Evaluation of upper abdominal symptoms using the Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to evaluate upper abdominal symptoms in laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) patients and changes in both upper abdominal and LPR symptoms before and after acid-suppression therapy. METHODS: In 100 patients with LPR symptoms, upper abdominal and LPR symptoms were evaluated by using the Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (FSSG) and the LPR symptom scoring system, respectively. In the 52 assessable patients, changes in these symptoms before and after acid-suppression therapy were evaluated. RESULTS: Upper abdominal symptoms were reported by 96/100 LPR patients: 89 responded positively to at least one of the questions about acid reflux-related symptoms and 89 to at least one of those about dysmotility-like symptoms. There was poor correlation between positive rates to FSSG upper abdominal symptom questions and the frequency of reported laryngopharyngeal symptoms. There were significant reductions in the frequency of acid reflux-related symptoms, dysmotility-like symptoms, and laryngopharyngeal symptoms after acidsuppression therapy. The LPR symptom score decreased to less than half the pretreatment score in 25 subjects (therapeutic response group). The pretreatment frequency of dysmotility-like symptoms seemed to be higher in the nonresponse group than in the response group, although the difference was not significant. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the pretreatment frequency of acid reflux-related symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of these Japanese LPR patients experienced some form of upper abdominal symptoms. The frequency of dysmotility-like symptoms was similar to that of acid reflux-related symptoms. The pretreatment frequency of dysmotility-like symptoms, but not of acid reflux-related symptoms, might be a predictor of patient response to acid-suppression therapy.     

黛力新联合奥美拉唑治疗慢性胃炎伴反流性食管炎的临床疗效分析

目的 探讨黛力新联合奥美拉唑对慢性胃炎伴有反流性食管炎的临床治疗效果.方法 选取徐州医学院附属医院2011年3月-2013年2月收治的300例慢性胃炎伴反流性食管炎患者为研究对象.根据治疗方案的不同将其分为研究组和对照组.研究组的治疗方案为黛力新、奥美拉唑、莫沙必利;对照组为奥美拉唑、莫沙必利.治疗1个月和2个月后对两组患者的内镜检查结果分级、反流性食管炎症状积分、焦虑和抑郁情绪的改善、有效率等方面进行对比分析.结果 治疗1个月和2个月时,研究组患者的内镜检查结果、焦虑/抑郁情绪、有效率以及反流性食管炎的症状积分均优于对照组,且组间差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）,表明黛力新能够加速慢性胃炎伴有反流性食管炎患者的临床康复.结论 黛力新能够有效促进慢性胃炎伴反流性食管炎患者的临床康复,改善病因性的焦虑和抑郁症状,值得临床推广应用.     

Randomized comparative study of omeprazole and famotidine in reflux esophagitis

BACKGROUND: Although proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and H2-receptor antagonists (H2-RA) are routinely used in the treatment of reflux esophagitis (RE), no consensus has been reached yet as to whether the first-choice drug should be PPI or H2-RA. In this study, the effects of omeprazole (OMP) and famotidine (FAM) on RE have been examined in a randomized comparative study. METHODS: Protocols of OMP 20 mg once daily or FAM 20 mg twice daily for 8 weeks were allocated to 56 cases with RE at random, using an envelope randomization method. Their efficacy in achieving healing was examined endoscopically and a relief from subjective symptoms was compared. RESULTS: Patient's background such as sex, age, recurrence, hiatal hernia, smoking and drinking habits, and complications, and the severity of esophagitis at the time of enrolment were not significantly different between the two groups. Healing in the OMP group and the FAM group was observed in 72 and 32% (P = 0.025) of patients at week 4 and 95 and 53% (P = 0.003) of patients at week 8, respectively. Subjective symptoms were relieved more frequently in the OMP group (at week 2, 67% compared with 29%, P = 0.005; at week 4, 95% compared with 55%, P = 0.009), but this superiority was not significant at week 8 (94% compared with 65%, P = 0.085). No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Omeprazole provided quicker healing and a greater relief from subjective symptoms than did FAM in the treatment of RE, and was considered more suitable as a first-choice drug.     

