children with GERD.

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Relief in Patients Treated with Rabeprazole 20 mg versus Omeprazole 20 mg: A Meta-Analysis

Background. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted comparing the efficacy of rabeprazole 20 mg or omeprazole 20 mg once daily for patients with erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Until now, no study has synthesized all available data examining this issue. Method. Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched (through December 2012). Eligible RCTs recruited adults with erosive GERD and reported endoscopic and symptomatic relief rates at the last point of follow-up. The effect of rabeprazole versus omeprazole was reported as relative risk (RR) of relief with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results. The search identified 605 citations, and six RCTs containing 1,895 patients were eligible. Endoscopic relief rates were not significantly different between rabeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 20 mg in treatment trials of up to 8 weeks. Heartburn relief rates were significantly different between the two groups for 8-week treatment trials. Adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups for 8-week treatment trials. Conclusion. These data suggest that rabeprazole demonstrates a clinical advantage over omeprazole in symptomatic relief but no significant difference in endoscopic relief of erosive GERD for up to 8 weeks of treatment. Rabeprazole and omeprazole were both tolerated by GERD patients.

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Relief in Patients Treated with Rabeprazole 20 mg versus Omeprazole 20 mg: A Meta-Analysis

Background. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted comparing the efficacy of rabeprazole 20 mg or omeprazole 20 mg once daily for patients with erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Until now, no study has synthesized all available data examining this issue. Method. Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched (through December 2012). Eligible RCTs recruited adults with erosive GERD and reported endoscopic and symptomatic relief rates at the last point of follow-up. The effect of rabeprazole versus omeprazole was reported as relative risk (RR) of relief with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results. The search identified 605 citations, and six RCTs containing 1,895 patients were eligible. Endoscopic relief rates were not significantly different between rabeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 20 mg in treatment trials of up to 8 weeks. Heartburn relief rates were significantly different between the two groups for 8-week treatment trials. Adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups for 8-week treatment trials. Conclusion. These data suggest that rabeprazole demonstrates a clinical advantage over omeprazole in symptomatic relief but no significant difference in endoscopic relief of erosive GERD for up to 8 weeks of treatment. Rabeprazole and omeprazole were both tolerated by GERD patients.

A randomized, double blinded, clinical trial to assess the efficacy and cost effectiveness of omeprazole compared to rabeprazole in the maintenance therapy of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease

Background/Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and cost efficiency of omeprazole 10 mg and rabeprazole 10 mg once daily for 24 weeks in the maintenance therapy.

Methods

This was a randomized, open-label study enrolling 279 patients with erosive esophagitis A or B (Los Angeles classification) and typical gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. Patients who showed complete endoscopic and symptomatic healing after 8 weeks of proton pump inhibitor treatment were randomly allocated to maintenance treatment with omeprazole 10 mg once daily or rabeprazole 10 mg once daily for 42 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with symptomatic remission at 42 weeks.

Results

At the end of 42 weeks of maintenance therapy, 96.4% of omeprazole and 95.1% of rabeprazole treated patients remained symptom free (P > 0.05). Two drugs were also comparable with regard to the severity and frequency of reflux symptoms during the maintenance phase (P > 0.05). By the cost-minimization analysis, the mean total costs per patient for remaining symptom-free for 6 months were 241,775 won for omeprazole and 287,115 won for rabeprazole, respectively.

Conclusions

Omeprazole 10 mg appeared to have similar efficacy in maintaining symptomatic remission as rabeprazole 10 mg, but was superior to rabeprazole 10 mg in terms of cost efficiency in the maintenance therapy of gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms.

Diagnosis of Zollinger-Ellison syndrome: Increasingly difficult

In the present paper the increasing difficulty of diagnosis of Zollinger-Ellison syndrome (ZES) due to issues raised in two recent papers is discussed. These issues involve the difficulty and need to withdraw patients suspected of ZES from treatment with Proton Pump Inhibitors (omeprazole, esomeprazole, lansoprazole, rabeprazole, pantoprazole) and the unreliability of many gastrin radioimmunoassays. The clinical context of each of these important issues is reviewed and the conclusions in these articles commented from the perspective of clinical management.

PPI therapy is equally effective in well-defined non-erosive reflux disease and in reflux esophagitis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

  Symptomatic response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in patients with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) is often reported as lower than in patients with erosive reflux disease (ERD). However, the definition of NERD differs across clinical trials. This meta-analysis aims to estimate the rate of symptom relief in response to PPI in NERD patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE (1966-2010), Cochrane Comprehensive Trial Register (1997-2010) and EMBASE (1985-2010) databases were searched and manual searches from studies' references were performed. Randomized clinical trials were selected that included patients with heartburn, and analyzed the effect of short-term PPI treatment. The primary outcome of selected studies was defined as complete or partial heartburn relief. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality of selected articles. Random effects models and meta-regression were used to combine and analyze results.

KEY RESULTS

The pooled estimate of complete relief of heartburn after 4 weeks of PPI therapy in patients with ERD was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.74) (32 studies), vs 0.50 (0.43-0.57) (eight studies) in empirically treated patients, 0.49 (0.44-0.55) (12 studies) in patients defined as non-erosive by negative endoscopy, and 0.73 (0.69-0.77) (two studies) in patients defined as non-erosive by both negative endoscopy and a positive pH-test.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

In well-defined NERD patients, the estimated complete symptom response rate after PPI therapy is comparable to the response rate in patients with ERD. The previously reported low response rate in studies with patients classified as NERD is likely the result of inclusion of patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms that do not have reflux disease.

