A Pilot Study of Efficacy and Safety of Continuous Intravenous Infusion of Pantoprazole in the Treatment of Severe Erosive Esophagitis

Background and objectives Reflux esophagitis is a common disease. Erosive reflux esophagitis is a more advanced stage of reflux esophagitis. Although death from reflux disease is uncommon, significant morbidity and mortality from complications, such as esophageal ulcer, stricture, and cancer, are not uncommon. Proton pump inhibitors are the popular medication for reflux esophagitis. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of continuous intravenous infusion of pantoprazole in the treatment of severe erosive esophagitis. Methods From February 2005 to November 2006, all patients with grade 4 erosive reflux esophagitis were screened for the study. Eligible patients were randomized into two groups. Each patient in the study group received intravenous pantoprazole 80 mg loading dose over 5 min, followed by 8 mg/h intravenous infusion for 72 h, then 40 mg orally once a day for 4 days. Each patient in the control group received 40 mg pantoprazole intravenously once a day for 72 h, then orally once a day for 4 days. A second endoscopic gastrointestinal examination (EGD) was performed on treatment days 6–8 (±1 day if day 7 was on a weekend) to document any healing of esophagitis in either the study or the control group. Results In the study group, severe erosive esophagitis healed completely in three patients and significantly in the other three by the time of the second endoscopy. In the control group, severe erosive esophagitis healed partially in five patients, and no improvement was seen at all in one patient by the time of second endoscopy. The difference in the intervention between those two groups was statistically different (P = 0.015). There were no significant complications in either group. Conclusions Severe erosive esophagitis can be completely healed in a few days if pantoprazole is given intravenously and continuously for 72 h. It is safe to give pantoprazole intravenously and continuously for treatment of severe erosive esophagitis.     

Asthma and gastroesophageal reflux disease： Effect of long-term pantoprazole therapy

AIM: To define the prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in mild persistent asthma and to value the effect of pantoprazole therapy on asthmatic symptoms. METHODS: Seven of thirty-four asthmatic patients without GERD served as the non-GERD control group. Twenty-seven of thirty-four asthmatic patients had GERD (7/27 also had erosive esophagitis, sixteen of them presented GERD symptoms. An upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed in all the subjects to obtain five biopsy specimens from the lower 5 cm of the esophagus. Patients were considered to have GERD when they had a dilation of intercellular space (DIS)>0.74 urn at transmission electron microscopy. Patients with GERD were treated with pantoprazole, 80 mg/day. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was performed at entry and after 6 mo of treatment. Asthmatic symptoms were recorded. The required frequency of inhaling rapid acting β2-agonists was self-recorded in the patients' diaries. RESULTS: Seven symptomatic patients presented erosive esophagitis. Among the 18 asymptomatic patients, 11 presented DIS, while all symptomatic patients showed ultrastructural esophageal damage. Seven asymptomatic patients did not present DIS. At entry the mean of FEV1 was 1.91 L in symptomatic GERD patients and 1.88 L in asymptomatic GERD patients. After the treatment, 25 patients had a complete recovery of DIS and reflux symptoms. Twenty-three patients presented a regression of asthmatic symptoms with normalization of FEV1. Four patients reported a significant improvement of symptoms and their FEV1 was over 80%. CONCLUSION: GERD is a highly prevalent condition in asthma patients. Treatment with pantoprazole (80 mg/day) determines their improvement and complete regression.     

Oral pantoprazole for erosive esophagitis: a placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Pantoprazole US GERD Study Group

