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.     

Management of heartburn in a large, randomized, community-based study: comparison of four therapeutic strategies

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare four management strategies for heartburn: therapy with an H2-receptor antagonist (ranitidine), therapy with a proton pump inhibitor (lansoprazole), crossover from ranitidine to lansoprazole ("step-up" therapy), and crossover from lansoprazole to ranitidine ("step-down" therapy). METHODS: This was a controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial comprising 593 adults with heartburn, randomized to one of four groups for 20 wk. Subjects received either ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. for 20 wk, or lansoprazole 30 mg once daily for 20 wk, or ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. for 8 wk [corrected] followed by lansoprazole 30 mg once daily for 12 wk ("step-up"), or lansoprazole 30 mg once daily for 8 wk followed by ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. for 12 wk ("step-down"). Outcome measures were based on self-reports in daily diaries of 24-h heartburn severity, measured by maximum daytime and nighttime severity, and percentage of 24-h heartburn-free days measured by absence of both daytime and nighttime heartburn. RESULTS: Median heartburn severity was significantly lower (p < 0.05) for lansoprazole (0.25) than the other groups (0.46 ranitidine, 0.44 "step-up," 0.35 "step-down"). The lansoprazole group had a significantly higher percentage of 24-h heartburn-free days (median 81.4%, p < 0.01) than other groups (66.6, 66.9, and 73.6%, respectively). In the "step-up" and "step-down" groups, heartburn was less severe, and percentages of 24-h heartburn-free days were higher during lansoprazole treatment regardless of treatment sequence. CONCLUSION: Proton pump inhibitor treatment provides more consistent heartburn relief than an H2-receptor antagonist, or "step-up" or "step-down" therapy.     

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     

Cisapride 20 mg b.i.d. Provides Symptomatic Relief of Heartburn and Related Symptoms of Chronic Mild to Moderate Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Objective: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a twice-daily dosage regimen of cisapride 20 mg in relieving the symptoms of mild-moderate gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in patients with moderate intensity heartburn and no history of erosive esophagitis.
Methods: After a 2-wk, single-blind, placebo run-in period, 398 patients who continued to experience moderate intensity heartburn were randomized to either placebo (  n = 196  ) or cisapride 20 mg (  n = 202  ) twice daily for 4 wk.
Results: Compared with placebo, cisapride significantly reduced scores for daytime and nighttime heartburn (   p < 0.001  ), total regurgitation (   p < 0.001  ), eructation (   p = 0.04  ), and early satiety (   p = 0.04  ). Cisapride 20 mg b.i.d. was also superior to placebo in reducing total use of rescue antacid medication (   p < 0.001  ); reducing, in concordance analyses, daytime and nighttime heartburn with antacid usage (   p < 0.001  ); increasing the percentage of heartburn-free days and antacid-free nights (   p < 0.5  ); and increasing the percentage of patients self-rated as having minimal or better symptomatic improvement (   p = 0.01  ). Cisapride 20 mg b.i.d. was well tolerated. The most common adverse event in the cisapride group was diarrhea, reported by 10% of patients, compared with an incidence of 4% in the placebo group.
Conclusion: Cisapride 20 mg b.i.d. was shown to be effective and safe for the short-term treatment of daytime and nighttime heartburn and for other symptoms associated with mild-moderate GERD.     

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.     

Rabeprazole in nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: Clinical results to date suggest that antisecretory therapy may be less effective in providing symptom relief for patients with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) than for patients with erosive disease. This study was carried out to assess the efficacy and rapidity of once-daily rabeprazole (10 mg or 20 mg) in relieving symptoms in endoscopically negative patients with moderately severe GERD symptoms and to evaluate the safety of these doses over 4 wk. METHODS: This placebo-controlled, double blind study enrolled 203 men and women with moderately severe symptoms of GERD. After a 2-wk, single-blind placebo run-in phase, patients were randomized to receive 10 mg or 20 mg of rabeprazole or placebo once daily for 4 wk. RESULTS: Rabeprazole rapidly and effectively relieved heartburn, with significant improvements on day 1 of dosing. It also improved most other GERD-related symptoms, including regurgitation, belching, bloating, early satiety, and nausea. Both rabeprazole doses were significantly superior to the placebo with respect to time to the first 24-h heartburn-free interval (2.5 and 4.5 days for 10 mg and 20 mg of rabeprazole, respectively, vs 21.5 days for the placebo) and first daytime or nighttime heartburn-free interval (1.5-3 days for rabeprazole groups vs 12.5-15 days for the placebo), as well as to percentage of time patients were heartburn-free and free of antacid use. Both rabeprazole doses were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings and prior studies, rabeprazole reliably relieves GI symptoms equally well in both nonerosive GERD and erosive GERD.     

