Treatment of Reflux Esophagitis Resistant to H2-Receptor Antagonists with Lansoprazole, a New H+/K+-ATPase Inhibitor: A Controlled, Double-Blind Study

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 8-wk study compared the new H⁺/K⁺-ATPase inhibitor, lansoprazole, 30 mg daily, to ranitidine 150 mg bid for treatment of erosive reflux esophagitis resistant to his-tamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RA). Patients were evaluated after 2, 4, 6, and 8 wk of treatment by symptom assessment and endoscopy. Healing rates for lansoprazole were 71%, 80%, 88%, and 89% at 2, 4, 6, and 8 wk, respectively, compared to 21%, 33%, 45%, and 38% for ranitidine ( p < 0.001 at all points). Lansoprazole was significantly more effective than ranitidine for relief of heartburn and reduction of antacid tablet use. Increases in serum gastrin concentrations between the baseline and the 8-wk visit were greater in lansoprazole-treated than in ranitidine treated patients. Lansoprazole was safe and well tolerated. In patients with erosive reflux esophagitis resistant to standard doses of H2RA, lansoprazole 30 mg/day is more effective than continuation of an H2RA (ranitidine 150 mg bid) for healing of esophagitis and improvement of symptoms.     

Nizatidine versus Placebo in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A 12-Week, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind Study

Two doses of nizatidine (150 mg bid and 300 mg hs), an H2-receptor antagonist, were compared with placebo in a 12-wk, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel study in 466 patients with endoscopically documented gastroesophageal reflux disease. Antacid tablets were given concomitantly as needed for pain. Compared with placebo, nizatidine 150 mg twice daily was highly effective in rapidly reducing the severity of heartburn, regardless of esophagitis severity at entry. Significantly greater complete mucosal healing of esophagitis occurred after 6 wk of therapy with nizatidine 150 mg bid (vs. nizatidine 300 mg hs or placebo) only in patients with erosive esophagitis [16/68 (24%) vs. 8/65 (12%)] and erosive and ulcerative esophagitis combined [21/99 (21%) vs. 10/94 (11%)]. At wk 12, healing with nizatidine 150 mg bid was also significantly greater than placebo in erosive [19/68 (28%) vs. 9/65 (14%)], ulcerative [10/31 (32%) vs. 3/29 (10%)], and erosive and ulcerative esophagitis combined [29/99 (29%) vs. 12/94 (13%)]. These results show that twice-daily therapy with nizatidine 150 mg is very effective at relieving heartburn, and can also heal erosive and ulcerative esophagitis. Nizatidine 300 mg hs was not effective in healing esophagitis, compared with placebo.     

A Placebo-Controlled Dose-Ranging Study of Lansoprazole in the Management of Reflux Esophagitis

Objective : We compared the efficacy of three different doses of the proton pump inhibitor lansoprazole in the management of reflux esophagitis. Methods : Two hundred ninety-two patients with endoscopically confirmed reflux esophagitis were enrolled in a double-blind, multicenter study and were randomized to lansoprazole 15, 30, or 60 mg or placebo administered once daily for 8 wk. Results : Healing rates after 4 wk of lansoprazole 15, 30, and 60 mg/d were 67.6%, 81.3%, and 80.6%, respectively. These were all significantly superior (   p < 0.001  ) to placebo, which produced endoscopic healing in only 32.8% of the patients after 4 wk. The 4-wk healing rates with lansoprazole 30 or 60 mg were significantly higher than that with lansoprazole 15 mg (   p < 0.05  ), confirming a dose-response effect. Cumulative healing rates after 8 wk of treatment were 52.5% with placebo and 90.0%, 95.4%, and 94.4% with lansoprazole 15, 30, and 60 mg, respectively (   p < 0.001  for all doses of lansoprazole vs placebo). Lansoprazole was also significantly superior to placebo in relieving symptoms in patients with reflux esophagitis. Lansoprazole was well tolerated, and no serious treatment-related adverse events were encountered. Up to 3 months after discontinuation of treatment, all lansoprazole-treated groups had more patients free of endoscopic evidence of esophagitis than the group treated with placebo. Conclusions : Lansoprazole was safe and effective for the treatment of reflux esophagitis in this trial. This study indicates that the optimum daily dose of lansoprazole for reflux esophagitis is 30 mg.     

