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。     

奥美拉唑联合马来酸曲美布汀治疗反流性食管炎30例

[目的]观察奥美拉唑联合马来酸曲美布汀治疗反流性食管炎（RE）的临床疗效。[方法358例患者随机分为2组,观察组30例,予奥美拉唑20rng,每日2次,马来酸曲美布汀0．1g,每日3次口服;对照组28例：予马来酸曲美布汀0．1g,每日3次口服。疗程均8周,观察烧心、反酸、胸痛等症状,并复查胃镜下愈合率。[结果]观察组临床总有效率100％,内镜下总有效率96．7％;对照组为75．0％及71．4％,2组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。[结论]奥美拉唑联合马来酸曲美布汀治疗RE具有较好的疗效。     

旋覆代赭汤对RE模型大鼠食管组织线粒体超微结构及SDH活性的影响

[目的]通过分析旋覆代赭汤及其拆方对反流性食管炎(RE)模型大鼠食管组织线粒体超微结构及琥珀酸脱氢酶(SDH)活性的影响,从微观角度探讨线粒体能量代谢与脾胃气机升降的相关性,阐释RE关键病机及旋覆代赭汤治疗RE的作用机理。[方法]将84只雄性Wistar大鼠随机分为7组,即正常对照组、模型对照组、旋覆代赭汤全方组及拆方各组(包括苦降组、甘升组、升降相因组)、西药组,每组12只。采用"4.2mm幽门夹+胃底2/3结扎术"制备酸碱混合反流性食管炎动物模型。从术后第8天开始,正常对照组、模型对照组给予生理盐水灌胃,旋覆代赭汤全方组及拆方各组分别给予相应药液,西药组给予(兰索拉唑+莫沙必利)灌胃,干预14d后,第22天全部处死,利用肉眼及光学显微镜观察食管下段黏膜组织形态学变化,应用电镜观察食管下段黏膜组织线粒体超微结构变化,应用化学法测定食管组织SDH活性的表达情况。[结论]旋覆代赭汤各组分药物都可通过一定途径调节食管组织线粒体能量代谢,甘升组可促进线粒体能量代谢,凡是含有甘升组皆起正性作用,因甘升组药物可促进细胞的新陈代谢,得"扶正益气,健脾化源"之功。旋覆代赭汤通过调节脾胃气机升降,提高食管组织线粒体中SDH的活性,促进线粒体能量代谢,增加线粒体数量,减少线粒体结构及食管黏膜损伤,证实了气机升降与线粒体能量代谢的相关性,从线粒体能量代谢角度揭示了旋覆代赭汤治疗RE的作用机制及途径,并进一步证实RE的关键病机是"胃虚气逆"。     

艾普拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗反流性食管炎疗效观察

目的观察艾普拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗反流性食管炎的效果。方法96例临床症状及内镜检查明确诊断为反流性食管炎的患者,随机分为艾普拉唑组49例、奥美拉唑组47例。艾普拉唑组口服艾普拉唑10mg,2次／d;奥美拉唑组VI服奥美拉唑20mg,2次／d;两组同时均加用莫沙必利5mg,3次／d餐前服,疗程4周。治疗过程中定期观察症状改善情况、检测基础胃酸分泌,疗程结束时内镜复查。结果在缓解症状、降低基础胃酸分泌、改善食管炎症等方面,艾普拉唑组优于奥美拉唑组（P〈0．05）。结论艾普拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗反流性食管炎,能有效持续降低胃酸分泌,减少食管酸反流,促进食管黏膜修复,缓解胃食管反流症状。     