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

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

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.     

Lansoprazole compared with ranitidine for the treatment of nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, proton pump inhibitors are used primarily for patients with esophagitis. However, patients with nonerosive reflux disease may also benefit from these powerful medications. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and symptom relief efficacy of lansoprazole with ranitidine therapy and with placebo. METHODS: In 2 randomized, double-blind, multicenter trials of 901 patients with symptomatic reflux disease, which was confirmed by endoscopy to be nonerosive, received lansoprazole, 15 or 30 mg once daily; ranitidine, 150 mg twice daily; or placebo for 8 weeks. RESULTS: Analysis of daily diary data during the first 4 weeks and for the entire 8 weeks of treatment revealed that patients who were treated with either dosage of lansoprazole reported significantly (P<.05) lower percentages of days and nights with heartburn, less pain severity of both day and night heartburn, fewer days of antacid use, and smaller amounts of antacid use compared with patients who were treated with ranitidine or placebo. The incidence of possible or probable treatment-related adverse reactions was comparable among the treatment groups; abdominal pain and diarrhea were the most commonly reported adverse events. No statistically significant differences were noted between treatment groups in laboratory analyses. CONCLUSION: Lansoprazole therapy is more effective than standard dosages of ranitidine or placebo in relieving symptoms in patients with endoscopically confirmed non-erosive reflux esophagitis.     

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 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.     

Treatment of patients with persistent heartburn symptoms: a double-blind, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Common treatment practices in patients who continue to be symptomatic on proton pump inhibitor once-daily treatment include either increasing the dosage or the use of supplemental medication. This trial's purpose was to compare 2 therapeutic strategies, increasing the proton pump inhibitor dosage to twice daily versus switching to another proton pump inhibitor, in patients with persistent heartburn while receiving standard-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial included patients with persistent heartburn symptoms while receiving therapy with lansoprazole 30 mg once daily. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment for 8 weeks with either single-dose esomeprazole (40 mg once daily) (n = 138) or lansoprazole 30 mg twice daily (n = 144). The primary efficacy variable was the percentage of heartburn-free days from day 8 to the end of treatment. RESULTS: Single-dose esomeprazole was at least as effective as twice-daily lansoprazole for the primary end point of percentage of heartburn-free days during the study period (54.4% and 57.5%, respectively). Symptom scores improved from baseline in similar numbers of patients for heartburn (83.3% of patients in each group), acid regurgitation (76.8% vs 72.9%, P = .58), and epigastric pain (67.4% vs 61.1%, P = .32), and rescue antacid use was also similar (0.4 tablets/day vs 0.5 tablets/day, P = .50). CONCLUSIONS: Switching patients with persistent heartburn on a standard-dose proton pump inhibitor to a different proton pump inhibitor was as effective as increasing the proton pump inhibitor dosage to twice daily for controlling heartburn symptoms.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

Randomized study of lafutidine vs lansoprazole in patients with mild gastroesophageal reflux disease