Esomeprazole (40 mg) compared with lansoprazole (30 mg) in the treatment of erosive esophagitis

OBJECTIVES: Esomeprazole, the S isomer of omeprazole, has been shown to have higher healing rates of erosive esophagitis than omeprazole. This study compared esomeprazole with lansoprazole for the healing of erosive esophagitis and resolution of heartburn. METHODS: This United States multicenter, randomized, double blind, parallel group trial was performed in 5241 adult patients (intent-to-treat population) with endoscopically documented erosive esophagitis, which was graded by severity at baseline (Los Angeles classification). Patients received 40 mg of esomeprazole (n = 2624) or 30 mg of lansoprazole (n = 2617) once daily before breakfast for up to 8 wk. The primary efficacy endpoint was healing of erosive esophagitis at week 8. Secondary assessments included proportion of patients healed at week 4, resolution of investigator-recorded heartburn, time to first and time to sustained resolution of patient diary-recorded heartburn, and proportion of heartburn-free days and nights. RESULTS: Esomeprazole (40 mg) demonstrated significantly higher healing rates (92.6%, 95% CI = 91.5-93.6%) than lansoprazole (30 mg) (88.8%, 95% CI = 87.5-90.0%) at week 8 (p = 0.0001, life-table estimates, intent-to-treat analysis). A significant difference in healing rates favoring esomeprazole was also observed at week 4. The difference in healing rates between esomeprazole and lansoprazole increased as baseline severity of erosive esophagitis increased. Sustained resolution of heartburn occurred faster and in more patients treated with esomeprazole. Sustained resolution of nocturnal heartburn also occurred faster with esomeprazole. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole (40 mg) is more effective than lansoprazole (30 mg) in healing erosive esophagitis and resolving heartburn. Healing rates are consistently high with esomeprazole, irrespective of baseline disease severity.     

兰索拉唑对糜烂性食管炎及非糜烂性胃食管反流病胃电节律影响

目的研究糜烂性食管炎及非糜烂性胃食管反流病患者胃电节律,以及兰索拉唑对其症状及胃电节律的影响。方法采取反流性疾病问卷分析20例糜烂性食管炎（EE组）及20例非糜烂性胃食管反流病（NERD组）4周及8周兰索拉唑30mg／a治疗前后的症状程度,并使用体外胃电图描述方法记录10名健康志愿者（对照组）胃电节律,以及EE组及NERD组患者4周及8周兰索拉唑30mg／d治疗前后的胃电节律。结果EE组和NERD组均存在胃电节律的异常,且与对照组有明显差异（P〈0．05）,并且EE组与NERD组之间无明显差异（P〉0．05）。经过兰索拉唑30mg／d治疗后,EE组及NERD组RDQ评分均较前好转,并且治疗8周后的RDQ评分小于治疗4周时（P〈0．05）,且两组之间无明显差异。治疗4周时EE组的餐前及餐后的正常慢波百分率较治疗前明显升高（P〈0．05）,而NERD组治疗4周时正常慢波百分率较治疗前无明显变化（P〉0．05）。当兰索拉唑30mg／d疗程满8周时两组餐前、餐后的正常慢波百分率均较治疗前明显升高（P〈0．05）,并且与对照组比较无差异（P〉0．05）。结论EE及NERD均存在胃电节律异常,兰索拉唑不仅能缓解EE及NERD的症状,也能使其胃电节律恢复正常。     

Dysphagia in patients with erosive esophagitis: prevalence, severity, and response to proton pump inhibitor treatment.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Dysphagia is considered an alarm symptom, raising the question of stricture or malignancy. We sought to determine the prevalence and severity of dysphagia in patients with uncomplicated erosive esophagitis and its response to therapy. METHODS: A total of 11,945 patients with endoscopically confirmed erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles grades A-D) participated in 5 double-blind, randomized, clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of up to 8 weeks of treatment with either once-daily esomeprazole 40 mg (n = 5068), esomeprazole 20 mg (n = 1243), omeprazole 20 mg (n = 3018), or lansoprazole 30 mg (n = 2616). The severity of dysphagia (4-point scale) was rated at baseline and at week 4. Esophagitis was classified as mild (grade A or B) or severe (grade C or D). RESULTS: At baseline, 4449 of 11,945 patients (37%) had dysphagia-43% of patients with severe esophagitis, and 35% of patients with mild esophagitis (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.51, P < 0.001). Dysphagia resolved in 83% of patients after 4 weeks of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment. Resolution of dysphagia was associated with a mean healing rate of 90% across all treatments. Seventeen percent of patients reported persistent dysphagia, and in these patients the healing rates were decreased significantly (mean 72%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Dysphagia is common in patients with erosive esophagitis but is not a reliable clinical predictor of severe erosive esophagitis. Dysphagia resolved with PPI therapy in most cases, but persistent dysphagia may indicate failed healing.     

