Two different dose regimens of cisapride in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis: a double-blind comparison with ranitidine

Effects of Rikkunshito (TJ-43) on Esophageal Motor Function and Gastroesophageal Reflux

Background/Aims

Rikkunshito (TJ-43), an herbal medicine, has been demonstrated to relieve gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. However, the effects of TJ-43 on esophageal motor functions have not been fully determined. This double-blind crossover study was performed to investigate the effects of TJ-43 on esophageal motor functions and gastroesophageal reflux.

Methods

The subjects were 10 normal male volunteers. Lower esophageal sphincter pressure and esophageal body peristaltic contractions with and without 1-week administration of TJ-43 were examined in a crossover fashion. Post-prandial gastroesophageal reflux was also determined using a multi-channel impedance pH dual monitor.

Results

TJ-43 at a standard dose of 7.5 g/day did not significantly augment esophageal peristaltic contraction pressure measured in the proximal, middle and distal segments of the esophagus, whereas increment of resting lower esophageal sphincter pressure was observed in a supine position. In addition, TJ-43 administration did not decrease post-prandial gastroesophageal acid, non-acid reflux events or accelerate esophageal clearance time.

Conclusions

TJ-43 at a standard dose did not have a significant effect on esophageal motor activity or gastroesophageal reflux in healthy adults.

Cisapride: what can we learn from the rise and fall of a prokinetic?

Cisapride, the prototype serotonergic agent, evolved from a body of research that defined the key roles of serotonergic receptors in gastrointestinal motor and sensory function. Impressed by its in vitro properties and encouraged by clinical trial data, cisapride became the drug of choice for the treatment of a wide range of motility disorders and clinicians appeared impressed by its efficacy and comfortable with its side-effect profile. Once serious cardiac events began to be reported in association with cisapride therapy, dark clouds rapidly gathered and soon enveloped the drug, leading to its widespread withdrawal from markets. What lessons can we learn from the story of cisapride? How can its brief but spectacular rise and equally sensational demise inform the development of new drugs which are so sorely needed in the management of motility and functional gastrointestinal disorders? This review explores the background to the development of cisapride, its history in clinical trials and the experience with adverse events and, in so doing, attempts to identify lessons for the future in the therapeutics of enteric neuromodulatory drugs.

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.

Bayesian methods in cost-effectiveness studies: objectivity, computation and other relevant aspects

In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) of a cost-effectiveness (CE) study, the unknown parameters are considered as random variables. A crucial question is what probabilistic distribution is suitable for synthesizing the available information (mainly data from clinical trials) about these parameters. In this context, the important role of Bayesian methodology has been recognized, where the parameters are of a random nature. We explore, in the context of CE analyses, how formal objective Bayesian methods can be implemented. We fully illustrate the methodology using two CE problems that frequently appear in the CE literature. The results are compared with those obtained with other popular approaches to PSA. We find that the discrepancies can be quite marked, specially when the number of patients enrolled in the simulated cohort under study is large. Finally, we describe in detail the numerical methods that need to be used to obtain the results.

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.

Determination of cisapride, its oxidation product, propyl and butyl parabens in pharmaceutical dosage form by reversed-phase liquid chromatography

A simple, rapid and reproducible high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) assay for cisapride, its oxidation product (OP), propyl and butyl parabens in a pharmaceutical formulation is described. Chromatography was performed at room temperature by pumping acetonitrile-20 mM phosphate buffer pH 7 (50:50, v/v) at 1.5 ml min(-1) through C8 reversed-phase column. Cisapride, OP, propyl and butyl parabens were detected at 276 nm and were eluted at 9.7, 3.1, 5.1 and 7.1 min, respectively. Calibration plots were linear (r>0.999) for all compounds from 0.5 to 200 microg ml(-1) for cisapride and OP and 0.1-200 microg ml(-1) for propyl and butyl parabens. Detection limits for cisapride, OP, propyl and butyl parabens were 40, 46, 48 and 54 ng ml(-1), respectively. Forced degradation investigations showed that cisapride does not undergo degradation under heat, acidic and basic conditions but it was susceptible to oxidation. The proposed method was successfully applied to the assay of cisapride in the presence of preservatives and OP in a commercial suspension.

A rational approach to uninvestigated dyspepsia in primary care: review of the literature

In this paper the rationale and limitations of the four most important approach strategies to dyspepsia in primary care (empiric treatment, prompt endoscopy, "test-and-scope", and "test-and-treat") are analysed. It is concluded that in the absence of alarm symptoms, a "test-and-treat" approach is currently the most rational approach provided that three conditions are met: (1) a highly accurate test should be used, (2) the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori in the population should not be too low, and (3) an effective anti-H pylori regimen should be prescribed taking sufficient time to instruct and motivate the patient.