Efficacy of twice-daily rabeprazole for reflux esophagitis patients refractory to standard once-daily administration of PPI: the Japan-based TWICE study

OBJECTIVES

Approximately 10% of patients with reflux esophagitis (RE) are not cured with the standard 8-week q.d. regimen with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI). Thus, b.i.d. dosing is often used in refractory RE (rRE) patients, although there has been no report of endoscopically confirmed healing with b.i.d. dosing of PPIs. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of 8-week therapy with rabeprazole (RPZ) sodium at 20 mg b.i.d. or 10 mg b.i.d. as compared with RPZ at 20 mg q.d. in patients with RE refractory to the standard PPI regimen in Japan.

METHODS

Endoscopically confirmed rRE patients (Los Angeles grade A-D) who had received a standard PPI regimen for at least 8 weeks were randomized in a double-blind manner into groups receiving RPZ at 20 and 10 mg b.i.d. or 20 mg q.d. (control) daily for up to 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of endoscopically confirmed healing after week 8.

RESULTS

A total of 337 rRE patients treated at 71 sites were randomized. The rate of endoscopically confirmed healing after 8 weeks was significantly higher in those who received RPZ at 20 mg b.i.d. (77.0%, P = 0.003) and 10 mg b.i.d. (78.4%, P = 0.001) as compared with 20 mg q.d. (58.8%), and the rates of resolution of heartburn after week 8 were 80.0%, 74.0%, and 56.4%, respectively. All treatment regimens were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Regimens of RPZ at 20 and 10 mg b.i.d. for 8 weeks were more effective than 20 mg q.d. with regard to endoscopically confirmed healing and symptom resolution of RE refractory to a standard PPI regimen.

Impact of antisecretory treatment on respiratory symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease in children

The effect of antisecretory treatment on extraesophageal symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease was evaluated. Seventy-eight children presenting with typical and extraesophageal symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease underwent a multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH monitoring (MII/pH). Children with a positive MII/pH were randomly treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine H(2) -receptor antagonists (H(2) RAs) during 3 months. At the end of the treatment period, all patients were recalled. A second treatment period of 3 months was given to those patients who were not symptom-free after 3 months. Thirty-five of the forty-one (85.4%) children with a pathologic MII/pH presented with extraesophageal symptoms and were treated with PPIs (omeprazole; n:19) or H(2) RAs (ranitidine; n:16) for 12 weeks. After 3 months, 11/19 (57.9%) PPI-treated patients had a complete resolution of symptoms; 6/8 nonresponders were treated with PPI for another 3 months and became all symptom-free. The other two underwent a Nissen fundoplication. Only 5/16 (31.2 %) patients treated with H(2) RAs had a complete resolution of symptoms after 3 months; 1/11 was treated again with H(2) RAs during 3 months, and 10/11 were changed to PPIs. In 3/10, a partial resolution of symptoms was achieved, while in 7/10, a complete remission was obtained (P < 0.05). Antisecretory reflux treatment improves extraesophageal reflux symptoms. The efficacy of PPIs is superior to that of H(2) RAs in these children.

WITHDRAWN: Medical treatments in the short term management of reflux oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

Oesophagitis arises when reflux of acid from the stomach into the oesophagus causes mucosal inflammation. It is a common problem and a systematic review on the optimum treatment would be useful.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), prokinetic therapy, sucralfate and placebo in healing oesophagitis or curing reflux symptoms or both. To compare adverse effects with the different treatments.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the National Research Register until December 2004 and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials assessing the healing of oesophagitis or reflux symptoms or both. Treatment involving PPIs, H2RAs, prokinetics, sucralfate and combinations either in comparison to another treatment regimen or to placebo for 2 and 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviews independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 134 trials involving 35,978 oesophagitis participants. Five RCTs evaluated standard dose of PPI versus placebo in 965 participants. There was a statistically significant benefit of taking standard dose PPI therapy compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Ten RCTs reported on the outcome for H2RA versus placebo evaluating 1241 participants. There was statistically significant benefit of taking H2RA compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.74,95% CI = 0.66 to 0.84). Three RCTs evaluated prokinetic therapy versus placebo in 198 participants. There was no statistically significant benefit of taking prokinetic therapy compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.10). Twenty six RCTs reported the outcome for PPI versus H2RA or H2RA plus prokinetics, evaluating 4032 participants. There was statistically significant benefit of taking PPI therapy compared to H2RA or H2RA plus prokinetics in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.59).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PPI therapy is the most effective therapy in oesophagitis but H2RA therapy is also superior to placebo. There is a paucity of evidence on prokinetic therapy but no evidence that it is superior to placebo.

Impact of oesophagitis classification in evaluating healing of erosive oesophagitis after therapy with proton pump inhibitors: a pooled analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The results of clinical trials with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are usually based on the Hetzel-Dent (HD), Savary-Miller (SM), or Los Angeles (LA) classifications to describe the severity and assess the healing of erosive oesophagitis. However, it is not known whether these classifications are comparable. The aim of this study was to review systematically the literature to compare the healing rates of erosive oesophagitis with PPIs in clinical trials assessed by the HD, SM, or LA classifications.