Maintenance of healed erosive esophagitis: a randomized six-month comparison of esomeprazole twenty milligrams with lansoprazole fifteen milligrams.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim was to compare esomeprazole with lansoprazole for the maintenance of healed erosive esophagitis and resolution of gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms in a United States population. METHODS: Patients who entered this double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter, maintenance trial had been treated and healed (no endoscopic evidence of erosive esophagitis) with esomeprazole 40 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg once daily (patients with Los Angeles grades C and D erosive esophagitis at baseline) or esomeprazole 40 mg (patients with Los Angeles grades A and B erosive esophagitis at baseline) and had no heartburn or acid regurgitation symptoms during the previous week. Patients were randomized to maintenance once-daily therapy with esomeprazole 20 mg (n = 512) or lansoprazole 15 mg (n = 514) for up to 6 months. Esophago-gastroduodenoscopies were done at months 3 and 6, and investigators assessed symptom severity at months 1, 3, and 6. Endoscopic/symptomatic remission was defined as no erosive esophagitis and no study withdrawal as a result of reflux symptoms. RESULTS: The estimated endoscopic/symptomatic remission rate during a period of 6 months was significantly higher (P = .0007) for patients who received esomeprazole 20 mg once daily (84.8%) compared with those who received lansoprazole 15 mg (75.9%). Most patients had no heartburn (383/462 and 369/466) or acid regurgitation (401/462 and 400/466) symptoms at 6 months, and there were no significant differences between treatments. Both treatments were well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: Esomeprazole 20 mg is more effective than lansoprazole 15 mg in maintaining endoscopic/symptomatic remission in patients with healed erosive esophagitis.     

Symptom relief in gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized, controlled comparison of pantoprazole and nizatidine in a mixed patient population with erosive esophagitis or endoscopy-negative reflux disease.

OBJECTIVES: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in primary care practice presents symptomatically, and resources to distinguish promptly between erosive esophagitis and endoscopy-negative reflux disease (ENRD) are limited. It is therefore important to determine the roles of proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2-receptor antagonists for first-line symptom-based therapy in patients with erosive esophagitis and ENRD. The aim of this study was to compare pantoprazole 40 mg once daily versus nizatidine 150 mg b.i.d. in a mixed GERD patient population with ENRD or erosive esophagitis (Savary-Miller grades 1-3). METHODS: A 4-wk randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study conducted in Canada. Eligible patients had experienced GERD symptoms > or = 4 times weekly for > 6 months. Patients were randomized to pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or nizatidine 150 mg b.i.d.. Endoscopy was performed before randomization and after 4 wk of therapy. RESULTS: Of 220 patients randomized to therapy, 208 were available for a modified intent-to-treat analysis. Erosive esophagitis was present in 125 patients; 35 patients were Helicobacter pylori positive. There was complete symptom relief after 7 days of therapy in 14% of patients on nizatidine and in 40% of those on pantoprazole (p < 0.0001), and after 28 days of treatment in 36% and 63% of patients, respectively (p < 0.0001). After 28 days of treatment, adequate heartburn control was reported by 58% of the nizatidine group and in 88% of the pantoprazole (p < 0.0001); erosive esophagitis healing rates were 44% for nizatidine and 79% for pantoprazole (p < 0.001). Rescue antacid was needed by a greater number of patients using nizatidine than of those using pantoprazole (p < 0.001). H. pylori infection was associated with an increased probability of erosive esophagitis healing. CONCLUSIONS: Pantoprazole once daily was superior to nizatidine b.i.d. in producing complete heartburn relief in a mixed population of GERD patients and in achieving erosion healing. The proportions of patients with complete symptom relief were greater with pantoprazole after 7 days of therapy than with nizatidine after 28 days. The present study data suggest that pantoprazole is a highly effective first-line therapy for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in a primary care practice setting.     

Does healing of esophagitis improve esophageal motor function?