No clinical benefit of adding cisapride to pantoprazole for treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

OBJECTIVE

Although a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and a prokinetic drug are often combined for the medical treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), there are few well-conducted clinical studies on the efficacy and tolerability of this therapy. This study investigates whether pantoprazole plus cisapride leads to an additional benefit in comparison to pantoprazole alone.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Randomized double-blind prospective multicentre study conducted in patients of 33 hospitals in Ireland, South Africa and the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 350 intention-to-treat (ITT) patients aged 18 years or older with GORD of grade II and III were included in the study. The per-protocol (PP) population comprised 152 patients in the pantoprazole group and 136 in the pantoprazole plus cisapride group.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received either pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or pantoprazole 40 mg once daily plus cisapride 20 mg twice daily. Treatment outcome was assessed after 4 and 8 weeks. The primary criterion was endoscopically confirmed healing after 4 weeks. Additionally, relief of leading symptoms was studied.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The prior null hypothesis was no difference in healing rates between both treatment groups.

RESULTS

After 4 weeks of treatment 81% and 82%, and after 8 weeks 89% and 90%, of PP patients treated with pantoprazole or pantoprazole plus cisapride were healed, respectively. Thus, equivalence of the two treatment strategies could be proven. Additionally, improvement of symptom relief showed no significant difference between the two regimens. In contrast to disease grade at baseline, Helicobacter pylori status did not influence the healing rates in our study. Both study medications were tolerated well.

CONCLUSION

Addition of cisapride to pantoprazole provides no further benefit in the treatment of GORD.

Cost effectiveness of competing strategies to prevent or treat GORD-related dysphagia

OBJECTIVES

The variety of influences that contribute to the occurrence of dysphagia in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) provide the physician with many options to intervene in the pathophysiology of the disease process. The aims of the present analysis were to compare the relationships between the costs and effectiveness of competing therapeutic interventions in preventing dysphagia.

METHODS

Dysphagia was modelled as the focal point of multiple influences leading to its development. The costs associated with different forms of drug therapy were based on the average wholesale prices listed in the Red Book of 1998. Procedural costs were estimated from Medicare reimbursements. Different treatment options were assessed by their incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

Lifestyle modifications, treatment with prokinetic agents or antacids reduce the occurrence of dysphagia by 22, 21 or 25%, respectively. Acid inhibition results in a 57 to 89% reduction of dysphagia, depending on treatment with histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Oesophageal dilation results in a reduction ranging between 54 and 81%. The incremental ratio of cost effectiveness associated with prokinetic agents or H2RAs is much higher than that of PPIs. Based on the concept of extended dominance, therefore, prokinetic drugs and H2RAs do not constitute cost-effective means to prevent dysphagia and should be excluded in favour of treatment with PPIs.

CONCLUSIONS

An economic analysis of various treatment strategies to reduce the risk of GORD-related dysphagia indicates that PPIs are the most cost-effective means to prevent its occurrence.

Overview of medical therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease

There appears to be a hierarchy in the efficacy of therapies that are directed against GERD. A summary of this hierarchy, including therapies [table: see text] not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is presented in Table 4. The individual practitioner must evaluate the appropriate point at which to place each patient on this hierarchy. Whether it is best to begin with the drug with the highest efficacy and step-down as possible for maintenance, never to step down, or to start with a less efficacious therapy and step up must also be individualized because there are no clear data to support a universal approach to all or even most GERD patients.

Economic analysis of step-wise treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

To expose patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) to the least amount of medication and to reduce health expenditures, it is recommended that their treatment is started with a small dose of an antisecretory or prokinetic medication. If patients fail to respond, the dose is increased in several consecutive steps or the initial regimen is changed to a more potent medication until the patients become asymptomatic. Although such treatment strategy is widely recommended, its impact on health expenditures has not been evaluated.

METHODS

The economic analysis compares the medication costs of competing medical treatment strategies, using two different sets of cost data. Medication costs are estimated from the average wholesale prices (AWP) and from the lowest discount prices charged to governmental health institutions. A decision tree is used to model the step-wise treatment of GERD. In a Monte Carlo simulation, all transition probabilities built into the model are varied over a wide range. A threshold analysis evaluates the relationship between the cost of an individual medication and its therapeutic success rate.