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this dose-response study was to compare the effectiveness of 10 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg of pantoprazole with that of placebo tablets in the healing and symptom relief of gastroesophageal reflux disease associated with erosive esophagitis, and to determine the optimal dose. METHODS: A total of 603 patients with endoscopically confirmed (Hetzel-Dent scale) erosive esophagitis of grade 2 (64.5%) or grades 3 or 4 (35.3%) were enrolled in a double-blind, multicenter study and randomly assigned to receive pantoprazole (10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg) or placebo, administered once daily in the morning, for 4 or 8 wk depending on healing. RESULTS: The healing rates after 4 wk for placebo and pantoprazole 10 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg/day were 14%, 42%, 55%, and 72%, respectively (p < 0.001 for all doses of pantoprazole vs placebo). Cumulative healing rates after 8 wk for placebo and pantoprazole 10 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg/day were 33%, 59%, 78%, and 88%, respectively (p < 0.001 for all doses of pantoprazole vs placebo). The 40-mg pantoprazole dose produced greater rates of healing and earlier healing of esophagitis than either the 10- or 20-mg dose, regardless of severity. Pantoprazole, at any dose, was significantly more effective than placebo in relieving reflux symptoms. Patients on pantoprazole 40 mg experienced relief of symptoms on day 1 of treatment. No serious treatment-related adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Pantoprazole was safe and effective for healing erosive esophagitis and provided rapid symptomatic relief. These results indicate that pantoprazole offers a new option for treatment of erosive esophagitis. Among the three doses studied, the 40-mg dose was the most effective.     

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.     

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in the Elderly: More Severe Disease That Requires Aggressive Therapy

Objective: To evaluate gastroesophageal reflux disease in the elderly (people ≥ 60 yr). Methods: Basal gastric-acid secretion was prospectively determined in 228 consecutive patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease who had upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and were diagnosed with either pyrosis alone (n = 98), erosive esophagitis (n = 87), or Barrett's esophagus (n = 43). Results: Patients ≥ 60 yr (n = 66) had significantly more esophageal mucosal disease (erosive esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus) than patients < 60 yr (n = 162)- 81% versus 47% ( p = 0.000002, Fisher's exact test). Furthermore, 87% of patients ≥ 70 yr had esophageal mucosal disease. For each decade from < 30 yr to ≥ 70 yr, there was a significant increase in esophageal mucosal disease ( p = 0.002; X ² test, 23.96); however, there were no significant differences in severity of pyrosis symptoms or in mean basal acid output for each decade. When 146 of the 228 patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease were given enough ranitidine (mean, 630 mg/d; range, 300–3000 mg/d) for the relief of all pyrosis symptoms and healing of all esophageal mucosal disease, there were no significant differences in ranitidine therapy between each decade. Conclusions: Elderly patients with pyrosis symptoms severe enough to require upper gastrointestinal endoscopy have gastroesophageal reflux disease with more esophageal mucosal disease (erosive esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus) than patients < 60 yr, and like younger patients, may require markedly increased doses of ranitidine as large as 2400 mg/d for effective therapy.     

Acid gastroesophageal reflux and symptom occurrence

In 17 patients with esophagitis (degree I=erythema,N=10; degree II=erosions,N=7) esophageal pH was measured at 5 and 10 cm above the esophagogastric junction to assess whether the extension of acid reflux and the severity of the mucosal lesions could influence the association between reflux and symptoms. A minority of the refluxes were related with symptoms (4.0% and 7.7% in degree I, 14.1% and 12.0% in degree II at 5 and 10 cm respectively), whereas 65.4% and 100% of the symptoms were related with reflux in degrees I and II, respectively, with 76.5% and 35.7% occurring during refluxes reaching the proximal recording site. A relationship of symptoms with reflux is shown, particularly in erosive disease. Some reflux characteristics (extension, duration, acidity) seem to influence symptom occurrence mainly in mild esophagitis; however, more than 85% of the acid reflux episodes are symptom-free, regardless of the severity of the mucosal injury.     

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.     