This study investigates whether healing of erosive esophagitis leads to an improvement of esophageal motor abnormalities. Manometric studies were performed in 18 patients with erosive esophagitis before and after healing of the mucosal lesions and in 15 healthy controls. Nine patients were treated with a Nissen fundoplication and nine with H₂-receptor antagonists. After healing, patients were followed for a mean duration of 3.0±0.4 years. Compared to controls, patients had significantly lower contraction amplitudes and lower esophageal sphincter pressures (P<0.01), while the duration and velocity of esophageal contractions was similar in both groups. Lower esophageal sphincter pressure increased after surgical treatment, while no such changes were observed in medically treated patients. In both groups amplitude, duration, and velocity of esophageal contractions were not affected by healing of esophagitis. On extended follow-up, all surgically treated patients remained asymptomatic while eight of nine medically treated patients developed a symptomatic relapse which was accompanied by erosive esophagitis in six of them. The lack of improvement in esophageal motor function after healing of esophagitis may contribute to the frequent occurrence of relapse in medically treated patients.This paper was presented, in part, at the American Gastroenterological Association Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, May 1987.     

Symptom relief in patients with reflux esophagitis: comparative study of omeprazole, lansoprazole, and rabeprazole

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Rabeprazole has a faster onset of antisecretory activity than omeprazole and lansoprazole. The aim of the present study was to clarify whether there is any difference in the speed of symptom relief in patients with reflux esophagitis following the administration of these three proton pump inhibitors (PPI). METHODS: Eighty-five patients with erosive reflux esophagitis were randomized to receive 8 weeks of 20 mg of omeprazole (n = 30), 30 mg of lansoprazole (n = 25), or 20 mg of rabeprazole (n = 30) once a morning. Daily changes in heartburn and acid reflux symptoms in the first 7 days of administration were assessed using a six-point scale (0: none, 1: mild, 2: mild-moderate, 3: moderate, 4: moderate-severe, 5: severe). RESULTS: The mean heartburn score in patients administered rabeprazole decreased more rapidly than those given the other PPI. Complete heartburn remission also occurred more rapidly in patients administered rabeprazole (compared with omeprazole: P = 0.035, compared with lansoprazole: P = 0.038 by log-rank test). No differences were seen in the rate of endoscopic healing of reflux esophagitis at 8 weeks between the three treatment regimens. CONCLUSION: Rabeprazole may be more effective than omeprazole and lansoprazole for the rapid relief of heartburn symptoms in patients with reflux esophagitis.     

Management of symptoms in step-down therapy of gastroesophageal reflux disease

OBJECTIVE: Majority of studies on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) that include patients with or without erosive disease have documented the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) as well as their superiority to H(2)-receptor antagonist (H(2)-RA). The purpose of this study was to clarify the difference in quality of GERD treatment with PPIs and H(2)-RA in step-down protocol using lansoprazole. METHODS: Forty-three patients with reflux esophagitis were randomly divided into three groups and assessed by severity score; group 1 received 30 mg lansoprazole initially and maintenance therapy with a standard dose H(2)-RA; group 2 received 30 mg of lansoprazole initially and maintenance therapy of 15 mg lansoprazole; and group 3 received 15 mg of lansoprazole once daily for 16 weeks. If the patients experienced symptomatic recurrence while on H(2)-RA, they were switched to PPI maintenance. RESULTS: Heartburn, regurgitation and dysphagia were hardly found in any group at 8 weeks after 15 mg or 30 mg lansoprazole treatment. After 8 weeks, however, heartburn and regurgitation recurred at 50% and 78.6%, respectively, in the stepped down to famotidine group, and quality of life (QOL) was significantly impaired. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) analysis showed reduction of the submucosal layer without any change in the mucosal surface in the stepped down to famotidine group. CONCLUSIONS: Step-down lansoprazole therapy is considered very effective in terms of rapid effect, long-term effect and high quality GERD treatment.     

Histological Esophagitis (Clinical and Histological Response to Omeprazole in Children)

