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.     

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.     

Omeprazole in H2 receptor antagonist-resistant reflux esophagitis

We conducted a retrospective review of 25 patients with severe reflux esophagitis treated with omeprazole because of failure of H2 receptor antagonists to heal their esophagitis. Prior to beginning omeprazole (40 mg/day), all patients were on H2 antagonists for at least 9 months and still had endoscopic evidence of longitudinal (grade II) or circumferential (grade III) distal esophageal ulceration. Omeprazole therapy brought about complete endoscopic healing in 24 of 25 patients (96%). Twenty-three of 24 healed patients were then restarted on H2 antagonists as maintenance therapy. Repeat endoscopy was performed if symptoms recurred. Fourteen of 24 patients (58%) had recurrence of endoscopic esophagitis documented between 26 and 300 days from the time of starting maintenance therapy. Two of these 14 patients opted for antireflux surgery, whereas the remaining 12 were once again given omeprazole, which again resulted in symptom resolution in all patients. These data suggest that most patients with H2 receptor antagonist-resistant ulcerative esophagitis cannot be successfully maintained on H2 antagonists even after the ulcers have been healed with omeprazole. Further studies are required to determine the role of omeprazole compared to other treatments in the long-term maintenance therapy of these patients.     

Esomeprazole once daily for 6 months is effective therapy for maintaining healed erosive esophagitis and for controlling gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy and safety

OBJECTIVE: Esomeprazole, the S-isomer of omeprazole, achieves a significantly greater healing rate and symptom resolution of erosive esophagitis than that achieved by omeprazole. The objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of the new proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole in preventing relapse over a prolonged period in patients with healed erosive esophagitis. METHODS: A total of 318 gastroesophageal reflux patients whose erosive esophagitis was healed in a comparative study of esomeprazole 40 mg, 20 mg, or omeprazole 20 mg, were randomized to maintenance therapy with once daily esomeprazole 40 mg, 20 mg, or 10 mg, or placebo in a U.S., double-blind multicenter trial. RESULTS: After 6 months, healing was maintained (cumulative life table rates) in 93.6% (95% CI 87.4-99.7) of patients treated with esomeprazole 40 mg, 93.2% (95% CI 87.4-99.0) treated with esomeprazole 20 mg, and 57.1% (95% CI 45.2-69) treated with esomeprazole 10 mg; p < 0.001 vs placebo (29.1%; 95% CI 17.7-40.3). Of patients relapsing, mean time to first recurrence of esophagitis increased with dose, from 34 days (placebo) to 78 days (10 mg), 115 days (20 mg), and 163 days (40 mg). Patients treated with esomeprazole had less frequent and less severe heartburn than those treated with placebo. At month 6, more than 70% of patients being treated with esomeprazole remained symptom-free. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole is effective and well tolerated in the maintenance of a healing erosive esophagitis. Esomeprazole 40 mg and 20 mg maintain healing in over 90% of patients while providing effective control of heartburn symptoms.     

Omeprazole or ranitidine in the treatment of reflux esophagitis. Results of a double-blind, randomized, Scandinavian multicenter study

One hundred and fifty-two patients with endoscopically verified erosive and/or ulcerative esophagitis entered a double-blind, randomized study comparing 20 mg omeprazole given once daily and ranitidine 150 mg twice daily. The efficacy and safety of 4 to 8 weeks' treatment were studied. Macroscopic healing of esophagitis was defined as complete epithelialization of all esophageal erosive and/or ulcerative lesions. One hundred and forty-four patients completed the first 4 weeks of treatment in accordance with the protocol. The healing rate was 67% in the omeprazole group and 31% in the ranitidine group (p less than 0.0001). The corresponding figures after 8 weeks' treatment were 85% and 50%, respectively (p less than 0.0001). The higher healing rate for omeprazole was also accompanied by a significantly faster and more substantial improvement in reflux symptoms. In the patient's own overall evaluation of symptoms, these had resolved in 51% of the omeprazole-treated patients already at the end of the 1st week of treatment, compared with 27% of those given ranitidine (p = 0.009). Both omeprazole and ranitidine were well tolerated, and there were no adverse events or clinically significant changes in the laboratory values attributable to the trial medication.     

