埃索美拉唑与奥美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎及治愈后维持的成本-效果分析

目的研究埃索美拉唑与奥美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎及治愈后维持的成本-效果。方法挑选2010年2月~2015年4月期间治疗的150例反流性食管炎患者,随机分成两组,每组各75例,第一组患者接受埃索美拉唑进行治疗,第二组患者接受奥美拉唑进行治疗,在患者治愈后,第一组患者进行维持治疗的患者称为第三组,第二组患者进行维持治疗的患者称为第四组,分别计算埃索美拉唑与奥美拉唑治愈后的成本-效果,进行比较。结果埃索美拉唑在治疗期及维持期的成本-效果均高于奥美拉唑,差异存在统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论奥美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎疗效好,经济实惠。     

埃索美拉唑与奥美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎的临床对比

目的研究埃索美拉唑与奥美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎临床效果。方法根据随机数字表方法进行74例2016年2月至2017年4月收取的反流性食管炎患者分组。对照组采用奥美拉唑进行治疗,观察组采用埃索美拉唑进行治疗。就两组患者治疗前后症状积分、生活质量和反流性食管炎治疗总有效率、用药不良反应发生率进行比较。结果观察组反流性食管炎治疗总有效率明显高于对照组,P<0.05。观察组用药不良反应发生率明显低于对照组,P<0.05。治疗前两组症状积分、生活质量无显著差异,P>0.05。观察组患者治疗后症状积分、生活质量均明显优于对照组,P<0.05。结论埃索美拉唑与奥美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎临床对比,埃索美拉唑的效果更好,安全性更高,可更好改善临床症状和提升患者生活质量。     

埃索美拉唑与奥美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎临床对比

目的：对比埃索美拉唑与奥美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎临床效果。方法选取2012年10月～2013年10月收治的反流性食管炎患者56例,随机分为两组,每组28例,对照组予奥美拉唑治疗,试验组服用埃索美拉唑予以治疗,对比两组患者治疗效果。结果经治疗后,试验组患者治疗效果明显优于对照组,两组间比较差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论针对反流性食管炎患者,以埃索美拉唑作为主要治疗手段,可提高临床疗效。     

莫沙必利与埃索美拉唑或奥美拉唑联用在反流性食管炎中的疗效比较

目的观察莫沙必利联合埃索美拉唑、奥美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎的临床疗效。方法选取116例反流性食管炎患者随机分为埃索美拉唑组和奥美拉唑组,每组58例。2组患者均给予常规治疗和莫沙必利治疗,埃索美拉唑组在此基础上服用埃索美拉唑,奥美拉唑组服用奥美拉唑,2个疗程后比较2组患者的临床疗效和不良反应发生情况。结果埃索美拉唑组的治愈率为58.62%,总有效率为94.83%;奥美拉唑组治愈率为51.72%,总有效率为84.48%,2组治愈率和总有效率比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);埃索美拉唑组发生不良反应的患者有2例(3.45%),奥美拉唑组发生不良反应的患者有6例(10.34%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论采用莫沙必利与埃索美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎的临床效果优于莫沙必利与奥美拉唑联用,且不良反应发生率较低。     

两种质子泵抑制剂在反流性食管炎中的成本效果观察

目的观察观察两种质子泵抑制剂(埃索美拉唑和奥美拉唑)在反流性食管炎中的药物经济学差异。方法 80例反流性食管炎患者(均符合诊断标准)均有不同程度的反酸、烧灼感等症状,经临床相关影像学检查证实,上述患者均为2013年11月至2014年11月期间门诊收治病例。80例患者随机分为观察组和对照组。观察组和对照组分别给予奥美拉唑和埃索美拉唑治疗。分析治疗效果和成本效果。结果观察组总有效率和对照组近似,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组和对照组的成本分别为奥美拉唑(20 mg×14片/盒,价格:1.49元/盒。)和埃索美拉唑(40 mg×7片/盒,价格110元/盒。)的费用。观察组成本为5.96元;对照组成本为440元。观察组的成本效果=5.96/0.94=6.34;对照组的成本效果=440/0.95=463.1。观察组成本效果低于对照组。结论奥美拉唑和埃索美拉唑均对反流性食管炎有良好治疗效果,但奥美拉唑的成功效果低于埃索美拉唑,奥美拉唑适合用于经济状况较差患者。     