Many children with esophagitis demonstratehistological changes without gross evidence ofesophagitis by esophagoscopy. The effect of omeprazoleon the histological healing of esophagitis in childrenis unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study wasto determine the effect of omeprazole on refractoryhistological esophagitis in pediatric patients. Eighteenpatients with histological evidence of esophagitis and recurrent symptoms despite therapy withH₂-receptor antagonists and prokinetic agentswere prospectively treated with omeprazole. Dosing wasadjusted by monitoring intragastric pH, andesophagoscopy was repeated after 8-12 weeks of omeprazoletreatment. Two patients did not complete the study dueto either worsening symptoms or hypergastrinemia. Of theremaining patients, 76% were asymptomatic with omeprazole treatment and 24% reportedimprovement in their symptoms. Approximately 40%demonstrated complete histological healing of theiresophagitis. Three patients (17%) had persistentelevations in serum gastrin levels while on omeprazoletreatment, which was associated with both youngerpatient age and higher omeprazole dosing; however, allelevated gastrin levels returned to normal afterdiscontinuation of the medication. All patients had recurrenceof their symptoms after completing a course ofomeprazole, even patients with complete histologicalhealing. Omeprazole is efficacious in treating children with esophagitis refractory toH₂-receptor antagonist and prokinetic agents.However, none of the patients were able to discontinueacid suppressive therapy even after documented healingof their esophagitis.     

Pantoprazole versus lansoprazole in French patients with reflux esophagitis

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of pantoprazole 40 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg given for 4 to 8 weeks on endoscopic healing and symptom relief in grade II-III reflux esophagitis patients (according to Savary-Miller classification).METHODS: Four hundred and sixty one patients were included (pantoprazole n=226, lansoprazole n=235) in this prospective, randomized, multicenter double-blind study. Endoscopic control was performed at 4 weeks and at 8 weeks if esophagitis was not healed. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, the healing rates at 4 weeks were 81 and 80% in the pantoprazole and lansoprazole groups, respectively (NS), 90 and 86% at 8 weeks (NS). In the per-protocol analysis, the healing rates at 4 weeks were 86% in the 2 groups and at 8 weeks 97% in the pantoprazole group and 93% in the lansoprazole group (NS). The heartburn relief rates at day 14 were 88% and 86% in the pantoprazole and lansoprazole groups, respectively. Only esophagitis grade at entry was shown to be a predictive factor for healing at 4 weeks (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study showed that pantoprazole 40 mg once daily is as effective and well tolerated as lansoprazole 30 mg once daily in the treatment of grade II-III acute reflux esophagitis.     

Efficacy of famotidine 20 mg twice a day versus 40 mg twice a day in the treatment of erosive or ulcerative reflux esophagitis

Two different doses of famotidine (20 mg twice a day versus 40 mg twice a day) were evaluated in a double-blind, randomized multicenter study in 474 symptomatic patients with erosive ulcerative reflux esophagitis. A total of 238 patients were treated with famotidine 20 mg and 236 patients with 40 mg at breakfast and dinnertime. Relief of symptoms was significant in all patients after six and 12 weeks and not different in both treatment groups. Overall endoscopic healing was significantly better in the famotidine 40 mg twice a day group compared with 20 mg twice a day at week 6 (58% versus 43%;P<0.05) and at week 12 (76% versus 67%;P<0.05). Extending treatment to 24 weeks with 40 mg of famotidine twice a day in those patients not healed after 12 weeks did not result in further symptom relief or in significantly better overall healing. The differences in efficacy of these two doses were more pronounced with increasing severity of esophagitis. Analyzed by grade of esophagitis at entrance, healing was significantly better with famotidine 40 mg twice a day at week 6 for grade II, at week 12 for grades III and IV, and at week 24 for grade IV esophagitis. The results show that in the treatment of erosive/ ulcerative reflux patients famotidine 40 mg twice a day is more effective and achieves faster healing than famotidine 20 mg twice a day.for the Dutch Esophagitis Study Group.Participating physicians: P. Batenburg, J. Beker, J. Bellaar Spruijt, L. van Bergeijk, J. Bergmann, W. Bode, J. de Boer, H. Boot, G. Dorrepaal, J. Douma, J. Drapers, J. Ferwerda, H. Festen, A. Geraedts, J. Götz, E. van der Hoek, R. van Hogezand, J. Juttmann, M. Kloppenburg, F. Lalisang, W. Lesterhuis, D. van der Linde, G. van der Linden, J. van Maanen, J. Minkema, C. Mulder, I. van Munster, J. Nadorp, G. Nelis, J. Nicolai, R. Ouwendijk, D. Overbosch, A. van der Putten, J. Raats, F. Schuitemaker, J. Sindram, G. Slagboom, P. Snel, P. Stijnen, J. Thies, J. Thijs, H. Tuynman, B. Uyterlinde, J. ten Veen, K. te Velde, M. Vidakovic-Vukic, F. Vismans, A. Vogten, G. Vosmaer, P. de Vries, H. Walinga, S. van der Werf, I. Wesdorp, B. Westerveld, A. Wolff, R. Ypma.This study was supported by a grant from Merck Sharp & Dohme, The Netherlands.This study was presented in part at the annual meeting of the American Gastroenterology Association, May 1991 (Gastroenterology 100:63A, 1991).     

