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.     

Efficacy and safety of esomeprazole compared with omeprazole in GERD patients with erosive esophagitis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: In patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), esomeprazole, the S-isomer of omeprazole, has demonstrated pharmacological and clinical benefits beyond those seen with the racemic parent compound. This study was designed to further evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of esomeprazole relative to that of omeprazole in healing erosive esophagitis and resolving accompanying symptoms of GERD. METHODS: Esomeprazole 40 mg was compared with omeprazole 20 mg once daily in 2425 patients with erosive esophagitis (Helicobacter pylori negative by serology) in an 8-wk, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study conducted in 163 centers throughout the US. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with healed esophagitis at wk 8. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients healed at wk 4, resolution of heartburn at wk 4, time to first resolution and sustained resolution of heartburn, and proportion of heartburn-free days and nights. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Significantly more patients were healed with esomeprazole versus omeprazole at wk 8 (93.7% vs 84.2%, p < 0.001; life table estimates, intention-to-treat analysis). Healing rates at wk 4 were 81.7% and 68.7%, respectively. Esomeprazole was superior to omeprazole for all secondary measures and had a similar safety profile. The most common adverse events in both treatment groups were headache, diarrhea, and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole demonstrates significantly greater efficacy than omeprazole in the treatment of GERD patients with erosive esophagitis. The tolerability and safety of esomeprazole are comparable to that of omeprazole. (Am     

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.     

奥美拉唑、泮托拉唑、兰索拉唑和埃索美拉唑对反流性食管炎患者症状缓解的比较研究

目的比较奥美拉唑、泮托拉唑、兰索拉唑和埃索美拉唑对反流性食管炎患者症状缓解之间的差异。方法320例内镜诊断为反流性食管炎患者被随机分为4组,并分别服用奥美拉唑20mg,1次／d,8周;兰索拉唑30mg,1次／d,8周;泮托拉唑40mg,1次／d,8周;埃索美拉唑40mg,1次／d,8周。用six—point scale（0：无,1：轻度,2：轻度-中度,3：中度,4：中度-重度,5：重度）评价服用4种质子泵抑制剂后7天内的烧心和反流症状。结果埃索美拉唑组的平均烧心积分比其他质子泵抑制剂下降更迅速。埃索美拉唑组第1～5天的烧心症状完全消失率明显高于奥美拉唑组（P值分别为0．0054、0．0072、0．0089、0．0107、0．0134）、兰索拉唑组（P值分别为0．0043、0．0034、0．0044、0．0011、0．0052）、泮托拉唑组（P值分别为0．0156、0．0003、0．0005、0,0024、0．0172）。内镜下反流性食管炎愈合率4组之间无明显差异。结论埃索美拉唑比奥美拉唑、兰索拉唑、泮托拉唑更迅速地减轻反流性食管炎患者的烧心和反流症状。     

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 erratum to this article can be found at     

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.     

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.     

Esomeprazole tablet vs omeprazole capsule in treating erosive esophagitis

AIM: Esomeprazole, an oral S-form of omeprazole, has been a greater acid inhibitor over omeprazole in treating acid-related diseases. Only less published data is available to confirm its efficacy for Asian people. Therefore, a perspective, double-blind, randomized comparison of esomeprazole tablets 40 mg (Nexium(?)) vs omeprazole capsules 20 mg (Losec(?)) in treating Chinese subjects with erosive/ulcerative reflux esophagitis (EE) was conducted. METHODS: A total of 48 EE patients were enrolled and randomized into two treatment groups under 8-wk therapy: 25 receiving esomeprazole, while another 23 receiving omeprazole treatment. Finally, 44 completed the whole 8-wk therapy. RESULTS: The difference in healing EE between two groups was 22.7% (72.7% vs 50.0%), not reaching significant value (P = 0.204). The median of the first time needed in relieving heartburn sensation was 1 d for both groups and the remission rates for heartburn on the 1st d after treatment were 77.3% and 65%, respectively (NS). The scores of various reflux relieving symptoms evaluated either by patients or by investigators were not different. Regarding drug safety, 28% of esomeprazole group and 26.1% of omeprazole group reported at least one episode of adverse effects, while constipation and skin dryness were the common side effects in both groups (NS). CONCLUSION: Esomeprazole 40 mg is an effective and safe drug at least comparable to omeprazole in treating Chinese EE patients.     