Effect of pantoprazole in older patients with erosive esophagitis

Several studies suggest that older adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are more likely to develop complications, including erosive esophagitis, but it is unclear whether erosive esophagitis is more difficult to treat in older patients. The purpose of this study was to determine if adults > or = 65 years with erosive esophagitis are more difficult to treat than younger adults. The study was a post hoc analysis of two double-blind, randomized, multicenter trials of patients with erosive esophagitis. Patients received pantoprazole 40 mg once daily, nizatidine 150 mg twice daily or placebo. Patients were evaluated for endoscopic healing at 4 and 8 weeks. Patients recorded typical reflux symptoms using a daily diary to note presence or absence of symptoms. Results showed that 44, 13 and 11 patients > or = 65 years and 210, 69, and 71 patients < 65 received pantoprazole 40 mg daily, nizatidine 150 mg twice daily, or placebo, respectively. Eighty-six percent (86%[76%, 97% CI]) of older and 83% (78%, 88% CI) of younger pantoprazole-treated patients were healed at 8 weeks; 46% (19%, 73% CI) and 35% (24%, 46% CI) of nizatidine-treated and 27% (1%, 54% CI) and 34% (23%, 45% CI) of placebo-treated were healed at 8 weeks. Median time to persistent absence of GERD-related symptoms was similar for older and younger patients treated with pantoprazole. We conclude that older patients with erosive esophagitis do not appear to have more difficult-to-treat disease. Erosive esophagitis is effectively healed and GERD symptoms are controlled in older patients using pantoprazole 40 mg daily.     

Comparison of esophageal acid exposure distribution along the esophagus among the different gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) groups

BACKGROUND: Patients with nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) have the lowest esophageal acid exposure profile compared with the other gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) groups. AIM: To compare lower esophageal acid exposure recordings 1 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) with those 6 cm above the LES as well as to determine the characteristics of esophageal acid exposure along the esophagus among the different GERD groups. METHODS: Patients with classic heartburn symptoms were enrolled into the study. Patients were evaluated by a demographics questionnaire and the validated GERD Symptom Checklist. Upper endoscopy was performed to evaluate the presence of esophageal erosions and Barrett's esophagus (BE). Ambulatory pH testing was performed using a commercially available 4-sensor pH probe with sensors located 5 cm apart. The distal sensor was placed 1 cm above the LES. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients completed the study. Of those, 21 patients had NERD, 20 had erosive esophagitis (EE), and 23 had BE. All patient groups demonstrated greater esophageal acid exposure 1 cm above the LES than 6 cm above the LES. In NERD and EE, this phenomenon was primarily a result of a higher mean percentage of upright time with pH <4. Unlike patients with EE and BE, those with NERD had very little variation in esophageal acid exposure throughout the esophagus (total and supine). CONCLUSIONS: ALL GERD groups demonstrated significant greater esophageal acid exposure at the very distal portion of the esophagus, primarily as a result of short upright reflux events. Unlike erosive esophagitis and BE, NERD patients demonstrate a more homogenous acid distribution along the esophagus.     

Panum (pantoprazole) effectiveness in the treatment of patients with GERD

There are demonstrated results of a prospective comparative study on clinical efficacy and tolerability of Panum (INN: pantoprazole) under the sponsorship of"Unique Pharmaceutical Laboratories (India)". Were evaluated the results of a 28-day course of treatment of 30 patients with GERD, including those with severe reflux esophagitis (erosive and ulcerative), who received 40 mg of pantoprazole as monotherapy. Was found an algorithm with an intermediate control efficacy to individualizing the approach to therapy. As a result 16,7% of patients with severe reflux esophagitis required increasing the dose of pantoprazole to 80 mg/day in two divided doses, and the rest (83,3%) patients to achieve clinical and endoscopic remission of GERD was sufficient single dose of 40 mg of the drug. The results of this study indicated the efficacy and safety of the Panum drug in the treatment of GERD, including its complicated forms.     

Clinical symptoms of FSSG in gastroesophageal reflux disease are critical for PPI treatment: Japanese multi‐centers with 185 patients