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     

Omeprazole provides quicker symptom relief and duodenal ulcer healing than ranitidine

In a double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial in 248 patients with symptomatic duodenal ulcers [97% greater than 5 mm diameter], 126 were randomized to receive omeprazole 20 mg once daily in the morning and 122 were randomized to receive ranitidine 300 mg once daily at night for 2 wk and if the ulcers were unhealed for a total of 4 wk. When ulcer healing was assessed on an intention-to-treat basis, 79% of those receiving omeprazole had healed ulcers after 2 wk compared with 62% of those receiving ranitidine (p less than 0.005; therapeutic gain for omeprazole, 18%; 95% confidence intervals, +6% to +29%). At 4 wk the figures were 91% (omeprazole) and 80% (ranitidine) (p less than 0.05). After 2 wk, 77% of omeprazole-treated and 59% of ranitidine-treated patients were free of ulcer pain (p = 0.005). Assessed by diary cards (successfully completed by 92% of patients), daytime pain resolved more quickly in omeprazole-treated patients than in those receiving ranitidine (p less than 0.01). Omeprazole-treated patients took fewer antacids (p less than 0.05) over the first 2 wk. Omeprazole, 20 mg each morning, provides more rapid relief of the symptoms of duodenal ulcer and heals a greater proportion of duodenal ulcers within 2 and 4 wk than ranitidine, 300 mg each night.     

Omeprazole versus high-dose ranitidine in mild gastroesophageal reflux disease: short- and long-term treatment. The Dutch Reflux Study Group

OBJECTIVE: Patients with reflux esophagitis suffer from a chronic condition that may cause considerable discomfort because of recurrent symptoms and diminished quality of life. This study was designed to evaluate acute and long-term treatment comparing standard doses of omeprazole and high-dose ranitidine. METHODS: Patients with endoscopically verified symptomatic esophagitis grade I or II were initially treated with omeprazole 20 mg daily or ranitidine 300 mg twice daily for 4-8 wk. Patients who were symptom free were randomized to maintenance treatment with omeprazole 10 mg daily or ranitidine 150 mg twice daily. Patients were seen every 3 months or at symptomatic relapse. RESULTS: The percentage of asymptomatic patients after 4 and 8 wk treatment were 61% and 74%, respectively, for omeprazole and 31% and 50%, respectively, for ranitidine. Of 446 patients treated initially, 277 were asymptomatic, of whom 263 entered the maintenance study. The estimated proportion of patients in remission after 12 months of maintenance treatment with omeprazole 10 mg daily (n = 134) and ranitidine 150 mg twice daily (n = 129) were 68% and 39%, respectively (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Omeprazole 20 mg daily is superior to high-dose ranitidine in the symptomatic treatment of reflux esophagitis grade I and II. Furthermore, omeprazole at half the standard dose is more effective than ranitidine in a standard dose in keeping patients in remission for a period of 12 months.     

Rabeprazole is equivalent to omeprazole in the treatment of erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: A randomised, double-blind, comparative study of rabeprazole and omeprazole 20 mg in acute treatment of reflux oesophagitis, followed by a maintenance open-label, low-dose therapy with rabeprazole

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown similar effects of rabeprazole and omeprazole, when used at the same dose in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis. However, such studies have been conducted as superiority studies but interpreted as equivalence ones. AIM: To properly assess the comparative efficacy of rabeprazole and omeprazole in inducing complete endoscopic healing and symptom relief in patients with reflux oesophagitis. METHODS: Patients (n=560) with Savary-Miller grade I-III reflux oesophagitis were randomised in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion to rabeprazole or omeprazole 20 mg once daily for 4-8 weeks. Then, patients endoscopically healed and symptomatically relieved were openly maintained with rabeprazole 10 mg or 2x10 mg once daily (in the event of clinical and/or endoscopic relapse) for a maximum of 48 weeks. RESULTS: After 4-8 weeks of treatment, healing (primary end-point) was observed in 228/233 (97.9%) patients in the rabeprazole group and in 231/237 (97.5%) in the omeprazole one (equivalence effect demonstrated by p<0.0001 at Blackwelder test and an upper confidence limit at 97.5% of 0.023). However, rabeprazole was faster in inducing heartburn relief than omeprazole (2.8+/-0.2 versus 4.7+/-0.5 days of therapy to reach the first day with satisfactory heartburn relief, p=0.0045 at log-rank test). In the maintenance phase, 15.2% of patients had an endoscopic and/or clinical relapse. CONCLUSION: Rabeprazole is equivalent to omeprazole in healing reflux oesophagitis, but shows a faster activity on reflux symptoms in the early treatment phase.     