Symptom-relieving effect of esomeprazole 40 mg daily in patients with heartburn

BACKGROUND: To assess symptom relief in patients with heartburn following treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg daily. METHODS: Patients with heartburn (for > or = 6 months) were assessed in this double-blind, multicenter study. After a 3-day single-blind placebo run-in, 440 patients were randomized to esomeprazole 40 mg o.d., esomeprazole 20 mg b.i.d. or placebo for 14 days. Heartburn symptoms were recorded daily; as insufficient patients had data available from days 13 and 14, analyses included data up to day 12. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was diagnosed by upper GI endoscopy and 24-h pH-monitoring. The primary end-point was total heartburn relief defined as no heartburn symptoms during the preceding 24-h period. RESULTS: 240 patients had erosive esophagitis (EO) and 114 patients had GERD defined by pH-monitoring. Proportions of patients with total heartburn relief increased during the first days of treatment and stabilized after Day 4. Total heartburn relief occurred in 67%-73%, 62%-70%, and 21%-32% of patients in the esomeprazole 40 mg o.d., esomeprazole 20 mg b.i.d., and placebo groups, respectively, between days 6 and 12. Proportions of patients with total heartburn relief were higher in patients with EO (71%-80% of patients from Day 4 onwards) compared to those without EO (52%-67% of patients from Day 4 onwards). Figures for patients diagnosed by pH-monitoring were 65%-73% of those with a positive diagnosis and 51%-58% with a negative diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Esomeprazole 40 mg o.d. treatment produces total heartburn relief in a high proportion of patients with GERD. Once-daily esomeprazole 40 mg dosing is recommended as no advantage was gained by splitting the dose.     

Clinical and endoscopic evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients successfully treated with esomeprazole

BACKGROUND: Esomeprazole, an S-isomer of omeprazole, is the first proton pump inhibitor developed as an optical isomer, and it has shown high healing rates in erosive esophagitis. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of esomeprazole in subjects with erosive esophagitis, according to the Los Angeles classification study design: an open, multi-center clinical study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two hundred and eighteen subjects with reflux esophagitis confirmed by endoscopy were included in an open, multi-center study in Brazil. All of them received esomeprazole 40 mg, once daily, for a 4-week period. Subjects who had unhealed esophagitis by week 4 continued the treatment for another 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the healing rates by weeks 4 and 8. The secondary endpoints were the number of patients with symptom resolution by week 4, the number of days to sustained symptom resolution, number of symptom-free days and nights and safety and tolerability of the drug. RESULTS: Healing rates by weeks 4 and 8 were 82% (confidence interval: 77.4%-87.6%) and 96.1% (confidence interval: 93.5% - 98.8%), respectively. Ninety-nine (99%) of the patients had heartburn resolution by week 2. The most common adverse events were headache (4%), diarrhea (2.6%) and epigastric pain (2.2%). CONCLUSION: For the studied period, esomeprazole was shown to be a safe and well-tolerated drug, providing significant healing rates of mucosal breaks, regardless of LA classification, in patients with erosive esophagitis. Esomeprazole was also shown to be effective in quickly relieving symptoms.     

Selection of patients for successful maintenance treatment of esophagitis with low-dose omeprazole: use of 24-hour gastric pH monitoring

OBJECTIVE: Treating patients with erosive esophagitis and maintaining remission in a cost-effective fashion is a desirable goal in clinical practice. There are no established criteria to identify patients with healed esophagitis who will subsequently remain in remission with low-dose omeprazole therapy. We investigated whether 24-h esophageal-gastric pH monitoring could provide criteria to select patients for low-dose omeprazole maintenance therapy. METHODS: Seventy consecutive symptomatic outpatients with grade 2-3 reflux esophagitis were prospectively investigated. They were treated with 20 mg/day omeprazole for 2 months. Those with healed esophagitis were given alternate-evening 20-mg omeprazole maintenance therapy for 6 months. Clinical evaluation, endoscopy, and 24-h esophageal-gastric pH were done at the end of each treatment period. Results of pH studies of patients in remission were compared with those with endoscopically documented relapse of esophagitis. RESULTS: In 63/70 patient (intention-to-treat, 90%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 83-97%) esophagitis was healed at 2 months. During the 6-month maintenance period esophagitis remain healed in 28 (G1) (40%; 95% CI, 29-52%), but recurred in 32 patients (G2). During healing with omeprazole 20 mg/day the 24-h gastric pH was below 4 for <10% of the time in 96% of the patients, who subsequently remained in long-term remission with low-dose maintenance therapy (G1), but not in any patient with recurrence of esophagitis (G2). The 10% threshold value has a specificity of 1.00 and sensitivity of 0.96. CONCLUSIONS: The 24-h intragastric pH monitoring during 20 mg/day omeprazole therapy provides criteria by which to preselect patients with reflux esophagitis who will remain in remission with low-dose omeprazole therapy.     