铝碳酸镁治疗反流性食管炎的多中心临床观察

目的探讨铝碳酸镁对反流性食管炎(RE)的疗效.方法国内6所医院对铝碳酸镁治疗RE进行多中心临床研究.45例经内镜证实的RE患者,随机分为2组.治疗组25例,予以铝碳酸镁1.0 g,每日4次,治疗6周;对照组20例,予以奥美拉唑20 mg,每日2次,治疗2周后,再改用20 mg,每日1次,治疗4周.2组患者分别于治疗1、2、4、6周观察反酸、烧心、胸痛症状记分改变.治疗组14例患者、对照组15例患者于6周后复查胃镜,观察2组RE的内镜下治愈率.治疗组17例及对照组13例患者分别于治疗前后行食管24 h pH及胆红素联合监测.结果铝碳酸镁及奥美拉唑治疗1周后,均可见症状明显改善,患者烧心、反酸、胸痛症状积分均较治疗前明显下降(P＜0.01).治疗6周后症状积分下降更明显,两组比较差异无显著性(P>0.05).6周后,铝碳酸镁组内镜下食管炎治愈率为64.28%,有效率为78.57%,与奥美拉唑组(66.67%及93.33%)相比差异无显著性(P>0.05).食管24 h pH及胆红素联合监测显示,铝碳酸镁和奥美拉唑均可显著降低食管内pH值及胆红素吸收值.结论铝碳酸镁与奥美拉唑均为治疗RE的有效药物.     

中西医结合治疗反流性食管炎30例临床观察

目的:观察奥美拉唑加自拟中药方治疗反流性食管炎(RE)的疗效.方法:58例经内镜证实的RE患者,其中治疗组30例,给予奥美拉唑20 mg,1次/d口服,同时服用自拟中药方每日1剂,分2次口服;对照组28例,单纯服用奥美拉唑20 mg,1次/d口服,疗程均为4周,两组治疗4周后复查内镜作对比观察.结果:治疗组内镜下RE治愈率为60.0%,总有效率为96.7%,与对照组(50.0%,78.6%)比较,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).结论:中西医结合治疗组治疗RE的疗效优于单纯奥美拉唑组.     

加味旋覆代赭汤治疗功能性消化不良108例

[目的]观察加味旋覆代赭汤治疗功能性消化不良(FD)临床疗效.[方法]158例FD患者随机分为治疗组(108例)和对照组(50例),治疗组予加味旋覆代赭汤,日1剂水煎服;对照组予多潘立酮10 mg,3次/d饭前口服,两组均以30 d为1个疗程,观察疗效.[结果]症状改善两组内治疗前后及两组间治疗后比较均P＜0.01;治疗组总有效率为92.59%,明显高于对照组68.00%(P＜0.01).[结论]加味旋覆代赭汤治疗FD临床疗效满意.     

达力通颗粒联合泮托拉唑治疗老年人反流性食管炎疗效观察

[目的]观察达力通颗粒联合泮托拉唑治疗老年人反流性食管炎(reflux esophagitis,RE)的疗效。[方法]选取老年RE患者215例,随机分为3组,试验组71例,予泮托拉唑40mg,1次/d,达立通颗粒6g/次,3次/d口服;对照Ⅰ组,72例,予泮托拉唑40mg,1次/d,多潘立酮10mg/次,3次/d口服;对照Ⅱ组,72例,泮托拉唑40mg,1次/d口服。3组均治疗4周。比较各组治疗前、后症状评分、临床疗效、内镜下的病变改善情况、不同级别食管黏膜病变治疗后症状缓解情况及不良反应。[结果]共210例完成试验。治疗后3组患者症状评分均降低,试验组症状评分明显低于其他2组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。试验组总有效率、内镜下食管黏膜病变改善总有效率均高于其他2组;轻度RE患者3组治疗总有效率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),而试验组中度、重度患者总有效率均高于其他2组(P<0.05)。3组患者治疗期间均未出现严重不良反应。[结论]达立通颗粒联合泮托拉唑能安全、有效地改善老年人RE症状,食管黏膜病变治愈率高,特别对中、重度RE疗效显著。     