METHODS

A recursive, English language literature search in PubMed and Cochrane databases to December 2006 was performed. Double-blind randomized control trials comparing a PPI with another PPI, an H2-RA or placebo using endoscopic assessment of the healing of oesophagitis by the HD, SM or LA, or their modified classifications at 4 or 8 weeks, were included in the study. The healing rates on treatment with the same PPI(s), and same endoscopic grade(s) were pooled and compared between different classifications using Fisher's exact test or chi2 test where appropriate.

RESULTS

Forty-seven studies from 965 potential citations met inclusion criteria. Seventy-eight PPI arms were identified, with 27 using HD, 29 using SM, and 22 using LA for five marketed PPIs. There was insufficient data for rabeprazole and esomeprazole (week 4 only) to compare because they were evaluated by only one classification. When data from all PPIs were pooled, regardless of baseline oesophagitis grades, the LA healing rate was significantly higher than SM and HD at both 4 and 8 weeks (74, 71, and 68% at 4 weeks and 89, 84, and 83% at 8 weeks, respectively). The distribution of different grades in study population was available only for pantoprazole where it was not significantly different between LA and SM subgroups. When analyzing data for PPI and dose, the LA classification showed a higher healing rate for omeprazole 20 mg/day and pantoprazole 40 mg/day (significant at 8 weeks), whereas healing by SM classification was significantly higher for omeprazole 40 mg/day (no data for LA) and lansoprazole 30 mg/day at 4 and 8 weeks. The healing rate by individual oesophagitis grade was not always available or robust enough for meaningful analysis. However, a difference between classifications remained.

CONCLUSION

There is a significant, but not always consistent, difference in oesophagitis healing rates with the same PPI(s) reported by the LA, SM, or HD classifications. The possible difference between grading classifications should be considered when interpreting or comparing healing rates for oesophagitis from different studies.

Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease: an evidence-based consensus

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common disorders in medical practice. A number of guidelines and recommendations for the diagnosis and management of GERD have been published in different countries, but a Brazilian accepted directive by the standards of evidence-based medicine is still lacking. As such, the aim of the Brazilian GERD Consensus Group was to develop guidelines for the diagnosis and management of GERD, strictly using evidence-based medicine methodology that could be clinically used by primary care physicians and specialists and would encompass the needs of physicians, investigators, insurance and regulatory bodies. A total of 30 questions were proposed. Systematic literature reviews, which defined inclusion and/or exclusion criteria, were conducted to identify and grade the available evidence to support each statement. A total of 11,069 papers on GERD were selected, of which 6,474 addressed the diagnosis and 4,595, therapeutics. Regarding diagnosis, 51 met the requirements for the analysis of evidence-based medicine: 19 of them were classified as grade A and 32 as grade B. As for therapeutics, 158 met the evidence-based medicine criteria; 89 were classified as grade A and 69 as grade B. In the topic Diagnosis, answers supported by publications grade A and B were accepted. In the topic Treatment only publications grade A were accepted: answers supported by publications grade B were submitted to the voting by the Consensus Group. The present publication presents the most representative studies that responded to the proposed questions, followed by pertinent comments. Follow examples. In patients with atypical manifestations, the conventional esophageal pH-metry contributes little to the diagnosis of GERD. The sensitivity, however, increases with the use of double-channel pH-metry. In patients with atypical manifestations, the impedance-pHmetry substantially contributes to the diagnosis of GERD. The examination, however, is costly and scarcely available in our country. The evaluation of the histological signs of esophagitis increases the diagnostic probability of GERD; hence, the observation of the dimensions of the intercellular space of the esophageal mucosa increases the probability of diagnostic certainty and also allows the analysis of the therapeutic response. There is no difference in the clinical response to the treatment with PPI in two separate daily doses when compared to a single daily dose. In the long term (>1 year), the eradication of H. pylori in patients with GERD does not decrease the presence of symptoms or the high recurrence rates of the disease, although it decreases the histological signs of gastric inflammation. It seems very likely that there is no association between the eradication of the H. pylori and the manifestations of GERD. The presence of a hiatal hernia requires larger doses of proton-pump inhibitor for the clinical treatment. The presence of permanent migration from the esophagogastric junction and the hernia dimensions (>2 cm) are factors of worse prognosis in GERD. In this case, hiatal hernias associated to GERD, especially the fixed ones and larger than 2 cm, must be considered for surgical treatment. The outcomes of the laparoscopic fundoplication are adequate.

Rabeprazole 20 mg for erosive esophagitis-associated symptoms in a large, community-based study: additional results

PURPOSE

To provide additional efficacy data in patients treated with rabeprazole through week 4, and to validate sustained relief of gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms through week 8 as well as to further analyze rabeprazole safety in patients with wide-ranging demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Patients in this study (N = 2,449) demonstrated significant overall improvement versus baseline (P < 0.001). Substantial symptom relief was seen throughout 8 weeks of treatment. By week 4, complete relief of daytime and nighttime heartburn, belching, regurgitation, and dysphagia was observed in 87.5, 90.7, 50.7, 77.6, and 75.1% of patients, respectively. Improvements were seen in rabeprazole-treated patients (<65 or >or=65 years) with a range of baseline symptom severities and across different racial groups. Rabeprazole was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with endoscopy-confirmed erosive esophagitis treated with once-daily rabeprazole 20 mg, prompt and continuing improvements were seen in daytime and nighttime heartburn, belching, regurgitation, and dysphagia.