Two doses of omeprazole versus placebo in symptomatic erosive esophagitis: the U.S. Multicenter Study.

Two hundred thirty patients with reflux symptoms and endoscopically proven erosive esophagitis were enrolled from 15 U.S. centers into a randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging study comparing placebo with omeprazole, 20 or 40 mg given once daily in the morning. Esophagitis grade 2 was present in 44% of patients, grade 3 in 37% of patients, and grade 4 in 19% of patients. Endpoints, defined as complete relief of heartburn and complete esophageal mucosal healing, were assessed after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. Both omeprazole doses were significantly superior to placebo in complete endoscopic healing. After 8 weeks of treatment, 73.5% of patients in the 20-mg omeprazole group and 74.7% in the 40-mg omeprazole group, compared with 14.0% in the placebo group, had complete healing of the esophageal mucosa. At the end of the study, complete relief of daytime heartburn was obtained in 79.5% of patients in the 20-mg omeprazole group, 81.6% in the 40-mg omeprazole group, and 37.2% in the placebo group (P less than or equal to 0.05). Complete relief of nighttime heartburn was noted by 79.5% of patients in the 20-mg omeprazole group, 85.1% in the 40-mg omeprazole group, and 34.9% in the placebo group (P less than or equal to 0.05). The median time to complete relief of daytime and nighttime heartburn occurred earlier in the 40-mg group than in the 20-mg group (9 vs. 17 days and 9 vs. 20 days, respectively); however, these differences were not statistically significant. Relief of acid regurgitation and dysphagia also occurred earlier in the 40-mg group. Omeprazole was well tolerated in this group of patients. No unexpected adverse experiences occurred. The results of this study confirm those of six multicenter, international trials in which omeprazole in doses of 20-60 mg provided a degree of esophageal mucosal healing and complete relief of reflux symptoms superior to any other medical treatment.     

Comparing lansoprazole and omeprazole in onset of heartburn relief: results of a randomized, controlled trial in erosive esophagitis patients

OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter study was conducted to confirm a previous finding that lansoprazole relieves heartburn faster than omeprazole in patients with erosive esophagitis. METHODS: A total of 3510 patients with erosive esophagitis and at least one episode of moderate to very severe daytime and/or nighttime heartburn during the 3 days immediately before the screening visit were randomized to lansoprazole 30 mg once daily or omeprazole 20 mg once daily for 8 wk. Patients recorded the presence and severity of daytime and nighttime heartburn in daily diaries. On treatment days 1-4, patients were telephoned to confirm the completion of their daily diary. The primary efficacy parameters were the percentage of heartburn-free days and heartburn-free nights, as well as the average severity of daytime and nighttime heartburn. RESULTS: During treatment day I and all evaluation time points including the entire 8-wk treatment period, significantly (p < 0.05) higher percentages of patients treated with lansoprazole than those treated with omeprazole did not experience a single episode of heartburn. Onset of heartburn relief was more rapid in lansoprazole-treated versus omeprazole-treated patients: on day 1, 33% versus 25% of lansoprazole- versus omeprazole-treated patients were heartburn-free. The percentages of heartburn-free days and heartburn-free nights were also significantly (p < 0.01) greater for patients treated with lansoprazole at all evaluation time points. Heartburn severity was significantly less among those treated with lansoprazole compared with omeprazole. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Over 8 wk, lansoprazole 30 mg once daily relieved heartburn symptoms faster and more effectively than omeprazole 20 mg once daily in patients with erosive esophagitis.     