AIM: To compare the clinical efficacy of the second-generation H2RA lafutidine with that of lansoprazole in Japanese patients with mild gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).METHODS: Patients with symptoms of GERD and a diagnosis of grade A reflux esophagitis (according to the Los Angeles classification) were randomized to receive lafutidine (10 mg, twice daily) or lansoprazole (30 mg, once daily) for an initial 8 wk, followed by maintenance treatment comprising half-doses of the assigned drug for 24 wk. The primary endpoint was the frequency and severity of heartburn during initial and maintenance treatment. The secondary endpoints were the sum score of questions 2 and 3 in the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS), and the satisfaction score.RESULTS: Between April 2012 and March 2013, a total of 53 patients were enrolled, of whom 24 and 29 received lafutidine and lansoprazole, respectively. After 8 wk, the frequency and severity of heartburn was significantly reduced in both groups. However, lafutidine was significantly inferior to lansoprazole with regard to the severity of heartburn during initial and maintenance treatment (P = 0.016). The sum score of questions 2 and 3 in the GSRS, and satisfaction scores were also significantly worse in the lafutidine group than the lansoprazole group (P = 0.0068 and P = 0.0048, respectively).CONCLUSION: The clinical efficacy of lafutidine was inferior to that of lansoprazole, even in Japanese patients with mild GERD.     

Omeprazole (40 mg) is superior to ranitidine in short-term treatment of ulcerative reflux esophagitis

The efficacy and safety of omeprazole, 40 mg once daily for four to eight weeks of treatment, were studied in 61 patients with ulcerative reflux esophagitis. A double-blind controlled study design was used, and the patients were randomly allocated to treatment with either omeprazole 40 mg once daily or ranitidine 150 mg twice daily. Endoscopy was performed prior to inclusion into the study, after four weeks and, if unhealed, again after eight weeks. Healing of esophagitis was defined as complete disappearance of all esophageal ulcerations. Symptoms were recorded before entry, after four weeks, and again after eight weeks in unhealed patients. Fifty-one patients were included in the per-protocol analysis at day 29, and 50 patients at day 57. The healing rate after four weeks of treatment was 22 of 26 patients (85%) treated with omeprazole and 10 of 25 patients (40%) treated with ranitidine (P<0.001). The corresponding figures after eight weeks were 24 of 25 (96%), and 13 of 25 (52%) (P<0.001). These results were confirmed in the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients treated with omeprazole showed a significantly faster and more profound relief in heartburn than patients treated with ranitidine: 85% had no heartburn after four weeks of treatment with omeprazole compared to 24% in patients treated with ranitidine (P=0.00007). The percentage of patients who were free of all reflux symptoms was significantly greater in the omeprazole-treated group as compared to the ranitidine-treated group (62% and 12% respectively, P=0.0001). There were no clinically significant changes in laboratory values in any of the treatment groups. Adverse events were few and mainly mild and transient.     

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.     

Lansoprazole in the treatment of functional dyspepsia: two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials

PURPOSE: The efficacy of proton pump inhibitor therapy for symptom resolution in patients with functional dyspepsia remains controversial. This study was designed to compare the efficacy of lansoprazole with placebo in relieving upper abdominal discomfort in patients with functional dyspepsia. METHODS: We enrolled 921 patients with functional dyspepsia (defined as persistent or recurrent upper abdominal discomfort during the prior 3 months) and moderate upper abdominal discomfort on at least 30% of screening days; none of the patients had predominant symptoms suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux or endoscopic evidence of erosive or ulcerative esophagitis, or gastric or duodenal ulcer or erosion. Patients were assigned randomly to receive lansoprazole 15 mg (n = 305), lansoprazole 30 mg (n = 308), or placebo (n = 308) daily for 8 weeks. Patients recorded the frequency and severity of symptoms in daily diaries. RESULTS: At week 8, significantly (P <0.001) greater mean reductions in the percentage of days with upper abdominal discomfort were reported in patients treated with lansoprazole 15 mg (35%) or 30 mg (34%) compared with those treated with placebo (19%). Similarly, more patients treated with lansoprazole 15 mg (44%) or 30 mg (44%) reported complete symptom resolution (defined as no episodes of upper abdominal discomfort in the 3 days before the study visit) at 8 weeks than did placebo-treated patients (29%, P <0.001). Improvement of upper abdominal discomfort, however, was seen only in patients who had at least some symptoms of heartburn at enrollment. CONCLUSION: Lansoprazole, at a daily dose of 15 mg or 30 mg, is significantly better than placebo in reducing symptoms of persistent or recurrent upper abdominal discomfort accompanied by at least some symptoms of heartburn.     

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

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