RESULTS

In a governmental health care system, a step-wise strategy saves on average $916 per patient every 5 years (range: $443-$1628) in comparison with a strategy utilizing only the most potent medication. In a cost environment relying on AWP, the average savings amount to $256 (-$206 to +$1561). The smaller the cost difference between two consecutive treatment steps, the longer one needs to follow the patients to reap the benefit of the small cost difference. However, even a small cost difference can turn into tangible cost savings, if a large enough fraction of GERD patients responds to the initial step of a less potent but also less expensive medication.

CONCLUSIONS

The economic analysis suggests that a step-wise utilization of increasingly more potent and more expensive medications to treat GERD would result in appreciable cost savings.

Gastroesophageal reflux and asthma: a review of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and therapy

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) occurs in up to one-third of the adult US population. Most affected individuals are either unaware of their condition or do not seek medical help, relying on nonprescription acid suppressants and antacids for relief. GERD, a common disorder of infancy, old age, and pregnancy, is particularly prevalent in patients with asthma. A causal relationship between the two diseases has been postulated by many investigators. The physiologic changes of asthma exacerbations and the actions of some of the medications used to treat asthma both aggravate GERD. The adverse effect of GERD on asthma and the pathophysiology of this relationship are still under debate. Some studies showed no objective improvement by spirometry of asthmatics treated for GERD, but recognized improvement in asthma symptoms and decreased use of asthma medication. Other studies, supporting GERD induction of asthma, have been performed to test two hypotheses: that asthma is exacerbated by endotracheal aspiration of gastric contents or by a reflex response to stimulation of esophageal receptors. Clinical experience has shown that early diagnosis and treatment of GERD often leads to better control of asthma.

Cisapride 20 mg b.d. for preventing symptoms of GERD induced by a provocative meal. The CIS-USA-89 Study Group

BACKGROUND

Cisapride is a substituted piperidinyl benzamide indicated for the symptomatic treatment of patients with nocturnal heartburn due to gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The currently recommended dosing regimen for cisapride is 10 mg q.d.s., but the elimination half-life of 8-10 h supports b.d. dosing with 20 mg.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was undertaken to determine the efficacy and safety of cisapride 20 mg b.d. dosing in reducing or preventing heartburn and other meal-related symptoms after challenge with a provocative fatty meal. In phase 1 of the study, 137 patients with at least a 3-month history of symptoms suggestive of GERD and at least five episodes of GERD on 7-day diary were eligible to receive single-blind treatment with placebo for 7 (range +/- 3) days and then ingested a provocative meal. One hundred and twenty-two patients (45 men and 77 women, 22-65 years of age) who experienced heartburn during the 3 h after ingestion of the meal qualified for the double-blind phase of the study and were randomly assigned to either cisapride 20 mg or matching placebo b.d. for 7 (+/-3) days. At the end of this period, 118 patients again ate a fatty meal and were assessed for symptoms of GERD.

RESULTS

Heartburn was prevented in a significantly higher percentage of cisapride-treated patients (40%; 24 out of 60) than placebo-treated patients (21%; 12 out of 58) after the repeat provocative meal at the end of the double-blind phase (P = 0.017). Cisapride was also significantly more effective in reducing the severity of postprandial heartburn, belching, and regurgitation (P < 0.05). Twice-daily dosing with cisapride 20 mg was well tolerated; the number of cisapride- and placebo-treated patients who experienced at least one adverse event was similar (31% and 22%, respectively). The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (cisapride, 18%; placebo, 0%) and rhinitis (cisapride, 2%; placebo, 5%).

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that cisapride 20 mg b.d. is effective in preventing or reducing symptoms of heartburn in patients who developed heartburn after ingesting a provocative fatty meal. Cisapride was also effective in reducing the severity of heartburn-related symptoms such as belching and regurgitation.

Microbore high-performance liquid chromatographic determination of cisapride in rat serum samples using column switching

For the determination of cisapride from serum samples, an automated microbore high-performance liquid chromatographic method with column switching has been developed. After serum samples (100 microl) were directly injected onto a Capcell Pak MF Ph-1 pre-column (10 x 4 mm I.D.), the deproteinization and concentration were carried out by acetonitrile-phosphate buffer (20 mM, pH 7.0) (2:8, v/v) at valve position A. At 2.6 min, the valve was switched to position B and the concentrated analytes were transferred from MF Ph-1 pre-column to a C18 intermediate column (35x2 mm I.D.) using washing solvent. By valve switching to position A at 4.3 min, the analytes were separated on a Capcell Pak C18 UG 120 column (250 x 1.5 mm I.D.) with acetonitrile-phosphate buffer (20 mM, pH 7.0) (5:5, v/v) at a flow-rate of 0.1 ml/min. Total analysis time per sample was 18 min. The linearity of response was good (r=0.999) over the concentration range of 5-200 ng/ml. The within-day and day-to-day precision (CV) and inaccuracy were less than 3.7% and 3.8%, respectively. The mean recovery was 96.5+/-2.4% with the detection limit of 2 ng/ml.