Esomeprazole magnesium (Nexium)

Esomeprazole, the S-isomer of omeprazole, is a new proton pump inhibitor. Esomeprazole provides better control of intragastric pH than omeprazole. It is more effective in treating erosive esophagitis in patients with GERD than omeprazole. Esomeprazole can maintain the healing of erosive esophagitis when used daily or on demand. It is also effective for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori infections. The incidence and type of adverse events associated with esomeprazole therapy are infrequent and likely to be similar to omeprazole.     

Healing and relapse of severe peptic esophagitis after treatment with omeprazole

We have studied the response of erosive or ulcerative esophagitis to treatment with omeprazole and its subsequent relapse on cessation of therapy in 196 patients. In the first phase of the study omeprazole (20 or 40 mg daily) was compared with placebo in 64 patients. After 4 wk there was endoscopic healing in 81% (25 of 31) of omeprazole-treated patients and in only 6% (2 of 32) of placebo-treated patients. Endoscopic healing of esophagitis was accompanied by symptom relief and histologic healing of ulceration. In the second (dose finding) phase a further 132 patients were randomized to omeprazole (20 or 40 mg daily) and endoscopic healing was assessed. In patients with the mildest grade of ulcerative esophagitis (grade 2), healing occurred at 4 wk in 87% receiving 20 mg and in 97% receiving 40 mg. In patients with grade 3 esophagitis, 67% (20 mg) and 88% (40 mg) were healed. Less than half the patients with grade 4 esophagitis (Barrett's ulcers or confluent ulceration) healed with either 20 mg (48%) or 40 mg (44%). Regression analysis in the 164 omeprazole-treated patients showed no evidence that healing was influenced by factors other than severity of esophagitis at entry and omeprazole dose. In phase 3 of the study the rate of endoscopic relapse was determined in 107 endoscopically healed patients after stopping omeprazole. Erosive or ulcerative esophagitis recurred in 88 of 107 (82%) by 6 mo. Neither initial dose, grade of esophagitis, nor smoking was shown to influence relapse rate. Omeprazole is a highly effective treatment for peptic esophagitis. The 40-mg/day dosage produces endoscopic healing slightly more quickly than the 20-mg/day dosage, and the initial endoscopic gradings are of prognostic value. Relapse occurs rapidly when treatment is stopped.     

Esomeprazole 40 mg and 20 mg is efficacious in the long-term management of patients with endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a placebo-controlled trial of on-demand therapy for 6 months

BACKGROUND: On-demand therapy may offer an effective approach to the long-term management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) without oesophagitis. AIM: To examine the efficacy of the novel proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole as on-demand therapy in endoscopy-negative GORD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Endoscopy-negative GORD patients who achieved complete resolution of heartburn after short-term esomeprazole or omeprazole treatment (n = 721) were randomized to esomeprazole 20 mg (n = 282), 40 mg (n = 293) or placebo (n = 146) on demand (maximum one dose/day) for 6 months. The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were time to study discontinuation due to (i) unwillingness to continue and (ii) inadequate control of heartburn, respectively. RESULTS: Both doses of esomeprazole were more effective than placebo. During the 6-month period, 42% of placebo recipients discontinued treatment due to unwillingness to continue, compared with 8% and 11% of esomeprazole 20 mg and 40 mg recipients, respectively. Overall, more patients treated with esomeprazole were free from gastrointestinal symptoms after 6 months of on-demand therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole 20 mg was superior to placebo for on-demand treatment of GORD; a higher dose did not confer additional clinical benefit. Over 90% of patients were willing to continue on-demand treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg over a 6-month period.     

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.     