Combination therapy of sucralfate and ranitidine, compared with sucralfate monotherapy, in patients with peptic reflux esophagitis.

A double-blind, multicenter, randomized study was performed in 75 patients with endoscopically documented reflux esophagitis. Patients were randomly given 1 g sucralfate four times a day or the combination of sucralfate three times a day and 300 mg ranitidine after dinnertime. Endoscopy was performed at the beginning of the study, after 8 weeks, and, if, the reflux esophagitis was not healed, after 16 weeks. Four patients had to be excluded from evaluation; 71 patients could therefore be evaluated. Both groups showed symptomatic improvement to similar extents. Endoscopy showed symptomatic improvement in 67% of the patients treated with sucralfate and in 74% of the combination therapy group. Complete healing or Savary-Miller stage 1 was seen in 26.5% and in 31.4%, respectively. We conclude that sucralfate monotherapy in patients with milder forms of reflux esophagitis is comparable with a combination of sucralfate during the day and ranitidine after dinnertime. This study does not support the commonly used combination of sucralfate and H2-receptor antagonists in reflux esophagitis.     

Comparative study of omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole and esomeprazole for symptom relief in patients with reflux esophagitis

AIM： To clarify whether there is any difference in the symptom relief in patients with reflux esophagitis following the administration of four Proton pump inhibitors （PPIs）. METHODS： Two hundred and seventy-four patients with erosive reflux esophagitis were randomized to receive 8 wk of 20 mg omeprazole （n = 68）, 30 mg of lansoprazole （n = 69）, 40 mg of pantoprazole （n = 69）, 40 mg of esomeprazole （n = 68） once a day in the morning. Daily changes in heartburn and acid reflux symptoms in the first 7 d of administration were assessed using a six-point scale （0： none; 1： mild; 2： mild-moderate; 3： moderate; 4： moderate-severe; 5： severe）. RESULTS： The mean heartburn score in patients treated with esomeprazole more rapidly decreased than those receiving other PPI. Complete resolution of heartburn was also more rapid in patients treated with esomeprazole for 5 d compared with omeprazole （P = 0.0018, P = 0.0098, P = 0.0027, P = 0.0137, P = 0.0069, respectively）, lansoprazole （P = 0.0020, P = 0.0046, P = 0.0037, P = 0.0016, P = 0.0076, respectively）, and pantoprazole （P = 0.0006, P = 0.0005, P = 0.0009, P = 0.0031, P = 0.0119, respectively）. There were no significant differences between the four groups in the rate of endoscopic healing of reflux esophagitis at week 8. CONCLUSION： Esomeprazole may be more effective than omeprazole, lansoprazole, and pantoprazole for the rapid relief of heartburn symptoms and acid reflux symptoms in patients with reflux esophagitis.     

Double-blind comparison of cisapride and cimetidine in treatment of reflux esophagitis

In a double-blind, randomized, comparative trial of the prokinetic drug cisapride and the H₂-blocker cimetidine, mucosal healing and changes in symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux were evaluated in patients with erosive reflux esophagitis. The patients were treated with either cisapride, 10 mg four times a day (N=36) or cimetidine, 400 mg four times a day (N=37) for six weeks, or for 12 weeks if mucosal healing was not obtained by week 6. Upon entry, two thirds of the patients in each group had grade I (Savary-Miller) esophagitis, and the remainder grade II or III. At the end of treatment, endoscopy showed mucosal healing in 56% (38–72%; 95% confidence interval) of cisapride and 57% (39–73%; 95% confidence interval) of cimetidine patients. After six weeks, both drugs significantly (P<0.01) decreased the intensity and frequency of heartburn, regurgitation, and the postural syndrome. No significant inter group differences were found regarding endoscopic parameters or the improvement of heartburn and regurgitation. Concomitant antacid use was also comparable. Adverse effects were reported by four cisapride and nine cimetidine patients. These results indicate that the effects of cisapride compare well with those of cimetidine in terms of both esophageal mucosal healing and symptom relief.     