Aim: The main aim of this study was to determine whether questionnaire evaluations of clinical symptoms in gastroesophageal reflux disease were useful to assess proton pump inhibitor therapy. Methods: A total of 185 Japanese patients (men, 88; women, 97; age: 55.7 ± 16.1 years) with gastroesophageal reflux disease were enrolled. The patients were divided based on the frequency scale for symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease: severe symptoms with scores ≥8 and mild symptoms with scores ≤7. Quality of life was evaluated with the Medical Outcomes Study 8‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey. All patients were treated with a proton pump inhibitor, rabeprazole (10 mg/day), for 8 weeks. Results: Patients were classified into four groups: reflux esophagitis with severe symptoms (n = 92, 49.7%); reflux esophagitis with mild symptoms (n = 17, 9.2%); non‐erosive reflux disease with severe symptoms (n = 66, 35.7%); and non‐erosive reflux disease with mild symptoms (n = 10, 5.4%). The dysmotility score was high in non‐erosive reflux disease with severe symptoms compared with reflux esophagitis with severe symptoms (9.1 ± 0.5 vs 6.8 ± 0.5, P < 0.05). The symptom score and quality of life in the severe symptoms groups for both reflux esophagitis and non‐erosive reflux disease were significantly improved by rabeprazole treatment. Only the reflux score was improved by rabeprazole in the reflux esophagitis with mild symptoms group; no therapeutic effect was observed for the non‐erosive reflux disease with mild symptoms group. Conclusions: Low scores on the frequency scale for the symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease indicate poor responsiveness to proton pump inhibitor treatment, and high scores indicate good responsiveness.     

Effect of omeprazole on symptoms and ultrastructural esophageal damage in acid bile reflux

AIM: To value whether omeprazole could induce the healing of DIS and regression of symptoms in patients with DGER. METHODS: We enrolled 15 symptomatic patients with a pathological esophageal 24-h pH-metry and bilimetry. Patients underwent endoscopy and biopsies were taken from the distal esophagus. Specimens were analyzed at histology and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Patients were treated with omeprazole 40 mg/d for 3 mo and then endoscopy with biopsies was repeated. Patients with persistent heartburn and/or with an incomplete recovery of DIS were treated for 3 more months and endoscopy with biopsies was performed. RESULTS: Nine patients had a non-erosive reflux disease at endoscopy (NERD) while 6 had erosive esophagitis (ERD). At histology, of the 6 patients with erosive esophagitis, 5 had mild esophagitis and 1 moderate esophagitis. No patients with NERD showed histological signs of esophagitis. After 3 mo of therapy, 13/15 patients (86.7%,P<0.01) showed a complete recovery of DIS and disappearance of heartburn. Of the 2 patients treated for 3 more months, complete recovery of DIS and heartburn were achieved in one. CONCLUSION: Three or 6 mo of omeprazole therapy led to a complete regression of the ultrastructural esophageal damage in 86.7% and in 93% of patients with DGER, NERD and ERD respectively. The ultrastructural recovery of the epithelium was accompanied by regression of heartburn in all cases.     

Lack of effect of metoclopramide and domperidone on esophageal peristalsis and esophageal acid clearance in reflux esophagitis

The acute effects of oral metoclopramide (40 mg/day) and domperidone (80 mg/day) on esophageal motor activity and acid reflux were assessed in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 20 patients with erosive reflux esophagitis. Esophageal motor function was assessed by standard manometry with wet swallows, and reflux events were evaluated by ambulatory 24-hr pH-monitoring. Both drugs caused a significant (P less than 0.05) increase in lower esophageal sphincter pressure lasting at least 120 min. However, neither esophageal body motility, duration of esophageal exposure to acid, nor esophageal clearance were effected by drug administration in comparison to placebo. Side effects were reported in two patients who received metoclopramide, while no adverse effects occurred after domperidone intake. In conclusion, the so-called motility agents metoclopramide and domperidone have few acute effects on esophageal motility in patients with erosive reflux esophagitis.     