莫沙必利联合奥美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎临床效果观察

目的观察莫沙必利治疗反流性食管炎的临床疗效及安全性。方法将90例患者随机分为观察组46例,对照组44例。观察组患者给予奥美拉唑20 mg/次,2次/d;莫沙必利5 mg/次,3次/d,口服。对照组患者给予奥美拉唑20 mg/次,2次/d;多潘立酮10 mg/次,3次/d,口服。两组均疗程4周,观察比较患者的临床疗效、内镜检查结果及不良反应。结果临床疗效比较,观察组为总有效率95.65%,对照组为79.55%,观察组优于对照组（P〈0.05）;内镜检查结果显示,观察组总有效率为89.13%,对照组为72.73%,观察组高于对照组（P〈0.05）。两组均未出现严重不良反应。结论莫沙必利联合奥美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎疗效满意,症状缓解快,不良反应少,值得临床推广应用。     

Endoscopic reflux esophagitis in patients with upper abdominal pain-predominant dyspepsia

BACKGROUND: Reflux symptom assessment had reliable accuracy in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, patients may recognize heartburn or regurgitation as dyspepsia because of inaccurate understanding or atypical presentation. The aim of the present study was to estimate endoscopic reflux esophagitis in patients with upper abdominal pain as a predominant symptom in the absence of heartburn or regurgitation. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-three consecutive patients presenting dyspepsia without heartburn or regurgitation were enrolled. Patients with heartburn or regurgitation were excluded using the symptom interviewer method. Dyspepsia was categorized into pain-predominant or dysmotility-predominant groups according to the Rome II proposal. Endoscopic reflux esophagitis was graded using the Los Angeles classification. RESULTS: One hundred and five patients were included in the pain-predominant group and 119 in the dysmotility-predominant group. Reflux esophagitis was found in 18.8% (42/224) of all dyspeptic patients. Grade A esophagitis was noted in 27.6% (29/105) of the pain-predominant group and in 7.6% (9/119) of the dysmotility-predominant group. Grade B was noted in two patients in each group. A total of 29.5% (31/105) and 9.3% (11/119) had reflux esophagitis, respectively (P < 0.001). Comparing patients with or without reflux esophagitis, there was no difference in body mass index, smoking habit, alcohol consumption, or Helicobacter pylori infection status. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients presenting dyspepsia, especially pain-predominant dyspepsia, have endoscopic reflux esophagitis. In view of GERD, pain-predominant dyspepsia should be investigated and managed differently from dysmotility-predominant dyspepsia.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

雷贝拉唑与奥美拉唑对老年人反流性食管炎的抑酸效能及其症状缓解作用比较

目的比较雷贝拉唑和奥美拉唑对老年人反流性食管炎（RE）的抑酸效果及症状缓解作用。方法60例经胃镜检查确诊为反流性食管炎的老年患者,随机分成两组,每天早餐前空腹121服雷贝拉唑10mg或奥美拉唑20mg,疗程均为7d。在用药前和用药后的第1天及第7天对患者的主要反流症状进行症状学评分,比较两组治疗前后症状学评分。每组各选10名患者于服药第1天做24h胃内pH值监测,比较这两种药物胃酸抑制效果。结果服药第1天雷贝拉唑组的症状评分为1．86±1．17,奥美拉唑组为2．53±1．14．P〈0．05。雷贝拉唑组7人症状消失,奥美拉唑组的2人症状消失。至第7天两组的症状评分分别为0．47±0．68和0．63±0．72,症状消失率分别为63．3％和50％,两组差异无统计学意义。服药第1天雷贝拉唑组服药后2h胃内中位pH值为6．10±1．13,高于奥美拉唑组的4．22±2．38,起效时间40．8±24．35．快于奥美拉唑组的112．0±105．46．P值均小于0．05。其余各项指标差异无统计学意义。两组均无明显不良反应事件发生。结论雷贝拉唑和奥美拉唑对老年人RE患者均有良好的抑酸效能及症状缓解作用,但雷贝拉唑起效更快、抑酸作用更稳定。     

法莫替丁治疗反流性食管炎多中心临床观察

目的　探讨不同剂量法莫替丁 (商品名 :高舒达 )对反流性食管炎 (RE)的疗效。方法　上海地区 4家医院将 89例经内镜证实的 (洛杉矶分级A级和B级 )RE患者随机分为两组 ,A组 4 6例予以法莫替丁 2 0mg ,每日 2次 ;B组 4 3例予以双倍剂量 ,即 4 0mg ,每日 2次。分别于治疗后 2、4、6、8及 12周观察烧心、反酸、胸痛等症状疗效 ,并于 12周后复查胃镜 ,观察镜下愈合率 ,A组中 9例、B组中 10例患者分别与治疗前及治疗后进行食管 2 4hpH监测。 结果　法莫替丁治疗 2周 ,即可见症状明显改善 ,症状记分较治疗前明显下降 (P <0 .0 1) ,继续用药至第 12周 ,症状记分较第 2周亦显著下降 (P <0 .0 1) ,两组在治疗前及治疗后不同时间症状积分下降值均差异无显著性。治疗 12周时 ,A组症状消失率为 5 2 .17% ,总有效率为 84 .78% ;B组症状消失率为 4 8.83% ,总有效率为 88.37%。两组在症状消失率及有效率方面均差异无显著性 (P >0 .0 5 )。A组食管炎内镜下愈合率为 4 7.83% ,有效率为 82 .6 1% ;B组愈合率为 4 6 .5 1% ,有效率为 86 .0 5 %。两组在内镜下食管炎愈合率及有效率方面均差异无显著性(P >0 .0 5 )。食管 2 4hpH监测显示 ,法莫替丁 4 0mg ,每日 2次患者食管酸暴露次数较治疗前明显减少(P <0 .0 5 )。结论　法莫     