埃索美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎的效果

目的：分析埃索美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎的临床效果及不良反应。方法选取70例反流性食管炎患者作为研究对象,按照给药方式分为治疗组37例和对照组33例,对照组患者服用奥美拉唑,治疗组患者服用埃索美拉唑,分析两组的治疗效果。结果治疗组总有效率明显高于对照组（P＜0.05）,治疗后的症状评分明显低于对照组（P＜0.05）,两组不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论埃索美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎的效果显著,安全有效,可作为治疗反流性食管炎的理想药物。     

埃索美拉唑与泮托拉唑对反流性食管炎患者症状缓解效果的对比分析

目的:探讨埃索美拉唑与泮托拉唑对反流性食管炎患者症状缓解的效果.方法 :选取2015年1月—2015年12月我院收治的反流性食管炎患者118例,以随机分组方式分为埃索美拉唑组60例(予埃索美拉唑治疗),泮托拉唑组58例(予泮托拉唑治疗),采用反流性食管炎症状积分量表作为评价工具,观察两组的疗效及不良反应发生情况.结果 :治疗前及治疗后1、5、6 d,两组反流性食管炎症状积分基本相同(P>0.05).治疗后2、3、4 d,埃索美拉唑组反流性食管炎症状积分均低于泮托拉唑组(P<0.05).两组均未见药物不良反应(P>0.05).结论 :埃索美拉唑和泮托拉唑均有效缓解反流性食管炎症状,且具有良好耐受性,而埃索美拉唑缓解反流性食管炎症状较泮托拉唑更为迅速.     

埃索美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎80例

目的了解埃索美拉唑对反流性食管炎的疗效与安全性。方法选择内镜确诊的反流性食管炎160例，随机分为治疗组和对照组各80例。治疗组给予埃索美拉唑，对照组给予奥美拉唑，用法均为40 mg·d^-1，po，4周后均改为维持治疗，20 mg·d^-1，8周为1个疗程。疗程结束后做内镜复查。结果治疗组症状明显减轻，内镜改善上效果均优于对照组，第8周治愈率分别为90.0%与85.0%。结论埃索美拉唑是反流性食管炎一线治疗药物。     

埃索美拉唑与奥美拉唑在治疗反流性食管炎中的临床药效研究

目的:研究分析对反流性食管炎分别采用药物埃索美拉唑与奥美拉唑的临床治疗价值.方法:自我院2014年12月～2016年12月收治的反流性食管炎患者中随机抽取50例,给予埃索美拉唑治疗;另抽取同期患者50例给予奥美拉唑治疗.观察比对两组临床治疗有效性与安全性.结果:两组治疗前反酸、胸骨后疼痛以及吞咽困难等症状评分无显著差异.用药治疗后,埃索美拉唑组优于奥美拉唑组,差异具有显著统计学意义(P<0.05,t=4.173).埃索美拉唑组总有效49例,总有效率为98.0％;奥美拉唑组总有效39例,总有效率为78.0％.组间差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05,X2=4.933).两组用药不良反应差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论:对于反流性食管炎,埃索美拉唑临床治疗有效性更优.     

两种不同质子泵抑制剂在反流性食管炎中的成本效果观察

目的 探讨两种不同质子泵抑制剂在反流性食管炎中的成本效果.方法 选择本院80例反流性食管炎患者,上述患者随机分为观察组和对照组.观察组患者给予埃索美拉唑,对照患者给予雷贝拉唑治疗.治疗后评定成本效果.结果 观察组患者显效率和有效率之和与对照组比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.对照组患者的成本为233×12=2769元.观察组患者的成本为176×12=2112元.对照组的成本效果之比为2769/0.925=2993.5;观察组的成本与效果之比为2112/0.95=2223.1.观察组患者和对照组同样活动一个效果单位,观察组所需费用低于对照组.结论 埃索美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎的临床效果显著,其用药成本低于雷贝拉唑,埃索美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎的治疗方案值得临床借鉴.     