Cisapride 20 mg b.i.d. provides symptomatic relief of heartburn and related symptoms of chronic mild to moderate gastroesophageal reflux disease. CIS-USA-52 Investigator Group

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a twice-daily dosage regimen of cisapride 20 mg in relieving the symptoms of mild-moderate gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in patients with moderate intensity heartburn and no history of erosive esophagitis.

METHODS

After a 2-wk, single-blind, placebo run-in period, 398 patients who continued to experience moderate intensity heartburn were randomized to either placebo (n = 196) or cisapride 20 mg (n = 202) twice daily for 4 wk.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, cisapride significantly reduced scores for daytime and nighttime heartburn (p < 0.001), total regurgitation (p < 0.001), eructation (p = 0.04), and early satiety (p = 0.04). Cisapride 20 mg b.i.d. was also superior to placebo in reducing total use of rescue antacid medication (p < 0.001); reducing, in concordance analyses, daytime and nighttime heartburn with antacid usage (p < 0.001); increasing the percentage of heartburn-free days and antacid-free nights (p < 0.5); and increasing the percentage of patients self-rated as having minimal or better symptomatic improvement (p = 0.01). Cisapride 20 mg b.i.d. was well tolerated. The most common adverse event in the cisapride group was diarrhea, reported by 10% of patients, compared with an incidence of 4% in the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

Cisapride 20 mg b.i.d. was shown to be effective and safe for the short-term treatment of daytime and nighttime heartburn and for other symptoms associated with mild-moderate GERD.

Trends in the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is common, with up to 10% of the general population experiencing heartburn on a daily basis. It is a chronic condition and follow-up studies indicate the presence of symptoms at least 20 years after initial diagnosis. In addition to lifestyle modifications, management usually involves the use of an acid suppressant from the H2-receptor antagonist or proton pump inhibitor groups or a prokinetic agent at some stage. In terms of initial symptom resolution and mucosal healing the proton pump inhibitors are consistently superior to the other available agents. However, while it is possible to keep the majority of patients in remission while taking medications, almost all patients have a recurrence of symptoms within six months of stopping medications. The introduction of laparoscopic fundoplication has produced promising initial results but the long-term benefits of this procedure remain to be established. The role of Helicobacter pylori eradication in the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease needs further evaluation.

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and asthma

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GOR) and asthma are both common medical conditions that often co-exist. Studies using oesophageal manometry and 24 h ambulatory pH monitoring have shown that up to 80% of asthmatics have abnormal GOR. A number of mechanisms whereby GOR may trigger asthma have been proposed, and it is believed that acid reflux may stimulate vagal receptors in the lower oesophagus causing reflex bronchoconstriction. However, GOR may be worsened by asthma causing abnormal diaphragm mechanics and by its treatment. Formal evaluation of GOR should be considered a part of asthma assessment, particularly if asthmatic symptoms are precipitated by factors known to trigger GOR such as reclining, alcohol ingestion, and the use of theophylline. Twenty-four hour ambulatory intra-oesophageal pH monitoring remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of GOR. Medical therapy with anti-reflux medications, such as acid suppressive agents and prokinetic agents may improve both GOR and asthma control. In those who fail medical therapy, anti-reflux surgery may be warranted in some.

A comparative study of cisapride and ranitidine at controlling oesophageal acid exposure in erosive oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

The severity of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is generally considered to be related to the extent of oesophageal acid exposure. Current therapies include antisecretory and prokinetic agents. We compared two of these, ranitidine and cisapride, in their ability to lower oesophageal acid exposure in patients with erosive oesophagitis.

METHODS

Seven patients with Savary-Miller's grade II-IV oesophagitis and with oesophageal contact time > or = 8% were studied. Mean lower oesophageal sphincter pressure was 4.6 mmHg. Oesophageal acid contact time was 25.6 +/- 5.6%. Each patient received ranitidine 150 mg b.d., ranitidine 150 mg q.d.s., or cisapride 10 mg q.d.s. in a randomized 3-way cross-over design. Intra-oesophageal pH was monitored during 24 h for each of these treatments in a controlled hospital environment, while consuming a high fat, high calorie diet.