Acid-suppressive effects of generic omeprazole: Comparison of three brands of generic omeprazole with original omeprazole

BACKGROUND: Generic omeprazole contains the same active ingredient as original omeprazole and require verification of the bioequivalence with original omeprazole. However, very few clinical studies have been reported. AIMS: A prospective, randomised, open-label, crossover study to compare acid-suppressive effect of generic omeprazole with that of original omeprazole. SUBJECTS: Seven healthy Helicobacter pylori-negative subjects of CYP2C19 extensive metaboliser. METHODS: Intragastric pH was measured for 24 h without medications (placebo) and on day 7 of repeated administration of 10 mg once daily after breakfast of original omeprazole, Omeprazon, or three brands of generic omeprazole, Omeprazole-Towa, Ovulanze or Omerap. RESULTS: Median values of intragastric pH and percentages of time with pH>4 for 24 h were significantly higher with administration of any omeprazole formulation compared with placebo (P<0.05, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Whereas, during the night-time period (20:00-08:00 h), percentages of time with pH>4 with Omeprazole-Towa and Omerap were not significantly higher than placebo. Compared with Omeprazon, these two parameters for 24 h showed significantly greater inter-subject variations with Omeprazole-Towa (P<0.05 and P<0.01, F-test) and Ovulanze (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Acid-suppressive effects of some brands of generic omeprazole are not the same as original omeprazole. These differences might be reflected in clinical outcomes.     

埃索美拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗重度反流性食管炎的疗效观察

目的探讨埃索美拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗重度反流性食管炎的临床疗效。方法将90例经内镜证实为Ⅱ、Ⅲ级反流性食管炎患者随机分为埃索美拉唑联合莫沙必利组（A组）、奥美拉唑联合莫沙必利组（B组）和埃索美拉唑组（C组）,三组分别口服埃索美拉唑20 mg,2次/d,莫沙必利5 mg,3次/d;口服奥美拉唑20 mg,2次/d,莫沙必利5 mg,3次/d;以及口服埃索美拉唑20 mg,2次/d治疗,疗程8周,停药后复查胃镜,观察治愈率,并记录症状改善情况及不良反应。结果治疗8周后A、B、C三组症状改善总有效率分别为96.88%、75.00%、70.00%;胃镜下有效率分别为93.75%、71.43%、66.67%,A组与其他两组比较均有显著性差异（P〈0.05）。结论埃索美拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗重度反流性食管炎有较高的治愈率和症状改善率,临床疗效明显优于奥美拉唑联合莫沙必利及单独应用埃索美拉唑治疗。     

比较雷贝拉唑与奥美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎的临床效果

[目的]对比分析雷贝拉唑与奥美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎的临床效果。[方法]选取2010～2013年于我院就诊的反流性食管炎患者120例,随机均分为2组,治疗组在一般治疗的基础上,给予雷贝拉唑肠溶胶囊,20mg/d,每日早晨空腹服用;对照组给予奥美拉唑肠溶片20mg/d,每日早晨空腹服用,其他治疗方法同治疗组,疗程均为8周。[结果]治疗组痊愈率为93.33%,明显高于对照组65.00%,2组差异有统计学意义。内镜下显示治疗组痊愈率为91.67%,明显高于对照组53.33%;治疗组不良反应发生率为1.67%,显著低于对照组26.67%;治疗组的复发率为5.00%,显著低于对照组（30.00%）,2组差异均有统计学意义。[结论]相较于奥美拉唑而言,雷贝拉唑有起效快、疗效好、不良反应及复发率低等优点,值得临床推广应用。     

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.     