Clinical trial: factors associated with freedom from relapse of heartburn in patients with healed reflux oesophagitis - results from the maintenance phase of the EXPO study

Background  A bility to predict freedom from heartburn relapse during maintenance therapy for healed reflux oesophagitis may facilitate optimal treatment choices for individual patients.
Aim  To determine factors predicting freedom from heartburn relapse during maintenance proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with healed reflux oesophagitis.
Methods  This post-hoc analysis used data from the maintenance phase of the EXPO study (AstraZeneca study code: SH-NEG-0008); 2766 patients with healed reflux oesophagitis and resolved heartburn received once-daily esomeprazole 20 mg or pantoprazole 20 mg for 6 months. Multiple logistic regression analysis determined factors associated with freedom from heartburn relapse.
Results  Heartburn relapse rates were lower with esomeprazole than pantoprazole in all subgroups analysed. Esomeprazole treatment was the factor most strongly associated with freedom from heartburn relapse (odds ratio 2.08; P  <   0.0001). Other factors significantly associated with freedom from heartburn relapse were Helicobacter pylori infection, greater age, non-obesity, absence of epigastric pain at baseline, pre-treatment nonsevere heartburn and GERD symptom duration ≤5 years.
Conclusions  Several factors predict freedom from heartburn relapse during maintenance proton pump inhibitor therapy for healed reflux oesophagitis, the strongest being choice of proton pump inhibitor. These findings outline the importance of optimizing acid control and identifying predictors of relapse for effective long-term symptom management in reflux oesophagitis patients.     

Esomeprazole 20 mg vs. pantoprazole 20 mg for maintenance therapy of healed erosive oesophagitis: results from the EXPO study

BACKGROUND: Following initial healing of erosive oesophagitis, most patients require maintenance therapy to prevent relapse. AIM: To compare endoscopic and symptomatic remission rates over 6 months' maintenance therapy with esomeprazole or pantoprazole (both 20 mg once daily) in patients with healed erosive oesophagitis. METHODS: Patients with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and endoscopically confirmed erosive oesophagitis at baseline were randomized to receive esomeprazole 40 mg or pantoprazole 40 mg for up to 8 weeks. Patients with healed erosive oesophagitis and free of moderate/severe heartburn and acid regurgitation at 4 weeks or, if necessary, 8 weeks entered the 6-month maintenance therapy phase of the study. RESULTS: A total of 2766 patients (63% men; mean age 50 years) received esomeprazole 20 mg (n = 1377) or pantoprazole 20 mg (n = 1389) and comprised the intention-to-treat population. Following 6 months of treatment, the proportion of patients in endoscopic and symptomatic remission was significantly greater for those receiving esomeprazole 20 mg (87.0%) than pantoprazole 20 mg (74.9%, log-rank test P < 0.0001). Esomeprazole 20 mg produced a higher proportion of patients free of moderate to severe gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms and fewer discontinuations because of symptoms than pantoprazole 20 mg (92.2% vs. 88.5%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole 20 mg is more effective than pantoprazole 20 mg for maintenance therapy following initial healing of erosive oesophagitis and relief of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms.     

Esomeprazole 20 mg and lansoprazole 15 mg in maintaining healed reflux oesophagitis: Metropole study results

AIM: To compare the efficacy of esomeprazole, 20 mg once daily, vs. lansoprazole, 15 mg once daily, for the maintenance treatment of patients with healed reflux oesophagitis. METHODS: During the initial open healing phase, 1391 patients with endoscopically verified reflux oesophagitis and a history of heartburn, with or without acid regurgitation, received esomeprazole 40 mg for 4-8 weeks. Patients who were healed (identified by endoscopy at 4 or 8 weeks) and symptom free were then randomized to receive 6 months of treatment with esomeprazole, 20 mg once daily, or lansoprazole, 15 mg once daily. RESULTS: Esomeprazole, 20 mg once daily, maintained a significantly higher proportion of patients in remission than lansoprazole, 15 mg once daily, over 6 months [83% (95% CI, 80-86%) of esomeprazole recipients compared with 74% (95% CI, 70-78%) of lansoprazole recipients; P < 0.0001; life table estimates]. When data were analysed according to baseline Los Angeles grade classification, esomeprazole, 20 mg once daily, achieved consistently higher remission rates across all grades of disease severity, whereas the efficacy of lansoprazole decreased to a greater extent with increasing severity of reflux oesophagitis. CONCLUSION: Esomeprazole, 20 mg once daily, is more effective than lansoprazole, 15 mg once daily, in maintaining remission in patients with healed reflux oesophagitis.     