RESULTS

Cisapride and ranitidine at both doses decreased the acid contact time and the number of reflux episodes. However, a minority of patients treated with ranitidine, and none with cisapride, diminished their oesophageal acid contact time to a normal value of < 5%. No treatment significantly decreased nocturnal acid exposure.

CONCLUSION

In patients with severe gastro-oesophageal reflux disease both cisapride and ranitidine demonstrably lower oesophageal acid exposure, but neither therapy predictably normalizes it.

[Therapeutic principles in gastroesophageal reflux]

Gastroesophageal reflux is a common disease. Its chronic course, even if mild, is sometimes complicated by erosive oesophagitis. Drug therapy acts against gastric acidity and motility disorders. Treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease has three aims: improvement of symptoms and quality of life, healing erosive lesions and prevention of symptomatic and endoscopic relapses. Non-drug measures are always useful, even if their efficacy is not well established. Initial therapy of a symptomatic reflux or mild oesophagitis is most of the time effective (antacids, prokinetics, H2 receptor antagonists). Proton-pump inhibitors are also effective in healing and preventing severe oesophagitis. Questions about long-term treatment adverse events with powerful acid inhibitors, such as hypergastrinemia and the risk of gastric carcinoid tumours seem to be resolved. Studies are requested to define the optimal long-term maintenance treatment with cisapride, H2 receptor antagonists or proton-pump inhibitors at low doses in prevention of symptomatic and mild oesophagitis relapses.

A comparison of five maintenance therapies for reflux esophagitis

BACKGROUND

Patients with reflux esophagitis have a high rate of relapse within one year after therapy is discontinued.

METHODS

We enrolled 175 adults with endoscopy-confirmed reflux esophagitis in a prospective study comparing five maintenance therapies. All the patients were initially treated with omeprazole (40 mg orally once a day) for four to eight weeks, and healing was confirmed by endoscopy. Participants were then stratified according to their initial grade of esophagitis and randomly assigned to 12 months of treatment with one of the following: cisapride (10 mg three times a day), ranitidine (150 mg three times a day), omeprazole (20 mg per day), ranitidine plus cisapride (10 mg three times a day), or omeprazole plus cisapride. Endoscopy was repeated after 6 and 12 months of treatment; the endoscopists were blinded to the treatment assignments. Remission was defined as the absence of esophageal lesions on scheduled or unscheduled follow-up endoscopy.

RESULTS

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the numbers of patients in continued remission at 12 months were 19 of 35 (54 percent) in the cisapride group, 17 of 35 (49 percent) in the ranitidine group, 28 of 35 (80 percent) in the omeprazole group, 23 of 35 (66 percent) in the ranitidine-plus-cisapride group, and 31 of 35 (89 percent) in the omeprazole-plus-cisapride group. Omeprazole was significantly more effective than cisapride (P = 0.02) or ranitidine (P = 0.003), and combination therapy with omeprazole plus cisapride was significantly more effective than cisapride alone (P = 0.003), ranitidine alone (P < 0.001), or ranitidine plus cisapride (P = 0.03). Ranitidine plus cisapride was significantly better than ranitidine alone (P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For maintenance treatment of reflux esophagitis, omeprazole alone or in combination with cisapride is more effective than ranitidine alone or cisapride alone, and the combination of omeprazole and cisapride is more effective than ranitidine plus cisapride.

Serotonin receptors: subtypes, functional responses and therapeutic relevance

Recent, rapid progress in the molecular biology of serotonin (5-HT) receptors requires conceptual re-thinking with respect to receptor classification. Thus, based on operational criteria (agonist and antagonist rank order), as well as transduction mechanisms involved and the structure of the receptor protein, the Nomenclature Committee of the Serotonin Club has proposed the following classification and nomenclature: the main receptor types 5-HT1 to 5-HT4, recombinant receptors (e.g. 5-ht5 to 5-ht7) and 'orphan' receptors. The aim of the present review is to discuss the events leading to this classification, the criteria for and functional responses mediated by various 5-HT receptors, as well as the therapeutic possibilities with 5-HT ligands.