康复新液联合奥美拉唑治疗尿毒症并上消化道出血疗效观察

[目的]观察康复新液联合奥美拉唑治疗尿毒症并上消化道出血的疗效。[方法]胃镜检查确诊为尿毒症并上消化道出血45例患者随机分为2组，治疗组25例，口服康复新液10ml，每日3次；奥美拉唑40mg，每日1次静脉滴注。对照组20例，奥美拉唑40mg，每日1次静脉滴注，疗程均为5d。治疗期间记录出血停止时间。[结果]治疗组总有效率为96．0％，对照组为65．0％，2组差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。用药期间，无不良反应，均有良好的耐受性。[结论]康复新液联合奥美拉唑可有效治疗尿毒症并上消化道出血。     

Non-Esophageal symptoms cannot differentiate between erosive reflux esophagitis and non-erosive reflux disease in a referred population

Abstract

Background. Non-esophageal symptoms are highly prevalent in non-erosive reflux disease (NERD). However, their prevalence in erosive esophagitis (ErE) is unclear. The aims of this study were to compare patients with pH-positive NERD and ErE in terms of non-esophageal symptoms and to investigate whether such symptoms can differentiate between these two conditions. Material and methods. A prospective observational study of ErE and pH-positive NERD patients matched for age and gender with a nested case-control analysis. Symptoms were scored on validated scales. The association between the scale scores and diagnosis was evaluated in a random group comprising 67% of the total (group A) and was validated on the rest (group B). Results. 124 ErE and 248 pH-positive NERD patients were studied. In group A, pH-positive NERD patients scored higher than ErE patients on all symptom scales. Scores on chest, constipation, sleep and urinary symptoms scales were significantly associated with diagnosis. A composite weighted score on these scales was 41.5% sensitive and 86.0% specificity in the differentiation of ErE from pH-positive NERD patients. When applied to group B, the sensitivity and specificity of this score were 48.8% and 70.3%, respectively. Conclusions. Digestive and non-digestive symptoms occurred with a significant higher prevalence in pH-positive NERD compared with ErE patients. However a composite score on scales of constipation, chest, sleep and urinary symptoms was not enough sensitive and specific to differentiate these two conditions.     

奥美拉唑治疗前后糜烂性食管炎患者食管鳞状上皮细胞间隙的变化

目的观察糜烂性食管炎患者应用奥美拉唑治疗前后食管鳞状上皮细胞间隙的改变。方法20例经胃镜确诊的糜烂性食管炎患者给予奥美拉唑20mg,2次／d,治疗4周后复查胃镜。治疗前后2次胃镜检查时于齿状线上方2cm取活检,观察透射电镜下鳞状上皮细胞间隙的变化。治疗前后患者分别接受症状问卷,症状严重程度用积分表示。结果治疗前平均细胞间隙、最大细胞间隙和最小细胞间隙分别为（1．14±0．15）μm、（1．47±0．15）μm、（0．85±0．17）μm;治疗后分别为（O．51±0．18）μm、（0．72±0．25）μm、（0．36±0．15）μm,与治疗前比较差异有统计学意义（P=0．000）。结论短期应用奥美拉唑治疗可以使糜烂性食管炎患者增宽的食管下段鳞状上皮细胞间隙恢复至正常。     

Endoscopic esophagitis findings in patients with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms

The experience concerning the findings of endoscopical esophagitis in patients with reflux symptoms studied between January 1984, and December 1986, is presented. Endoscopical esophagitis, according to the European classification was found in 5% of the patients. Grade I (mild) and Grade III (Barrett) were the most frequent findings. Symptoms were similar to those reported in the international literature. No difference in age, sex distribution, for each group of esophagitis were seen. The distance of the squamous-columnar limit from the incisors was significantly higher in patients within esophagitis group III or IV.     

Effectiveness of omeprazole for the treatment of upper gastrointestinal lesions in rheumatoid arthritis patients

We evaluated the efficacy of omeprazole (OPZ) for the treatment of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) lesions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Fourteen RA patients with H2 receptor antagonist- (H2RA-) resistant UGI lesions (1 stomal, 11 gastric, and 2 esophageal with reflux esophagitis ulcers) were treated with OPZ at 20 mg/day (study A). New untreated UGI lesions (1 stomal and 12 gastric ulcers) were treated with OPZ (study B). Three patients who showed renal dysfunction during H2RA treatment for UGI lesion were treated with OPZ (study C). Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were not discontinued. The stage of each ulcer was determined by gastrointestinal fiberscopy (GIF). In study A, during the first 8 weeks of OPZ treatment, 1 esophageal and 7 gastric ulcer patients were completely cured. Six patients showing partial response were treated further with OPZ for another 8 weeks. During this second period, 1 stomal and 3 gastric ulcer patients were completely cured, and 1 gastric and 1 esophageal ulcer patient showed only partial response. In study B, after an 8-week OPZ treatment, all except 2 patients showed complete healing. One patient developed mild eruption at 4 weeks and was shifted to H2RA. One patient showed complete healing after 4 weeks. No patient in study C showed renal dysfunction with OPZ. Our results suggest that OPZ is an effective treatment for UGI lesions in RA patients using NSAIDs. Received: January 31, 2001 / Accepted: August 31, 2001