Review of esomeprazole in the treatment of acid disorders

Esomeprazole (Nexium, AstraZeneca) is the (S)-isomer of omeprazole and the first proton pump inhibitor to be developed as an optical isomer. Esomeprazole has an improved pharmacokinetic profile, resulting in increased systemic exposure and less interindividual variability compared with omeprazole, and more effective suppression of gastric acid production compared with other proton pump inhibitors. In several large, double-blind, randomised trials, significantly higher rates of endoscopically-confirmed healing of erosive oesophagitis and resolution of heartburn have been achieved in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease receiving 8 weeks of esomeprazole 40 mg o.d. compared with those receiving omeprazole 20 mg o.d. or lansoprazole 30 mg o.d. In the maintenance of healed erosive oesophagitis, esomeprazole 10, 20 or 40 mg o.d. was significantly more effective than placebo in two 6-month, randomised, double-blind trials. Additionally, esomeprazole 20 mg o.d. was more effective than lansoprazole 15 mg in the maintenance of healed erosive oesophagitis in another 6-month, randomised, double-blind trial. Healing of oesophagitis was also effectively maintained by esomeprazole 40 mg o.d. in a 12-month non-comparative trial. Esomeprazole 20 or 40 mg o.d. effectively relieved heartburn in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease without oesophagitis in two 4-week, placebo-controlled trials. Clinical trials have shown that triple therapy with esomeprazole 40 mg o.d. in combination with amoxicillin and clarithromycin produced Helicobacter pylori eradication rates similar to those obtained using triple therapy involving twice-daily dosing with other proton pump inhibitors. Esomeprazole is well-tolerated, with a spectrum and incidence of adverse events similar to those associated with omeprazole.     

Omeprazole: a pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in duodenal ulcer and reflux oesophagitis

Omeprazole regulates gastric acid secretion and is an effective treatment of acute duodenal ulcer and reflux oesophagitis, achieving more rapid healing and symptomatic relief than histamine H 2-receptor antagonists. When administered as maintenance therapy, omeprazole reduces the incidence of relapse. The drug is also highly effective in patients poorly responsive to histamine H 2-receptor antagonists. The daily acquisition cost of omeprazole is higher than that of histamine H 2-receptor antagonists in many countries, and thus it is important to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic impact of omeprazole in the short and long term treatment of duodenal ulcer and reflux oesophagitis. Pharmacoeconomic analyses have been performed in several clinical settings using pooled data from clinical trials or simulated models of clinical practice. In a single analysis using Finnish cost data, omeprazole was more cost effective than ranitidine in the treatment of duodenal ulcer disease over a 6-month period. The cost effectiveness of omeprazole was comparable to that of sucralfate-containing regimens, with patients receiving omeprazole being healed more quickly and experiencing a greater number of healthy days. Using a computer-model simulation and Swedish cost data, omeprazole was more cost effective than ranitidine when administered as intermittent treatment of duodenal ulcer over 5 years. Preliminary reports indicate that regimens which eradicate Helicobacter pylori are more cost effective than those which do not. As short term treatment of reflux oesophagitis, omeprazole 20 to 40 mg/day was the dominating treatment strategy, being less costly and more effective than ranitidine 300 to 1200 mg/day. Omeprazole 20 mg/day produced symptom-free days more cost effectively than either cimetidine 1.6 g/day or ranitidine 300 mg/day. More importantly, as long term (maintenance or intermittent) treatment of reflux oesophagitis, omeprazole 20 mg/day was more cost effective than both ranitidine 150 mg twice daily and 'phase 1' therapy (diet and antacids) over 6 and 12 months. Thus, based on analyses evaluated, omeprazole appears to be more cost effective than ranitidine in the short term treatment of duodenal ulcer. Results for long term treatment are less clear cut, but full details from some studies are not yet available. For the short term treatment of reflux oesophagitis omeprazole is more cost effective than ranitidine or cimetidine and for long term treatment omeprazole is more cost effective than ranitidine. As treatment for reflux oesophagitis, omeprazole is considered to be the dominating treatment strategy.     