Pharmacological management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) ranges from episodic symptomatic reflux without oesophagitis to severe oesophageal mucosal damage, such as Barrett's metaplasia or peptic stricture. The multifactorial pathogenesis of GORD prevents medical cure of the disease. GORD is a chronic disease with a high tendency to relapse, requiring a long term treatment strategy in practically all patients. Complete healing of all mucosal lesions is not necessarily the aim of treatment in all patients. In milder forms of reflux disease, symptom relief is the most important goal. Many patients with mild GORD do well on symptomatic self-care with antacids and/or alginate. In addition, lifestyle changes should be advised to all patients: these improve symptoms and enhance the efficacy of therapy. In the acute treatment of GORD the prokinetic drug cisapride has been shown to be effective in relieving symptoms and healing grade I to II oesophagitis. Cisapride decreases symptomatic and endoscopic relapse in patients with mild GORD. Histamine H2-receptor antagonists are effective in relieving reflux symptoms in about 50% of patients, but with regard to healing, H2-antagonists appear to be mainly effective in grades I and II and not in higher grades of oesophagitis. Maintenance treatment with H2-antagonists is mainly symptomatically effective in patients with mild GORD. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) provide significantly higher healing rates of reflux oesophagitis than H2-antagonists, even in the more severe cases of oesophagitis and Barrett's ulcers. PPIs are also effective in patients with oesophagitis refractory to treatment with H2-antagonists. PPIs have become the drugs of first choice in healing of all patients with more severe forms of reflux oesophagitis, and increasingly also for patients with milder forms of oesophagitis, certainly those who fail to respond to other drugs. In maintenance treatment of GORD, PPIs are the most effective drugs, offering the possibility of keeping nearly all patients in remission with adjusted doses. Current patient data of up to 5 years indicate the safety of this strategy for this period, but the exact consequences of strong acid inhibition over a longer period still have to be clarified. At present, all but a few patients with GORD can be managed adequately by medical therapy.

The clinical use of cisapride in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, with particular focus on the long-term treatment aspects

BACKGROUND

The healing of oesophagitis, both symptomatic and endoscopic, can be obtained with cisapride, the results being equivalent to what has been achieved with H2RAs. For many patients, however, GORD is a chronic relapsing disease.

RESULTS

At least 40-50% of patients relapse within a year of initial healing. Important predictors for relapse are the severity of symptoms, the degree of mucosal damage, and the time it takes for the initial lesions to heal. Another important predictor of relapse, as shown in the cisapride maintenance studies, is the need for PPIs, probably because the most recalcitrant patients were selected for this therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with mild or moderate disease should be treated with intermittent or prolonged therapy with cisapride or H2RAs. Patients with severe disease should be given prolonged or permanent therapy with a PPI or with cisapride in combination with either an H2RA or a PPI. For the latter group, antireflux surgery should also be considered, especially in younger patients who have a completely incompetent closing mechanism of the lower oesophageal sphincter.

Cisapride: a gastrointestinal prokinetic drug

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of cisapride, and to evaluate its potential therapeutic role.

DATA SOURCES

A computerized search of the MEDLINE database was used to identify English-language publications of cisapride data in humans. The MEDLINE search was supplemented by review article bibliographies. There was no attempt to limit the search to a specific gastrointestinal motility disorder.

STUDY SELECTION

The MEDLINE search alone identified 165 citations. Because of the volume of available human cisapride data, the focus of the efficacy section is on complete published reports of controlled clinical studies. Abstracts and uncontrolled data are discussed only when other information is unavailable to address important aspects.

DATA EXTRACTION

Information regarding study design, study population, results, and safety was recorded from each publication. The placebo response to gastrointestinal complaints in patients with motility disorders is high. Therefore, objective evidence of improvement was emphasized when documentation was available.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Cisapride stimulates the motility of smooth muscle lining the esophagus, stomach, small intestine, and colon, and increases the tone of gut sphincters in vitro and in vivo. In controlled investigations, cisapride was superior to placebo in relieving symptoms associated with reflux esophagitis, nonulcer dyspepsia, and gastroparesis. Similar symptom and healing effects were observed with cisapride and histamine (H)2-antagonists in reflux esophagitis. Cisapride was either equal to or superior to metoclopramide in relieving reflux symptoms. However, metoclopramide was associated with significantly more central nervous system adverse effects. Cisapride was well tolerated, with adverse effects limited primarily to the gastrointestinal tract.

CONCLUSIONS

Cisapride represents an attractive alternative to metoclopramide for the treatment of a variety of motility disorders. Because it addresses a primary underlying cause of reflux esophagitis, cisapride may also prove to be an effective alternative to acid suppressants in the management of this disorder.