Comparison of four proton pump inhibitors for the short-term treatment of esophagitis in elderly patients

AIM: To compare efficacy and tolerability of four proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) commonly used in the short-term therapy of esophagitis in elderly patients.METHODS: A total of 320 patients over 65 years with endoscopically diagnosed esophagitis were randomly assigned to one of the following treatments for 8 wk: (1) omeprazole 20 mg/d; (2) lansoprazole 30 mg/d; (3) pantoprazole 40 mg/d, or (4) rabeprazole 20 mg/d. Major symptoms, compliance, and adverse events were recorded. After 8 wk, endoscopy and clinical evaluation were repeated.RESULTS: Per protocol and intention to treat healing rates of esophagitis were: omeprazole = 81.0% and 75.0%, lansoprazole = 90.7% (P = 0.143 vs omeprazole) and 85.0%, pantoprazole = 93.5% (P = 0.04 vs omeprazole) and 90.0% (P = 0.02 vs omeprazole), rabeprazole = 94.6% (P = 0.02 vs omeprazole) and 88.8% (P = 0.04 vs omeprazole). Dividing patients according to the grades of esophagitis, omeprazole was significantly less effective than the three other PPIs in healing grade 1 esophagitis (healing rates: 81.8% vs 100%, 100% and 100%, respectively, P = 0.012). Pantoprazole and rabeprazole (100%) were more effective vs omeprazole (89.6%, P = 0.0001)and lansoprazole (82.4%, P = 0.0001) in decreasing heartburn. Pantoprazole and rabeprazole (92.2% and 90.1%, respectively) were also more effective vs lansoprazole (75.0%, P < 0.05) in decreasing acid regurgitation. Finally, pantoprazole and rabeprazole (95.2% and 100%) were also more effective vs lansoprazole (82.6%, P < 0.05) in decreasing epigastric pain.CONCLUSION: In elderly patients, pantoprazole and rabeprazole were significantly more effective than omeprazole in healing esophagitis and than omeprazole or lansoprazole in improving symptoms. H pylori infection did not influence the healing rates of esophagitis after a short-term treatment with PPI.     

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.     

Long-term maintenance treatment of reflux esophagitis with omeprazole

Thirty-four patients with H₂-blocker-resistant reflux esophagitis subsequently healed by 40 mg omeprazole daily entered a maintenance study with 20 mg omeprazole. In 31 evaluable cases the observation period was at least 12 months (mean 24 months). Esophagitis remained in remission in two thirds of patients despite dose reduction. Relapses of esophagitis occurred in 10 cases within six months, which rapidly healed by increasing the omeprazole dose to 40 mg. No further recurrences with 20 mg omeprazole was found later than six months. Peptic strictures primarily requiring repeated dilatation in six patients during healing with omeprazole did not reappear while on omeprazole maintenance. Major side effects that could be attributed to omeprazole were not observed. Gastrin levels remained within or slightly above the normal range in the vast majority. It is concluded that omeprazole maintenance treatment in severe reflux esophagitis is an effective and safe therapy.Preliminary results have been presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Gastroenterological Association, San Antonio, 1990, and appeared as an abstract (22).This study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, grant Ko 847/1-4. The skillful technical assistance of Mrs. E. Bothe-Sandfort and Mrs. J. Dionysius is gratefully acknowledged.     