Cost effectiveness of esomeprazole compared with omeprazole in the acute treatment of patients with reflux oesophagitis in the UK

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies have demonstrated that esomeprazole is superior to omeprazole for the acute treatment of reflux oesophagitis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of esomeprazole 40mg once daily with omeprazole 20mg once daily in patients with reflux oesophagitis. METHODS: Pooled data were used from three 8-week clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of esomeprazole 40mg once daily and omeprazole 20mg once daily for the acute treatment of reflux oesophagitis. A simple decision analysis model, using UK direct medical costs, compared the cost effectiveness of the two treatments. Healing probabilities derived from the clinical studies using the Life Table method were used to estimate the effectiveness and cost of treating 100 patients with reflux oesophagitis. Patient management assumptions were based on a clinical management survey involving 25 UK physicians. PERSPECTIVE: UK National Health Service. RESULTS: After 4 weeks' therapy, the Life Table estimated the oesophageal healing rate to be 77.7% in esomeprazole 40mg once-daily recipients (n = 2446), compared with 67.6% in omeprazole 20mg once-daily recipients (n = 2431; p < 0.001). The corresponding values after 8 weeks' treatment were 93.4% and 86.2%, respectively (p < 0.001). The model predicted that when considering healing probabilities over 8 weeks, esomeprazole 40mg once daily produced total direct cost savings of pound1290 (14%) when compared with omeprazole 20mg once daily. When considering the cost of treating patients who had failed treatment (defined as patient not healed as assessed by endoscopy) after 8 weeks, the cost advantage for esomeprazole was even greater. CONCLUSION: Esomeprazole 40mg once daily is cost effective compared with omeprazole 20mg once daily in the acute treatment of patients with reflux oesophagitis; esomeprazole provides greater effectiveness at a lower cost.     

The new proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole is effective as a maintenance therapy in GERD patients with healed erosive oesophagitis: a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND: Esomeprazole, the S-isomer of omeprazole, is the first proton pump inhibitor to be developed as an optical isomer. In patients with erosive oesophagitis, esomeprazole has produced significantly greater healing rates and improved symptom resolution vs. omeprazole. AIM: This study assesses the efficacy of esomeprazole for preventing relapse in patients with healed oesophagitis. METHODS: In this 6-month US multicentre randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, 375 Helicobacter pylori-negative patients with endoscopically healed oesophagitis received esomeprazole 40 mg, 20 mg, 10 mg, or placebo once daily. The primary efficacy end-point was maintenance of healing at 6 months. Secondary end-points assessed changes in symptoms, and long-term safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Significantly (P < 0.001) more patients remained healed with esomeprazole 40 mg (87.9%), 20 mg (78.7%), or 10 mg (54.2%), than with placebo (29.1%). Relapse, when it occurred, was later with esomeprazole. Sustained resolution of heartburn was observed in the 40 mg and 20 mg groups; there was a high correlation between absence of heartburn and maintenance of healing. Adverse effects were mild, infrequent and not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole is effective and well-tolerated in the maintenance of healing of erosive oesophagitis. Esomeprazole 40 mg and 20 mg offer significant clinical benefit to patients.     

Clinical trial: factors associated with resolution of heartburn in patients with reflux oesophagitis – results from the EXPO study