A clinical guide to using intravenous proton-pump inhibitors in reflux and peptic ulcers

Intravenous (IV) proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are potent gastric acid suppressing agents, and their use is popular in clinical practice. Both IV and oral PPIs have similarly short half-lives, and their effects on acid secretion are similar, thus their dosing and dosage intervals appear to be interchangeable. The possible exception is when sustained high pHs are required to promote clot stabilization in bleeding peptic ulcers. Continuous infusion appears to be the only form of administration that reliably achieves these high target pHs. IV PPI is indicated in the treatment of high-risk peptic ulcers, complicated gastroesophageal reflux, stress-induced ulcer prophylaxis, Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, and whenever it is impossible or impractical to give oral therapy. The widespread use of PPIs has been controversial. IV PPIs have been linked to the development of nosocomial pneumonia in the intensive care setting and to spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients. This review discusses the use of IV PPI in different clinical scenarios, its controversies, and issues of appropriate use.

Rabeprazole: a review of its use in the management of gastric acid-related diseases in adults

Rabeprazole (Aciphex, Alfence, Pariet) is a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) used for the treatment of adults with conditions requiring a reduction of gastric acid secretion such as erosive or ulcerative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), duodenal and gastric ulcers, and pathological hypersecretory conditions including Zollinger-Ellison syndrome (ZES). It is also used as part of combination therapy for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori, a pathogen frequently implicated in the development of gastric and duodenal ulcers. Rabeprazole has a well established efficacy and safety profile in the treatment of gastric acid-related diseases. Rabeprazole is a useful, well tolerated and cost-effective option for the treatment of GORD, NERD, peptic ulcer and other gastric acid-related diseases (including ZES), and provides an appropriate alternative to other currently available PPIs, with the added benefits of having a consistent efficacy profile and low drug interaction potential due to its predominantly nonenzymatic metabolism.

Systematic review: standard- and double-dose proton pump inhibitors for the healing of severe erosive oesophagitis -- a mixed treatment comparison of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has compared all European-licensed standard- and double-dose PPIs for the healing of severe erosive oesophagitis.

AIM

To compare the effectiveness of licensed doses of PPIs for healing severe erosive oesophagitis (i.e. esomeprazole 40 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg, omeprazole 20 mg and 40 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg and rabeprazole 20 mg).

METHODS

Systematic review of CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE for RCTs in patients with erosive oesophagitis (completed October 2008). Endoscopically verified healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks were extracted and re-calculated if not analysed by intention-to-treat. A mixed treatment comparison was used to combine direct treatment comparisons with indirect trial evidence while maintaining randomization. Odds ratios (OR) are reported compared to omeprazole 20 mg.

RESULTS

A total of 3021 papers were identified in the literature search; 12 were of sufficient quality to be included in the analysis. Insufficient data were available to included rabeprazole. Esomeprazole 40 mg was found to provide significantly higher healing rates at 4 weeks [OR 1.84, 95% Credible Interval (95% CrI): 1.50 to 2.22] and 8 weeks (OR 1.91, 95% CrI: 1.13 to 2.88). No other PPI investigated had significantly higher healing rates than omeprazole 20 mg.

CONCLUSION

Esomeprazole 40 mg consistently demonstrates higher healing rates compared with licensed standard- and double-dose PPIs.

Clinical trials: healing of erosive oesophagitis with dexlansoprazole MR, a proton pump inhibitor with a novel dual delayed-release formulation--results from two randomized controlled studies

BACKGROUND

Dexlansoprazole MR employs a dual delayed-release delivery system that extends drug exposure and prolongs pH control compared with lansoprazole.

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of dexlansoprazole MR in healing erosive oesophagitis (EO).

METHODS

Patients in two identical double-blind, randomized controlled trials (n = 4092) received dexlansoprazole MR 60 or 90 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg once daily. Week 8 healing was assessed using a closed testing procedure--first for non-inferiority, then superiority, vs. lansoprazole. Secondary endpoints included week 4 healing and week 8 healing in patients with moderate-to-severe disease (Los Angeles Classification grades C and D). Life-table and crude rate analyses were performed. Symptoms and tolerability were assessed.

RESULTS

Dexlansoprazole MR achieved non-inferiority to lansoprazole, allowing testing for superiority. Using life-table analysis, dexlansoprazole MR healed 92-95% of patients in individual studies vs. 86-92% for lansoprazole; the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.025). Using crude rate analysis, dexlansoprazole MR 90 mg was superior to lansoprazole in both studies and 60 mg was superior in one study. Week 4 healing was > 64% with all treatments in both studies. In an integrated analysis of 8-week healing in patients with moderate-to-severe EO, dexlansoprazole MR 90 mg was superior to lansoprazole. All treatments effectively relieved symptoms and were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Dexlansoprazole MR is highly effective in healing EO and offers benefits over lansoprazole, particularly in moderate-to-severe disease.