Acid reflux is a poor predictor for severity of erosive reflux esophagitis

It is unknown which factors determine the severity of mucosal damage in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Our aim was to test whether the amount of esophageal acid exposure could predict the severity of esophageal injury in erosive reflux esophagitis. A total of 644 outpatients with symptomatic GERD underwent an esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by esophageal manometry and 24-h pH monitoring. GERD was graded according to the endoscopic severity of mucosal damage as no erosions, single erosions, confluent erosions, esophageal ulcers, and strictures. A multiple linear regression was used to assess the joint influences of demographic characteristics, social habits, endoscopic anatomy, and various parameters of esophageal function tests on the severity of erosive reflux disease. No clear-cut association between the amount of acid reflux and the severity of erosive reflux esophagitis could be established. All individual parameters of esophageal pH monitoring, such as upright or supine acid contact time, frequency of all or only long reflux episodes, and an overall summary score of pH-metry, revealed no or only a weak correlation with the severity grade of erosive reflux esophagitis. Similarly, the pressure of the lower esophageal sphincter was only slightly more decreased in patients with extensive erosive esophagitis as compared to subjects without esophageal erosions. In the multiple linear regression, the presence of hiatus hernia was a stronger predictor of disease severity than any of the other parameters. In conclusion, factors other than exposure of the esophageal mucosa to acid must contribute to the development of erosive 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。     

Risk factors for erosive reflux esophagitis: a case-control study

OBJECTIVES: It is presently not fully understood which risk factors contribute to the occurrence of reflux esophagitis and how such factors might influence the severity of the disease. The aim of this study was to delineate the clinical epidemiology of erosive reflux esophagitis. METHODS: Outpatients from a medicine and gastroenterology clinic who underwent upper GI endoscopy were recruited into a case-control study. A total of 1,533 patients with and 3,428 patients without endoscopically diagnosed reflux esophagitis were categorized as case and control subjects, respectively. Using multivariate logistic regressions for statistical analysis, the presence of esophageal erosions, ulcers or strictures, served as three separate outcome variables. Demographic characteristics, intake of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), consumption of alcohol and cigarettes, and the presence of hiatus hernia or peptic ulcer served as predictor variables. RESULTS: Erosive reflux esophagitis tended to occur more frequently in Caucasian male patients. Hiatus hernia was associated with a strong risk for developing esophageal erosions, ulcers, and strictures. Although statistical significance was demonstrated only for esophageal erosions, in all grades of reflux esophagitis alike, gastric and duodenal ulcer exerted a protective influence. Consumption of NSAIDs increased the risk for esophageal ulcers only. Smoking and alcohol were not associated with an increased risk of developing any type of erosive reflux esophagitis. CONCLUSIONS: The results stress the critical role played by hiatus hernia in all grades of erosive reflux esophagitis. NSAIDs may act through a mechanism of topically induced esophageal injury. Our data also suggest that the presence of either gastric or duodenal ulcer exerts a protective influence against the development of reflux disease.     

Comparison of pantoprazole 20 mg to ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. in the treatment of mild gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND: Despite a high prevalence of mild gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), few studies investigated efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors in this indication. This randomized double-blind study compares pantoprazole to ranitidine in GERD 0 and I, i.e. reflux without esophagitis or with confined lesions only. METHODS: Patients received either pantoprazole 20 mg o.a.d. or ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. Outcome was assessed after 2 and 4 weeks. Primary criterion was relief of leading symptoms, i.e. heartburn, acid eructation and pain on swallowing, after 4 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: According to the per-protocol (PP) analysis, 69% (100/144) and 80% (115/144) of patients in the pantoprazole group were relieved of leading symptoms after 2 and 4 weeks, respectively. The rates in the ranitidine group were 47% (62/133) and 65% (86/133). Thus, superiority of pantoprazole could be proven. Quality-of-life parameters improved more in the pantoprazole group and patients' assessment of treatment was more favorable. Analysis for Helicobacter pylori status showed infection to lead to higher symptom relief rates. Both study medications were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Pantoprazole 20 mg demonstrated superior efficacy with faster relief of reflux symptoms and similar tolerability compared to ranitidine 150 mg in the treatment of mild GERD.     