Background The ability to predict symptom response to reflux oesophagitis‐healing therapy may optimize treatment decisions. Aim To identify factors associated with heartburn resolution in patients receiving acid‐suppressive therapy for reflux oesophagitis. Methods In this multicentre, randomized, double‐blind trial (EXPO; AstraZeneca study code: SH‐NEG‐0008), patients with endoscopically confirmed reflux oesophagitis and reflux symptoms received once‐daily proton pump inhibitor therapy [esomeprazole 40 mg (n = 1562) or pantoprazole 40 mg (n = 1589)] for ≥4 weeks. Factors associated with heartburn resolution after 4 weeks were identified by multiple logistic regression analysis. Results Esomeprazole therapy, positive Helicobacter pylori status and greater age were associated with an increased likelihood of heartburn resolution [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.31 (1.12, 1.54), 1.44 (1.19, 1.74) and 1.013 (1.007, 1.019) per year, respectively; all P < 0.001]. Men and patients with no acid regurgitation or epigastric pain pre‐treatment were also more likely to achieve heartburn resolution (all P < 0.05). Conclusions The use of esomeprazole rather than pantoprazole increases the probability of achieving resolution of heartburn during reflux oesophagitis‐healing therapy. Other factors, including H. pylori status, age, gender and symptom profile may be helpful in determining the likelihood of heartburn resolution in such patients.     

埃索美拉唑与奥美拉唑预防性治疗脑血管意外并发应激性溃疡的疗效观察

目的评价埃索美拉唑和奥美拉唑预防性治疗脑血管意外并发应激性溃疡的疗效。方法随机将180例患者分为埃索美拉唑组、奥美拉唑组和对照组,在分别治疗7d后,评价三组应激性溃疡发生的情况。结果埃索美拉唑和奥美拉唑均可有效预防应激性溃疡的发生,且埃索美拉唑组疗效显著高于奥美拉唑组（P〈0.05）。结论埃索美拉唑预防性治疗脑血管意外并发应激性溃疡疗效确切,无明显不良反应,且疗效明显优于奥美拉唑。     

Esomeprazole: a review of its use in the management of acid-related disorders in the US

Esomeprazole, the S-isomer of omeprazole, is the first proton pump inhibitor to be developed as a single optical isomer. It provides better acid control than current racemic proton pump inhibitors and has a favourable pharmacokinetic profile relative to omeprazole. In large well designed 8-week trials in patients with erosive oesophagitis, esomeprazole recipients achieved significantly higher rates of endoscopically confirmed healed oesophagitis than those receiving omeprazole or lansoprazole. Esomeprazole was effective across all baseline grades of oesophagitis; notably, relative to lansoprazole, as the baseline severity of disease increased, the difference in rates of healed oesophagitis also increased in favour of esomeprazole. In two trials, 94% of patients receiving esomeprazole 40mg once daily achieved healed oesophagitis versus 84 to 87% of omeprazole recipients (20mg once daily). In a study in >5000 patients, respective healed oesophagitis rates with once-daily esomeprazole 40mg or lansoprazole 30mg were 92.6 and 88.8%. Resolution of heartburn was also significantly better with esomeprazole than with these racemic proton pump inhibitors. Long-term (up to 12 months) therapy with esomeprazole effectively maintained healed oesophagitis in these patients. Esomeprazole 20 or 40mg once daily for 4 weeks proved effective in patients with symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) without oesophagitis. Eradicating Helicobacter pylori infection is considered pivotal to successfully managing duodenal ulcer disease. Ten days' triple therapy (esomeprazole 40mg once daily, plus twice-daily amoxicillin 1g and clarithromycin 500mg) eradicated H. pylori in 77 to 78% of patients (intention-to-treat) with endoscopically confirmed duodenal ulcer disease. Esomeprazole is generally well tolerated, both as monotherapy and in combination with antimicrobial agents. The tolerability profile is similar to that of other proton pump inhibitors. Few patients discontinued therapy because of treatment-emergent adverse events (<3% of patients) and very few (<1%) drug-related serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole is an effective and well tolerated treatment for managing GORD and for eradicating H. pylori infection in patients with duodenal ulcer disease. In 8-week double-blind trials, esomeprazole effectively healed oesophagitis and resolved symptoms in patients with endoscopically confirmed erosive oesophagitis. Notably, in large (n >1900 patients) double-blind trials, esomeprazole provided significantly better efficacy than omeprazole or lansoprazole in terms of both healing rates and resolution of symptoms. Long-term therapy with esomeprazole effectively maintained healed oesophagitis in these patients. Esomeprazole was also effective in patients with symptomatic GORD. Thus, esomeprazole has emerged as an effective option for first-line therapy in the management of acid-related disorders.