Pharmacology of proton pump inhibitors

The gastric H,K-ATPase is the primary target for the treatment of acid-related diseases. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are weak bases composed of two moieties, a substituted pyridine with a primary pK(a) of about 4.0, which allows selective accumulation in the secretory canaliculus of the parietal cell, and a benzimidazole with a second pK(a) of about 1.0. PPIs are acid-activated prodrugs that convert to sulfenic acids or sulfenamides that react covalently with one or more cysteines accessible from the luminal surface of the ATPase. Because of covalent binding, their inhibitory effects last much longer than their plasma half-life. However, the short half-life of the drug in the blood and the requirement for acid activation impair their efficacy in acid suppression, particularly at night. PPIs with longer half-life promise to improve acid suppression. All PPIs give excellent healing of peptic ulcers and produce good results in reflux esophagitis. PPIs combined with antibiotics eradicate Helicobacter pylori.

Relationship of severity of gastroesophageal reflux disease with gastric acid secretory profile and esophageal acid exposure during nocturnal acid breakthrough: a study using 24-h dual-channel pH-metry

OBJECTIVE

In patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), refluxed gastric juice can damage the esophagus, and hence the more acidic the juice, the more the expected damage. Nocturnal acid breakthrough (NAB) is known to occur in GERD patients on treatment with proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs); however, whether this causes esophageal acidification and symptoms is controversial. The aims of this study were to investigate the relationship between gastric acid and the severity of GERD and the esophageal acidification and symptoms during NAB.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with GERD were evaluated using endoscopy (graded according to the Los Angeles (LA) classification), manometry and 24-h dual-channel pH-metry for esophageal and gastric acid profile and follow-up pH-metry while on PPIs for NAB.

RESULTS

In 61 patients (39.2+/-12.8 years, 40 M) the endoscopic grading was endoscopy negative (ENRD) in 19 (32%), endoscopic (ERD) in 40 (68%), (LA-A in 25, 42.4%, LA-B in12, 20.3%, peptic stricture in 2, 3.4%, and Barrett's esophagus in 1, 1.7%) and 2 patients were unclassified. Patients in the different groups had comparable gastric acid profiles, though esophageal acid exposure was different (LA-B and above versus ENRD, p=0.007; LA-B and above versus LA-A, p=0.003). Patients with NAB (7/18, 39%) had lower gastric pH than patients without NAB (p=0.003) though average esophageal pH and esophageal acid exposure were comparable. Frequency of nocturnal symptoms was comparable in patients with or without NAB (2/7 versus 3/11, p=NS). Lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure was negatively correlated with average gastric pH.

CONCLUSIONS

Although severity of GERD is related to esophageal acid exposure, it does not correlate to gastric acid. No difference was found in esophageal acid exposure and nocturnal symptoms in patients with or without NAB.

Rabeprazole: a second-generation proton pump inhibitor in the treatment of acid-related disease

Rabeprazole is a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) presenting a very advantageous pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profile over older PPIs. In particular, this drug has a very fast onset of action, due to a short activation time and a very high pKa, and may therefore be defined as a 'second generation' PPI. The aim of this article is to provide an update on the pharmacology and clinical profile of rabeprazole and its use in acid-related disorders, with a particular focus on its role in gastroesophageal reflux disease; in the treatment and prevention of duodenal and gastric ulcers and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome; in the therapy of the extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (in particular the respiratory and ear, nose and throat ones); and in the eradication of Helicobacter pylori.

Disease-specific cost savings of treating nighttime versus daytime gastroesophageal reflux disease in an employed population

OBJECTIVE

The extent to which proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can offset direct medical costs by reducing symptoms related to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in order to improve work productivity is not well understood. This study aimed to evaluate the economic impact of treating GERD with PPIs versus no treatment, from an employer's perspective.

STUDY DESIGN

An economic model was developed to simulate symptom reduction and breakthrough symptoms as well as associated costs over 1 year among a population of 100,000 with a 20% GERD prevalence rate. Medical costs, including GERD-related office visits, hospitalisations and procedures, were delineated by symptom severity. Indirect costs represented the monetised work productivity loss. PPI treatment costs $2/day (standard dose).

RESULTS

The GERD burden was substantial ($62,500,000). Treatment yielded $32,600,000 in savings ($1,630 saved/patient/year), mostly from reducing indirect costs. Treatment produced greater savings among nighttime GERD patients throughout the PPI cost range ($1-$5/day). Savings dropped if the price of standard doses of PPI exceeded $3.92/day for the treatment of daytime GERD patients.