Omeprazole (20 mg daily) compared to ranitidine (150 mg twice daily) in the treatment of esophagitis caused by reflux. Results of a double-blind randomized multicenter trial in France and Belgium

We report the results of a trial of omeprazole 20 mg daily versus ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. in the short-term management of erosive or ulcerative esophagitis. The principal aim of the trial was to assess the healing rates of the esophageal lesions. The trial was conducted in 19 centers (16 in France and 3 in Belgium). The lesions of the esophageal mucosa were defined as follows: grade 2 (n = 112), round or linear erosions; grade 3 (n = 33), confluent erosions affecting the total esophageal circumference; or grade 4 (n = 11), erosions as described above plus deep ulcerations or peptic stenosis which did not need endoscopic dilatation. The main criterion was the complete healing of esophageal lesions after 4 weeks of treatment. Patients were randomly allocated to double-blind treatment with omeprazole or ranitidine. Clinical and endoscopic examinations were done on inclusion in the trial and at day 29 +/- 6, and again at day 57 +/- 6 if esophagitis was unhealed. No patient was excluded from the analysis on an "intention-to-treat" basis, and 25 patients were excluded from the "per protocol" analysis, mainly because of poor compliance with the trial protocol. The healing rate at weak 4 was 50 of 62 patients (81 p. 100) treated with omeprazole and 31 of 69 patients (45 p. 100) with ranitidine (p less than 0.001). The corresponding figures at week 8 were 58 of 61 (95 p. 100) and 40 of 61 (65 p. 100) (p less than 0.001).     

Effect of cisapride on relapse of reflux oesophagitis, healed with an antisecretory drug.

Maintenance treatment with cisapride was evaluated in 298 patients in whom reflux oesophagitis had been healed with antisecretory drugs. Initially, 34% of the patients had grade-I oesophagitis, 33% had grade II, and 33% had grade III. The patients were treated with 20 mg cisapride twice daily or placebo for 6 months or until endoscopic relapse was shown if this occurred earlier. Survival analysis showed that cisapride significantly prolonged the time to endoscopic relapse in grade-I patients (P = 0.02). The intergroup difference in symptomatic relapse in all patients was also significant (P = 0.010). The effect of cisapride was less clearcut in grade II or III, and/or in patients healed with omeprazole. Factors associated with early relapse were placebo therapy, prior omeprazole therapy, duration of pre-trial symptomatic period, and initial endoscopic severity grade. Adverse experiences were limited; diarrhoea was reported by 9% of the cisapride patients.     

Omeprazole 10 mg or 20 mg once daily in the prevention of recurrence of reflux oesophagitis. Solo Investigator Group.

This study determined the optimal maintenance dose of omeprazole in reflux oesophagitis. One hundred and ninety three patients rendered asymptomatic and healed after four or eight weeks omeprazole were randomised double blind to 10 mg omeprazole once daily (n = 60 evaluable), 20 mg omeprazole once daily (n = 68), or placebo (n = 62) for one year or until symptomatic relapse. Each omeprazole regimen was superior to placebo in preventing both symptomatic relapse (life table analysis, p < 0.001) and endoscopically verified relapse (p < 0.001). At 12 months, the life table endoscopic remission rates (proportions of patients without grade > or = 2 oesophagitis) were: 50% (95% confidence intervals 34 to 66%) with 10 mg omeprazole once daily, 74% (62 to 86%) with 20 mg omeprazole once daily, and 14% (2 to 26%) with placebo. At 12 months, the life table symptomatic remission rates (proportions of patients asymptomatic or with mild symptoms) were: 77% (64 to 89%) with 10 mg omeprazole once daily, 83% (73 to 93%) with 20 mg omeprazole once daily, and 34% (16 to 52%) with placebo. Both 10 mg and 20 mg omeprazole once daily were effective in prolonging the remission of reflux oesophagitis: 10 mg may be appropriate to start longterm treatment, though the existence of a dose response relation means that 20 mg once daily may be effective in patients for whom 10 mg once daily is suboptimal.     