Effect of esomeprazole on nighttime heartburn and sleep quality in patients with GERD: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: Sleep disturbances are common in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This study examined the effects of esomeprazole on nighttime heartburn, GERD-related sleep disturbances, sleep quality, work productivity, and regular activities. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included adults with GERD-associated sleep disturbances and moderate-to-severe nighttime heartburn (recorded by patient diary during screening). Patients received oral esomeprazole 40 mg (n = 220) or 20 mg (n = 226) or placebo (n = 229) once daily for 4 wk. The primary outcome was relief of nighttime heartburn. Secondary outcomes included resolution of sleep disturbances, sleep quality measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) questionnaire, and work productivity measured by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. RESULTS: Nighttime heartburn was relieved in 53.1% (111/209), 50.5% (111/220), and 12.7% (28/221) of patients who received esomeprazole 40 mg, esomeprazole 20 mg, and placebo, respectively. Differences (95% CI) versus placebo were 40.5% (32.4%, 48.5%) and 37.8% (29.9%, 45.7%) and were highly significant (p < 0.0001). GERD-related sleep disturbances resolved in significantly more (p < 0.0001) patients who received esomeprazole 40 (73.7%) or 20 mg (73.2%) than in those who received placebo (41.2%). Both esomeprazole groups had greater PSQI global score changes from baseline (p < 0.0001 vs placebo) and more (p < 0.0001 vs placebo) work hours saved per week per patient compared with baseline (esomeprazole 40 mg, 11.6 h; esomeprazole 20 mg, 12.3 h; placebo, 6.2 h). CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole reduced nighttime heartburn and GERD-related sleep disturbances and improved sleep quality and work productivity.     

Efficacy of omeprazole for the treatment of symptomatic acid reflux disease without esophagitis

BACKGROUND: Up to three quarters of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) have symptoms, such as heartburn, but no macroscopic evidence of erosive esophagitis, making symptomatic GERD a common clinical problem in the primary care setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of omeprazole, 20 mg once daily; omeprazole, 10 mg once daily; and placebo in the treatment of symptomatic GERD without erosive esophagitis. METHODS: Patients with a history of heartburn (> or =12 months) and episodes of moderate to severe heartburn on 4 or more of the 7 days before endoscopy were eligible to participate in this 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The absence of erosive esophagitis was established through endoscopy. Eligible patients were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: omeprazole, 20 mg once daily; omeprazole, 10 mg once daily; or placebo. Patients were assessed at weeks 2 and 4. The efficacy of omeprazole for the treatment of heartburn was determined mainly through the following diary card data: daily resolution of heartburn and complete resolution of heartburn every day during 1 week of treatment. The efficacy of omeprazole for the treatment of acid regurgitation, dysphagia, epigastric pain, and nausea was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 359 randomized patients, 355 were included in the statistical analysis (intention-to-treat population). Daily proportions of patients with no heartburn were consistently greater in the 20-mg omeprazole group (62%, day 7; 74%, day 27) than in the 10-mg omeprazole group (41%, day 7; 49%, day 27) or the placebo group (14%, day 7; 23%; day 27). Complete resolution of heartburn every day during the last treatment week was significantly (P< or =.002) higher in the 20-mg omeprazole group (48%) than in the 10-mg omeprazole (27%) or placebo (5%) group. Omeprazole was significantly (P< or =.003) more effective than placebo for the treatment of acid regurgitation, dysphagia, epigastric pain, and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with symptomatic GERD require profound acid suppression to achieve symptomatic relief. Omeprazole, 20 mg once daily, was superior to omeprazole, 10 mg once daily, and to placebo in providing early and sustained resolution of heartburn, as well as treatment of other troublesome GERD symptoms.     

Esomeprazole 40 mg administered intravenously has similar safety and efficacy profiles to the oral formulation in patients with erosive esophagitis

BACKGROUND/AIMS: An intravenous formulation of esomeprazole has been developed for use in patients where oral administration is not appropriate. This study evaluated safety after 1 and 4 weeks, and efficacy after 4 weeks' esomeprazole 40 mg once daily treatment, administered via an intravenous injection, intravenous infusion or orally, in patients with erosive esophagitis. METHODS: In this double-blind, multi-centre study, patients with endoscopically confirmed erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles grade A-D) were randomized to receive 1 week's treatment of esomeprazole 40 mg once daily, via a 3-min injection, a 30-min infusion or orally, followed by 3 weeks of open treatment with oral esomeprazole 40 mg once daily. Safety variables were evaluated following 1 and 4 weeks' esomeprazole treatment. Healing rates at 4 weeks were estimated. RESULTS: Intravenous and oral esomeprazole were equally well tolerated during the first week, and after 4 weeks' treatment. The 3 treatment groups showed similar levels of healing following 4 weeks' treatment with esomeprazole (injection + oral: 79.7%; infusion + oral: 80.2%; oral alone: 82.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole 40 mg administered via an intravenous injection, intravenous infusion or orally administered for 1 week, followed by 3 weeks of oral dosing, is well tolerated and provides effective healing of erosive esophagitis.