Medical treatments in the short term management of reflux oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

Oesophagitis arises when reflux of acid from the stomach into the oesophagus causes mucosal inflammation. It is a common problem and a systematic review on the optimum treatment would be useful.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), prokinetic therapy, sucralfate and placebo in healing oesophagitis or curing reflux symptoms or both. To compare adverse effects with the different treatments.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the National Research Register until December 2004 and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials assessing the healing of oesophagitis or reflux symptoms or both. Treatment involving PPIs, H2RAs, prokinetics, sucralfate and combinations either in comparison to another treatment regimen or to placebo for 2 and 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviews independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 134 trials involving 35,978 oesophagitis participants. Five RCTs evaluated standard dose of PPI versus placebo in 965 participants. There was a statistically significant benefit of taking standard dose PPI therapy compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Ten RCTs reported on the outcome for H2RA versus placebo evaluating 1241 participants. There was statistically significant benefit of taking H2RA compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.74,95% CI = 0.66 to 0.84). Three RCTs evaluated prokinetic therapy versus placebo in 198 participants. There was no statistically significant benefit of taking prokinetic therapy compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.10). Twenty six RCTs reported the outcome for PPI versus H2RA or H2RA plus prokinetics, evaluating 4032 participants. There was statistically significant benefit of taking PPI therapy compared to H2RA or H2RA plus prokinetics in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.59).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PPI therapy is the most effective therapy in oesophagitis but H2RA therapy is also superior to placebo. There is a paucity of evidence on prokinetic therapy but no evidence that it is superior to placebo.

Programme of stepping down from twice daily proton pump inhibitor therapy for symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease associated with a formulary change at a VA medical center

BACKGROUND

In July 2001, our Veterans' Affairs hospital changed its formulary proton pump inhibitor (PPI) from lansoprazole to rabeprazole. All patients previously receiving lansoprazole 30 mg twice daily were switched to rabeprazole 20 mg once daily.

AIM

To determine if patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), who were previously managed on lansoprazole 30 mg twice daily, could be maintained on rabeprazole 20 mg once daily.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Four hundred and thirty-five patients had received lansoprazole 30 mg twice daily for at least 12 months before the formulary change. Medical records were reviewed for 12 months before and after the formulary change.

RESULTS

There were 432 men and three women with a mean age of 66.7 years (range: 38-91). Two hundred and twelve patients were excluded. Of the remaining 223, 111 (50%) were maintained successfully on rabeprazole 20 mg once daily. Twenty-three (10%) stayed off all acid suppression during follow-up. The number of endoscopies and clinic visits did not significantly change during the follow-up. Fifty-six percent who had erosive oesophagitis failed a dose taper compared with 31% of those with endoscopy-negative GERD (P<0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients receiving twice daily PPI therapy for GERD could be maintained on once daily PPI or no acid suppression for 12 months of follow-up. Dose reduction was more successful in those without erosive oesophagitis.

Effect of antisecretory therapy on atypical symptoms in gastroesophageal reflux disease

The effect of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy on extraesophageal or atypical manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of atypical manifestations in patients with acid reflux disease and the effect of PPI treatment. Patients with symptoms and signs suggestive of reflux were enrolled. Erosive esophagitis was stratified using the Los Angeles classification. Demographic data and symptoms were assessed using a questionnaire and included typical symptoms (heartburn, regurgitation, dysphagia, odynophagia), and atypical symptoms (e.g., chest pain, sialorrhea, hoarseness, globus sensation, chronic coughing, episodic bronchospasm, hiccup, eructations, laryngitis, and pharyngitis). Symptoms were reassessed after a 3-month course of b.i.d. PPI therapy. A total of 266 patients with a first diagnosis of GERD (erosive, 166; non-erosive, 100) were entered in the study. Presentation with atypical symptoms was approximately equal in those with erosive GERD and with non-erosive GERD, 72% vs 79% (P = 0.18). None of the study variables showed a significant association with the body mass index. PPI therapy resulted in complete symptom resolution in 69% (162/237) of the participants, 12% (28) had improved symptoms, and 20% (47) had minimal or no improvement. We conclude that atypical symptoms are frequent in patients with GERD. A trial of PPI therapy should be considered prior to referring these patients to specialists.

Oral rabeprazole vs. intravenous pantoprazole: a comparison of the effect on intragastric pH in healthy subjects

BACKGROUND

Intravenous pantoprazole is often administered inappropriately to hospitalized patients who can take oral medications.

AIM

To compare the antisecretory effects of oral rabeprazole and intravenous pantoprazole in healthy subjects.

METHODS

In a double-blind, double-dummy, two-way crossover study, 38 Helicobacter pylori-negative volunteers were randomized to oral rabeprazole 20 mg or intravenous pantoprazole 40 mg daily for 3 days followed, after a 14-day washout period by the comparator treatment. Intragastric pH was recorded continuously for 24 h at baseline and on days 1 and 3 of each treatment period.

RESULTS

The mean (95% CI) percentage of the 24-h recording with gastric pH >4 was higher with rabeprazole than with pantoprazole on day 1: 37.7% (30.6-44.8%) vs. 23.9% (20.0-27.8). The mean percentage times with pH >3 and >4 for all intervals assessed were greater and the median 24-h intragastric pH values were higher with rabeprazole than with pantoprazole on days 1 and 3. The mean acidity index was lower with rabeprazole on days 1 and 3.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral rabeprazole 20 mg produced greater acid suppression than intravenous pantoprazole 40 mg. Therefore, it may be an appropriate and effective alternative in patients who can take oral medication.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 8-week comparative trial of low-dose esomeprazole (20 mg) and standard-dose omeprazole (20 mg) in patients with erosive esophagitis

The objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy of esomeprazole, 20 mg, with that of omeprazole, 20 mg, in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE). In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial, 1176 patients with EE confirmed by endoscopy (Helicobacter pylori-negative by serology) were randomized to once-daily treatment with 20 mg esomeprazole or 20 mg omeprazole for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with healed EE through week 8. Secondary outcomes included diary and investigator assessments of heartburn symptoms. Cumulative life-table healing rates at week 8 were similarly high for 20 mg esomeprazole (90.6%; 95% confidence interval, 88.1%-93%) and 20 mg omeprazole (88.3%; 95% confidence interval, 85.5%-91.0%). The two treatments were comparable for other secondary measures and had similar tolerability profiles.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 8-week comparative trial of standard doses of esomeprazole (40 mg) and omeprazole (20 mg) for the treatment of erosive esophagitis

To compare esomeprazole with omeprazole for healing erosive esophagitis (EE), 1148 patients with endoscopically confirmed EE were randomized to once-daily esomeprazole, 40 mg, or omeprazole, 20 mg, for 8 weeks in this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with healed EE at week 8. Secondary outcomes included diary and investigator assessments of heartburn symptoms. At week 8, estimated healing rates were 92.2% (95% CI, 89.9%-94.5%) with esomeprazole and 89.8% (95% CI, 87.2%-92.4%) with omeprazole. Healing rates with esomeprazole were significantly higher than those with omeprazole at weeks 8 (88.4% vs 77.5%; P = 0.007) and 4 (60.8% vs 47.9%; P = 0.02) in patients with moderate to severe (Los Angeles grade C or D) EE at baseline but were not significantly different for patients with mild (Los Angeles grade A or B) EE. Both treatments were comparable for other secondary measures and had similar tolerability profiles.

An evidence-based, Latin-American consensus on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

In recognition of the high prevalence of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and its importance in Latin America, the InterAmerican Association of Gastroenterology and the InterAmerican Society of Digestive Endoscopy organized a Latin-American Consensus on GORD in Cancun, Mexico in September 2004. The main objectives of the consensus meeting were to provide evidence-based guidance with respect to the diagnosis and treatment of GORD, relevant to all countries in the region. The methodology, results and recommendations of the consensus are described in detail.

Review article: the role of acid suppression in patients with non-erosive reflux disease or functional heartburn

When patients with the typical reflux symptoms of heartburn, regurgitation, or both, undergo endoscopy, up to 75% will not have endoscopic oesophagitis or evidence of Barrett's oesophagus. These patients have been described as having endoscopic negative or, more commonly, non-erosive reflux disease (NERD). Patients without oesophagitis, but with a positive pH test, can be diagnosed with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Some experts also consider a response to proton pump inhibitor therapy as proof of GERD in a patient with the correct symptoms and a negative endoscopy. Patients with normal acid exposure, but who report symptoms with a majority of their reflux episodes documented during an ambulatory pH study, have also been considered to have NERD, although others have labelled them as having 'functional heartburn'. Finally, there are some patients who have reflux symptoms and respond to reflux therapy, but have no demonstrable reflux by either endoscopy or ambulatory reflux testing. Whether these patients are part of the GERD spectrum or have another diagnosis is not clear. It seems that the most widely used definition of functional disease (the Rome II criteria) would include these patients as having functional heartburn, as it was defined as 'greater than or equal to 12 weeks of either continuous or intermittent symptoms of burning retrosternal discomfort or pain without pathologic GERD, achalasia, or other motility disorders with a recognized pathologic basis'. This article reviews potential differences in pathophysiology between erosive oesophagitis and NERD; explores whether symptoms can help distinguish NERD patients from erosive oesophagitis patients; and explores the evaluation and therapy of these patients.

Rabeprazole is equivalent to omeprazole in the treatment of erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. A randomised, double-blind, comparative study of rabeprazole and omeprazole 20 mg in acute treatment of reflux oesophagitis, followed by a maintenance open-label, low-dose therapy with rabeprazole

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown similar effects of rabeprazole and omeprazole, when used at the same dose in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis. However, such studies have been conducted as superiority studies but interpreted as equivalence ones.

AIM

To properly assess the comparative efficacy of rabeprazole and omeprazole in inducing complete endoscopic healing and symptom relief in patients with reflux oesophagitis.

METHODS

Patients (n=560) with Savary-Miller grade I-III reflux oesophagitis were randomised in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion to rabeprazole or omeprazole 20 mg once daily for 4-8 weeks. Then, patients endoscopically healed and symptomatically relieved were openly maintained with rabeprazole 10 mg or 2x10 mg once daily (in the event of clinical and/or endoscopic relapse) for a maximum of 48 weeks.

RESULTS

After 4-8 weeks of treatment, healing (primary end-point) was observed in 228/233 (97.9%) patients in the rabeprazole group and in 231/237 (97.5%) in the omeprazole one (equivalence effect demonstrated by p<0.0001 at Blackwelder test and an upper confidence limit at 97.5% of 0.023). However, rabeprazole was faster in inducing heartburn relief than omeprazole (2.8+/-0.2 versus 4.7+/-0.5 days of therapy to reach the first day with satisfactory heartburn relief, p=0.0045 at log-rank test). In the maintenance phase, 15.2% of patients had an endoscopic and/or clinical relapse.

CONCLUSION

Rabeprazole is equivalent to omeprazole in healing reflux oesophagitis, but shows a faster activity on reflux symptoms in the early treatment phase.