Healing and relapse of reflux esophagitis during treatment with ranitidine

In 108 patients the healing and relapse of reflux esophagitis, defined endoscopically by the presence of epithelial defects (erosions and ulcerations) of the esophageal mucosa, were studied. In the first study, with open treatment of ranitidine, the healing rate after 6 wk was 50%. The most important factor that negatively influenced healing was the extent of esophageal erosions. Patients with isolated erosions had a 6-wk healing rate of 78%; the healing rate was 38% in patients with longitudinally confluent lesions and 23% in those with circumferential erosions of the distal esophagus. Smoking also had an unfavorable effect. Age, sex, duration of history, body weight, and alcohol consumption were not related to outcome. Symptoms improved during treatment with ranitidine, but the correlation between symptoms and endoscopic findings at 6 wk was weak. In the second study, relapse was investigated in 61 patients with healed esophagitis in a randomized, double-blind trial comparing placebo and ranitidine (150 mg at bedtime for 6 mo). In both groups, relapse occurred in more than one-third of the patients, with no significant difference between ranitidine and placebo treatment. Patients with worse daytime symptoms at the time of previous healing had a higher relapse rate. The initial severity of esophagitis and smoking did not influence recurrence. Thus, the initial endoscopic findings are of prognostic value in reflux esophagitis. Smoking retards healing. Low-dose maintenance treatment with ranitidine does not prevent relapse.     

Prevention of relapse of reflux esophagitis after endoscopic healing: the efficacy and safety of omeprazole compared with ranitidine.

Ninety-eight patients with erosive and/or ulcerative esophagitis unhealed after at least 3 months' treatment with standard doses of cimetidine (greater than or equal to 1200 mg daily) or ranitidine (greater than or equal to 300 mg daily) were primarily included in an acute healing phase study, and 51 were allocated to 40 mg omeprazole once daily and 47 to 300 mg ranitidine twice daily. After 12 weeks of treatment, 46 (90%) patients given omeprazole were healed, compared with 22 (47%) allocated to ranitidine. Healed patients were then given maintenance treatment with either 20 mg omeprazole once daily or 150 mg ranitidine twice daily for 12 months. Plasma gastrin was determined and gastric mucosal biopsy specimens were obtained during the entire study to assess the structure of the exocrine and endocrine cell populations of the oxyntic mucosa. Sixty-seven per cent of the total number of patients randomized to omeprazole were maintained in clinical and endoscopic remission throughout the 12-month study period as compared with only 10% among those given ranitidine (p less than 0.0001). After 4 weeks of omeprazole treatment basal gastrin levels were slightly increased, with a 95% confidence interval for the change of from 8.6 to 16.9 pmol/l. No further increase in basal gastrin levels was observed during the ensuing study months. No significant histopathologic lesion was found in the oxyntic gland mucosa. In conclusion, omeprazole was far superior to ranitidine in preventing recurrence, a goal achieved without adverse events and significant abnormalities in the oxyntic mucosal exocrine or endocrine cells but with a moderate increase in basal gastrin levels.     

Prevention of Relapse of Reflux Esophagitis after Endoscopic Healing: The Efficacy and Safety of Omeprazole Compared with Ranitidine

Ninety-eight patients with erosive and/or ulcerative esophagitis unhealed after at least 3 months' treatment with standard doses of cimetidine (≥1200mg daily) or ranitidine (≥300 mg daily) were primarily included in an acute healing phase study, and 51 were allocated to 40 mg omeprazole once daily and 47 to 300 mg ranitidine twice daily. After 12 weeks of treatment, 46 (90%) patients given omeprazole were healed, compared with 22 (47%) allocated to ranitidine. Healed patients were then given maintenance treatment with either 20 mg omeprazole once daily or 150 mg ranitidine twice daily for 12 months. Plasma gastrin was determined and gastric mucosal biopsy specimens were obtained during the entire study to assess the structure of the exocrine and endocrine cell populations of the oxyntic mucosa. Sixty-seven per cent of the total number of patients randomized to omeprazole were maintained in clinical and endoscopic remission throughout the 12-month study period as compared with only 10% among those given ranitidine (p < 0.0001). After 4 weeks of omeprazole treatment basal gastrin levels were slightly increased, with a 95% confidence interval for the change of from 8.6 to 16.9pmol/l. No further increase in basal gastrin levels was observed during the ensuing study months. No significant histopathologic lesion was found in the oxyntic gland mucosa. In conclusion, omeprazole was far superior to ranitidine in preventing recurrence, a goal achieved without adverse events and significant abnormalities in the oxyntic mucosal exocrine or endocrine cells but with a moderate increase in basal gastrin levels.     

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.