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。     

旋覆代赭汤对反流性食管炎模型大鼠白细胞介素-6及肿瘤坏死因子-α的影响

[目的]观察旋覆代赭汤对混合性反流性食管炎（RE）模型大鼠血浆及食管组织细胞因子白细胞介素（IL）-6及肿瘤坏死因子（TNF）-α水平的影响,揭示RE的关键病机及深入研究旋覆代赭汤治疗RE的作用机制。[方法]采用“食管十二指肠端侧吻合术”制作动物模型,大鼠随机分为正常对照组、假手术组、模型组、西药莫沙必利对照组（西药组）、旋覆代赭汤治疗组（中药组）。各组给予相应处理或用药后,通过ELISA的方法分别检测各组血浆及食管组织中细胞因子IL-6及TNF-α水平变化。[结果]中药组及西药组较模型组能明显降低RE模型大鼠食管组织中IL-6及TNF-α水平（P〈0．05）,中药组与西药组相比IL-6及TNF-α水平降低（P〈0．05）;而血浆中IL-6含量结果表明,中药组与西药组比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,其余结果与食管组织结果一致。[结论]旋覆代赭汤可显著降低RE模型大鼠食管组织中IL-6及TNF-α水平,表明其对改善食管局部及外周炎症反应、改善食管下端括约肌的松弛情况等有显著效果。     

Pantoprazole versus lansoprazole in French patients with reflux esophagitis

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of pantoprazole 40 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg given for 4 to 8 weeks on endoscopic healing and symptom relief in grade II-III reflux esophagitis patients (according to Savary-Miller classification).METHODS: Four hundred and sixty one patients were included (pantoprazole n=226, lansoprazole n=235) in this prospective, randomized, multicenter double-blind study. Endoscopic control was performed at 4 weeks and at 8 weeks if esophagitis was not healed. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, the healing rates at 4 weeks were 81 and 80% in the pantoprazole and lansoprazole groups, respectively (NS), 90 and 86% at 8 weeks (NS). In the per-protocol analysis, the healing rates at 4 weeks were 86% in the 2 groups and at 8 weeks 97% in the pantoprazole group and 93% in the lansoprazole group (NS). The heartburn relief rates at day 14 were 88% and 86% in the pantoprazole and lansoprazole groups, respectively. Only esophagitis grade at entry was shown to be a predictive factor for healing at 4 weeks (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study showed that pantoprazole 40 mg once daily is as effective and well tolerated as lansoprazole 30 mg once daily in the treatment of grade II-III acute reflux esophagitis.     

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.     

A double-blind,randomized comparison of omeprazole Multiple Unit Pellet System (MUPS) 20 mg,lansoprazole 30 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg in symptomatic reflux oesophagitis followed by 3 months of omeprazole MUPS maintenance treatment: a Dutch multicentre trial

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have proved to be effective in treating reflux oesophagitis. Until now, no study had compared the PPIs omeprazole Multiple Unit Pellet System (MUPS), lansoprazole and pantoprazole in patients with reflux oesophagitis. AIM: To compare omeprazole MUPS 20 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg for treatment effect in symptomatic reflux oesophagitis. METHOD: Patients with grade I-IV symptomatic reflux oesophagitis were randomized to double-blind omeprazole 20 mg once morning, lansoprazole 30 mg o.m. or pantoprazole 40 mg o.m. Patient satisfaction and symptoms were evaluated after 4 and 8 weeks. Patients not satisfied after 8 weeks were treated for another 4 weeks with omeprazole 40 mg MUPS (open). Successful treatment was followed by 3 months' maintenance treatment with omeprazole MUPS 20 mg (patients satisfied after 4 or 8 weeks) or omeprazole MUPS 40 mg (patients satisfied after 12 weeks). RESULTS: On intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (n = 461) at 4 and 8 weeks, respectively, 84% and 87% (omeprazole MUPS), 78% and 81% (lansoprazole), and 84% and 89% (pantoprazole) were free of heartburn. Equivalence was found between omeprazole MUPS and pantoprazole (heartburn relief), but not with lansoprazole. Patient satisfaction after 4 and 8 weeks, respectively, was 79% and 89% (omeprazole MUPS), 76% and 86% (lansoprazole), and 79% and 91% (pantoprazole). Patient satisfaction was similar in all treatment groups. During maintenance, 87% in the omeprazole MUPS 20 mg group and 81% in the omeprazole MUPS 40 mg group were satisfied after 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Omeprazole MUPS 20 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg have equivalent efficacy in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis. Based on patient satisfaction, omeprazole MUPS 20 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg are equally effective.     

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.     