Healing of severe reflux esophagitis with PPI does not improve esophageal dysmotility

Esophageal dysmotility is frequently associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the severity of reflux esophagitis and esophageal dysmotility and evaluate the effect of prolonged treatment with proton pump inhibitor (lansoprazole 30 mg/day) on esophageal motility in patients with severe reflux esophagitis associated with esophageal motility disorder. Twelve healthy subjects (HS) and 100 patients with reflux disease were involved in the study consisting of two parts: (i) comparison of esophageal motility in HS and patients with non-eroseive reflux disease (NERD), mild esophagitis and severe esophagitis; (ii) effect of 3-6 months lansoprazole therapy on esophageal motility in 23 patients with severe esophagitis, pathologic acid reflux and esophageal peristaltic dysfunction. Results included the following. (i) Esophageal dysmotility was noted in both patients with NERD and erosive GERD. (ii) Severe esophagitis was associated with severe esophageal dysmotility. (iii) Healing of severe esophagitis did not improve esophageal dysmotility. The resting lower esophageal sphincter pressure was 3.9 mmHg (range 1.7-20) before treatment and 4.8 mmHg (range 1.2-18.3) after esophagitis healing (P = 0.23, vs. before treatment), the amplitude of distal esophageal contraction was 28.8 mmHg (range 10.9-80.6) before treatment and 33.3 mmHg (range 10.0-72.5) after esophagitis healing (P = 0.59, vs. before treatment) and the frequency of failed peristalsis was 70% (range 0-100%) before treatment and 70% (range 0-100%) after esophagitis healing (P = 0.78, vs. before treatment). Both esophageal motility disorders and acid reflux play important roles in the mechanism of GERD, especially in severe esophagitis. Esophageal dysmotility is not secondary to acid reflux and esophagitis; it should be a primary motility disorder.     

"Refractory GERD": acid, nonacid, or not GERD?

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common condition with 44% of Americans surveyed reporting heartburn at least once a month and 20% once a week (1, 2). However, despite major advances in our understanding of this disease, management of GERD is still a challenge. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are more effective than H2-receptor antagonists (H2RA) in the initial healing of erosive esophagitis, which provide symptom relief and maintenance (3). Due to its established efficacy and safety, PPI treatment is used as the initial "test" in diagnosing GERD in the absence of bleeding, anemia, weight loss, or dysphagia. A single dose of PPI provides adequate symptom relief in most patients; however, dose escalation to twice a day may be needed in some. Patients unresponsive to PPI therapy are often labeled as having "refractory GERD." However, this term is poorly defined and has a different meaning in different countries. More importantly, the cause of "refractory GERD" is poorly understood.     

Daily low-dose versus alternate day full-dose lansoprazole in the maintenance treatment of reflux esophagitis

OBJECTIVE: For the long term maintenance treatment of reflux esophagitis several strategies have been proposed with the aim of reducing the daily dosage or the frequency of drug administration. However, the available clinical studies are scarce and are often not controlled or conducted on a reduced number of cases. We aimed to compare the efficacy of two doses of lansoprazole (15 mg once daily and 30 mg on alternate days) in maintaining endoscopic healing and symptom relief over a 6-month period. METHODS: One hundred thirty-seven patients with Savary-Miller grades I-III reflux esophagitis healed after an 8-wk treatment with lansoprazole (30 mg daily) were divided into two main groups for a 6-month maintenance therapy period: lansoprazole, 15 mg once daily (group 15qd) and lansoprazole, 30 mg on alternate days (group 30qod). These two main groups were further subdivided according to the time of drug administration; morning (15qdm and 30qodm) and evening (15qde and 30qode). Each patient underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy before entry into the study, after 8 wk of acute therapy, and after 6 months of maintenance therapy; 24-h esophageal-gastric pH monitoring was performed at baseline and during the last week of maintenance therapy. RESULTS: At the end of the maintenance period the recurrence of esophagitis was observed in 12.1% of group 15qd patients and in 19.0% of group 30qod patients, without significant differences between the two groups. The frequency of patients without reflux symptoms after the 6-month period was the same for both groups; however, a significant increase of heartburn was observed in group 30qod patients (from 12.1% to 28.6%, p = 0.007). The time of drug administration (morning and evening) had no influence on the outcome of treatment. Both regimens significantly reduced esophageal acid exposure time and increased the median 24-h gastric pH. CONCLUSIONS: Both long term lansoprazole regimens are equally effective in preventing the recurrence of esophagitis, independent of the modality of drug administration. The daily administration seems to have a better effect on the prevention of symptom recurrence.