The value of ambulatory 24 hr esophageal pH monitoring in clinical practice in patients who were referred with persistent gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-related symptoms while on standard dose anti-reflux medications

To determine the value of pH testing in clinical practice in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients who failed anti-reflux treatment. Patients resistant to standard dose proton pump inhibitor or an H2-blocker underwent pH testing. Randomly selected patients from the proton pump inhibitor failure group underwent the modified acid perfusion test as compared to patients with non-erosive reflux disease. In the proton pump inhibitor failure group (n = 70), 63.8% had a normal pH test as compared to 29% in the H2-blocker group (n = 31) (P = 0.007). Sensory intensity rating and acid perfusion sensitivity score were significantly higher in the non-erosive reflux disease control group than the proton pump inhibitor failure group (P < 0.05). Most patients who continued to be symptomatic on proton pump inhibitor once daily demonstrated a normal pH test and overall lack of increased chemoreceptor sensitivity to acid.

Long-term prevention of erosive or ulcerative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease relapse with rabeprazole 10 or 20 mg vs. placebo: results of a 5-year study in the United States

BACKGROUND

Erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic condition requiring long-term maintenance treatment. However, few trials of proton pump inhibitors in maintaining healing of erosive or ulcerative GERD are conducted for longer than 1 year.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of 10- and 20-mg rabeprazole with placebo in the 5-year maintenance of healing in patients previously diagnosed with erosive/ulcerative GERD healed in an acute efficacy trial.

METHODS

Patients (N = 497) were randomized to receive once-daily doses of 10- or 20-mg rabeprazole or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was endoscopically documented absence of oesophageal erosions or ulcerations.

RESULTS

After 5 years, relapse rates in both rabeprazole groups were significantly lower than with placebo (rabeprazole 20 mg, 11%; 10 mg, 23%; placebo, 63%; P < 0.001 for rabeprazole vs. placebo; P = 0.005 for rabeprazole 20 mg vs. 10 mg). Both rabeprazole doses were significantly superior to placebo in preventing relapse of heartburn frequency and improving patient quality of life. Analyses of adverse events, biopsy findings and laboratory values showed no evidence of clinically significant effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Five-year maintenance therapy with rabeprazole is effective in preventing relapse of erosive or ulcerative GERD and is well tolerated.

Head-to-head comparison of H2-receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors in the treatment of erosive esophagitis: a meta-analysis

AIM

To systematically evaluate the efficacy of H(2)-receptor antagonists (H(2)RAs) and proton pump inhibitors in healing erosive esophagitis (EE).

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases to include randomized controlled head-to-head comparative trials evaluating the efficacy of H(2)RAs or proton pump inhibitors in healing EE. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated under a random-effects model.

RESULTS

RRs of cumulative healing rates for each comparison at 8 wk were: high dose vs standard dose H(2)RAs, 1.17 (95%CI, 1.02-1.33); standard dose proton pump inhibitors vs standard dose H(2)RAs, 1.59 (95%CI, 1.44-1.75); standard dose other proton pump inhibitors vs standard dose omeprazole, 1.06 (95%CI, 0.98-1.06). Proton pump inhibitors produced consistently greater healing rates than H(2)RAs of all doses across all grades of esophagitis, including patients refractory to H(2)RAs. Healing rates achieved with standard dose omeprazole were similar to those with other proton pump inhibitors in all grades of esophagitis.

CONCLUSION

H(2)RAs are less effective for treating patients with erosive esophagitis, especially in those with severe forms of esophagitis. Standard dose proton pump inhibitors are significantly more effective than H(2)RAs in healing esophagitis of all grades. Proton pump inhibitors given at the recommended dose are equally effective for healing esophagitis.

Rabeprazole vs esomeprazole in non-erosive gastro-esophageal reflux disease: A randomized, double-blind study in urban Asia

AIM: Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is becoming increasingly common in Asia. Data on the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in patients with non-erosive GERD (NERD) in Asia is lacking. This double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of rabeprazole with esomeprazole in relief of symptoms in patients with NERD.

METHODS: One hundred and thirty-four patients with reflux symptoms of NERD and normal endoscopy were randomized to receive rabeprazole 10 mg or esomeprazole 20 mg once daily for 4 wk. Symptoms were recorded in a diary and changes in severity of symptoms noted.

RESULTS: At 4 wk of treatment, rabeprazole 10 mg and esomeprazole 20 mg were comparable with regards to the primary endpoint of time to achieve 24-h symptom-free interval for heartburn 8.5 d vs 9 d and regurgitation 6 d vs 7.5 d. Rabeprazole and esomeprazole were also similarly efficacious in term of patient’s global evaluation with 96% of patients on rabeprazole and 87.9% of patients on esomeprazole, reporting that symptoms improved (P = NS). Satisfactory relief of day- and night-time symptoms was achieved in 98% of patients receiving rabeprazole and 81.4% of patients receiving esomeprazole. Adverse events were comparable in both groups (P = NS).

CONCLUSION: Rabeprazole 10 mg has a similar efficacy and safety profile in Asians with NERD as esomeprazole 20 mg. Further study is necessary to investigate whether the small differences between the two drugs seen in this study are related to the improved pharmacodynamic properties of rabeprazole. Both drugs were well tolerated.