Comparable efficacy of pantoprazole and omeprazole in patients with moderate to severe reflux esophagitis. Results of a multinational study

AIM: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of pantoprazole 40 mg and omeprazole MUPS 40 mg in patients with moderate to severe gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study conducted in Austria, Germany, Portugal, Switzerland and The Netherlands, patients with endoscopically confirmed moderate to severe GERD (Savary/Miller esophagitis grade II/III) were enrolled. They received a once-daily dose of either 40 mg pantoprazole or 40 mg omeprazole MUPS. Healing was determined by endoscopy after 4 weeks of treatment. If patients were not healed, treatment was extended for another 4 weeks. An additional endoscopy was performed in these cases after 8 weeks of treatment. Healing was determined by endoscopy after 4 and 8 weeks. In addition, treatment effect on symptoms was evaluated by the investigator using a questionnaire assessing heartburn, reflux regurgitation and pain on swallowing at each visit, as well as by a self-administered questionnaire comprising further 24 gastrointestinal symptoms. Analyses were performed for the intention-to-treat (ITT) and the per-protocol (PP) population. In addition, patients with high compliance (HC: 90% 相似文献   

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.     

潘托拉唑治疗消化性溃疡临床疗效观察

目的：研究潘托拉唑治疗消化性溃疡的疗效及安全性。方法：将经胃镜证实的消化性溃疡患者随机分成潘托拉唑组（治疗组,简称潘组）和奥美拉唑组（对照组,简称奥组）,其中潘组60例,应用潘托拉唑40mg,1次／d;奥组58例;应用败类美拉唑20mg,1次／d。十二指肠溃疡患者疗程4周,胃溃疡6周。停药后均复查胃镜观察溃疡愈合情况。治疗期间每周随访1次。并记录症状改善情况及不良反应。结果：十二指肠溃疡的愈合率两组分别为91．7％和94．7％,胃溃疡的愈合率两组分别为91．7％反应。结果十二指肠溃疡的愈合率两组分别为91．7％和94．7％,胃溃疡的愈合率两组分别为91．7％和90．0％,P值均＞0．05。各项症状的改善情况两组相仿（P＞0．05）。治疗期间,两组均有良好的耐受性。结论潘托拉唑对消化性溃疡有较高的治愈率和症状改善率。疗效与奥美拉唑相当,其不良反应很少,患者耐受性好,是一种有应用前景的质子泵抑制剂。     

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.     

On-demand therapy with pantoprazole 20 mg as effective long-term management of reflux disease in patients with mild GERD: the ORION trial

AIMS: To compare safety and efficacy of on-demand pantoprazole 20 mg/40 mg versus placebo in the long-term management of patients with mild gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) after heartburn relief. METHODS: A total of 634 patients with endoscopically confirmed GERD grade 0/I and heartburn were included. During the acute phase, patients were treated with pantoprazole 20 mg once daily for 4 weeks. Those patients relieved from heartburn entered the long-term phase, and were randomly assigned to either treatment group pantoprazole 20 mg, 40 mg or placebo. Over 6 months, patients took study medication on demand (antacids as rescue medication) and discontinued the drug once symptoms abated. RESULTS: After 4 weeks a total of 87.1%/90.0% of patients were free of heartburn (ITT/PP), and entered the subsequent long-term phase. The perceived average daily symptom load (placebo: 3.93, pantoprazole 20 mg: 2.91, pantoprazole 40 mg: 2.71, ITT) and the number of antacid tablets taken (average number, placebo: 0.68, pantoprazole 20 mg: 0.45, pantoprazole 40 mg: 0.33, ITT) were significantly higher in the placebo than in both pantoprazole groups (p<0.0001), with no statistically significant difference between the two pantoprazole groups. The discontinuation rate due to insufficient control of heartburn was significantly lower in both pantoprazole groups compared to placebo (placebo: 10.9, pantoprazole 20 mg: 2.8, pantoprazole 40 mg: 0.9, ITT). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings favor on-demand treatment with pantoprazole 20 mg for the long-term management of heartburn in patients with uncomplicated GERD (grade 0/I) with superiority to placebo.