Esophageal Aperistalsis and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disorder: Return of Peristalsis after H2-Blocker Therapy

Objectives: Distal esophageal aperistalsis has rarely been reported among patients with gastroesophageal reflux disorder. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to address the frequency with which disorders of peristalsis in general-and distal esophageal aperistalsis in particular-occur in adults with gastroesophageal reflux disorder. Patients and Methods: We studied 314 patients who were referred to our gastrointestinal motility laboratory. On the basis of the endoscopic data, they were divided into three groups: group I, symptomatic patients without endoscopic esophagitis; group II, patients with mild endoscopic esophagitis; and group III. patients with erosive esophagitis. An age-matched group of patients with chest pain unrelated to reflux served as the control. Results: Some form of peristaltic dysfunction was recorded in 56% of the patients with gastroesophageal reflux disorder, significantly more than in the control group ( p < 0.01). A significant correlation existed between the esophageal motor dysfunction scores and the severity of reflux disease. Distal esophageal aperistalsis was present in 3.1% of the reflux groups. There was a correlation between severity of reflux disease and the prevalence of aperistalsis. Aperistalsis occurred in none of the patients in group I, in 3.6% of group II, and in 12.5% of group III ( p < 0.0001). Seven of the patients with aperistalsis who has been treated with H2-blockers were reexamined 4 months later. Return of peristalsis was seen in three of them. Conclusion: Esophageal aperistalsis can be seen in a minority of patients with severe gastroesophageal reflux disorder and is probably a reversible condition.     

泮托拉唑治疗老年人反流性食管炎的长期疗效观察

目的探讨泮托拉唑治疗老年人反流性食管炎及预防复发的临床疗效。方法 70例反流性食管炎老年患者随机分为两组,每组35例,A组服用泮托拉唑40 mg,2次/d,B组服用泮托拉唑40 mg,1次/d。8周后,治疗有效的患者共61例,其中26例继续口服泮托拉唑40 mg,1次/d,维持治疗48周,另外35例未继续服用泮托拉唑但同时给予随访,并在8周、24周及48周时分别评价临床症状并复查胃镜。结果治疗8周后A组、B组的症状缓解有效率分别为91.4%、82.9%,内镜下食管炎改善有效率分别为97.1%、91.4%。维持治疗患者,24周后临床症状和内镜下食管炎缓解的有效率均为84.6%;48周后临床症状缓解的有效率为88.5%,内镜下食管炎改善有效率为84.6%。未维持治疗组24周及48周时临床症状缓解的有效率分别为48.6%、37.1%。结论泮托拉唑能有效地治疗老年人反流性食管炎及减少复发,维持48周的用药安全、有效。     

Maintenance therapy for erosive esophagitis in children after healing by omeprazole: is it advisable?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of acid-suppressive maintenance therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in children, after the healing of reflux esophagitis. METHODS: Forty-eight children (median age 105 months, range 32-170) with erosive reflux esophagitis were initially treated with omeprazole 1.4 mg/kg/day for 3 months. Patients in endoscopic remission were assigned in a randomized, blinded manner by means of a computer-generated list to three groups of 6-month maintenance treatment: group A (omeprazole at half the starting dose, once daily before breakfast), group B (ranitidine 10 mg/kg/day, divided in two doses), and group C (no treatment). Endoscopic, histological, and symptomatic scores were evaluated at: T0, enrollment; T1, assessment for remission at 3 months after enrollment (healing phase); T2, assessment for effective maintenance at 12 months after T0 (3 months after the completion of the maintenance phase). Relapse was defined as the recurrence of macroscopic esophageal lesions. After the completion of the maintenance phase, patients without macroscopic esophagitis relapse were followed up for GERD symptoms for a further period of 30 months. RESULTS: Of 48 initially treated patients, 46 (94%) healed and entered the maintenance study. For all patients, in comparison to T0, the histological, endoscopic, and symptomatic scores were significantly reduced both at T1 and T2 (P<0.0001, for each). No significant difference was found in these three scores, comparing group A, B, and C at T1 and T2. A relapse occurred in one patient only, who presented with macroscopic esophageal lesions at T2. Three months after the completion of the maintenance phase, 12 (26%) patients complained of symptoms sufficiently mild to discontinue GERD therapy, excluding the patient who showed macroscopic esophagitis relapse. Three of 44 (6.8%) patients reported very mild GERD symptoms within a period of 30 months after maintenance discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Our pediatric population showed a low rate of erosive esophagitis relapse and GERD symptom recurrence long term after healing with omeprazole, irrespective of the maintenance therapy.