Search

Background: Although most patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) benefit from proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, some experience only partial symptom relief., Aim: To determine the prevalence of partial heartburn response to PPIs and its impact on health-related quality of life., Methods: Four randomised, double-blind studies in adults with reflux disease compared esomeprazole 40 mg/day or 20 mg/day with omeprazole 20 mg/day, or esomeprazole 40 mg/day with pantoprazole 40 mg/day. Patients with heartburn on ≥4 days during the 1-week recall period at baseline were included. Partial response was defined as heartburn on ≥3 days during the last treatment week and reduced heartburn frequency after 4 weeks of treatment compared with baseline., Results: The analysis included 2645 patients with non-erosive reflux disease (mean age: 48.8 years; 54.4% women) and 3151 patients with reflux oesophagitis (mean age: 50.6 years; 37.1% women). At baseline, most patients reported heartburn on 5-7 days (non-erosive reflux disease: 82.2%; reflux oesophagitis: 86.8%). Partial heartburn response occurred in 19.9% of patients with non-erosive reflux disease and 14.0% with reflux oesophagitis. Defining partial response as heartburn on ≥2 days increased these rates to 26.2% and 19.3%, respectively; defining partial response as heartburn of moderate or severe intensity on ≥3 days decreased these rates to 6.4% and 5.3%, respectively. Nonresponse to PPIs was rare (non-erosive reflux disease: 2.4%; reflux oesophagitis: 1.4%)., Conclusion: Using our conservative definition, partial heartburn response to proton pump inhibitor therapy occurred in 14-20% of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients, more commonly in non-erosive reflux disease than in reflux oesophagitis., (© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Background: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used agents that can cause serious gastrointestinal (GI) side effects. For patients at increased risk of NSAID-related GI complications, prophylaxis with either a nonselective NSAID plus gastroprotective agent (GPA) or, alternatively, therapy with a cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor with or without a GPA such as a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), is recommended., Aim: To describe the rate, timing and duration of GI prophylaxis in Nova Scotia seniors receiving nonselective NSAIDs., Methods: The Nova Scotia Seniors' Pharmacare Program beneficiaries for the years 1998 to 2002 were studied. A cohort of incident NSAID and GPA users was selected from all nonselective NSAID users (no prescribed NSAID dispensed 12 months before the index month and no GPA dispensed two months before the index prescription). Monthly coprescribing rates were calculated by dividing the number of patients in the cohort using GPAs by the number of NSAID users. GI prophylactic coprescribing was defined as the coprescribing rate present at the first month (index month) of prescribing an NSAID., Results: The cohort consisted of 12,906 patients. Seventy-five per cent of the nonselective NSAID prescriptions dispensed were for up to two months duration, with only 2.3% longer than one year. GI prophylaxis was given to only 3.8% of patients starting NSAIDs who were not on a GPA in the two months before starting NSAIDs. Of this 3.8%, 92.7% of the patients received H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and 7% received PPIs. The rate of H2RA coprescribing increased with the number of consecutive months on an NSAID from 3.5% in the first month to 24.1% at 48 months. For PPIs, the coprescribing rate increased from 0.3% to 1.9% of all NSAID users in the cohort. The rate of gastroprophylaxis coprescribing for patients receiving NSAIDs did not rise with increasing age., Conclusion: In Nova Scotian seniors using nonselective NSAIDs, the rate of GI prophylaxis was low. Most patients received H2RAs as GPAs despite evidence that they offer insufficient protection.

Background: The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) among elderly patients using nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) has increased; the price of PPIs is higher than that of majority of alternative treatment strategies., Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nsNSAIDS + PPIs relative to alternative gastroprotective regimens in the prevention of GI complications among elderly patients (aged > or = 65 years)., Methods: An incremental cost-utility analysis, comparing PPIs with alternative gastroprotective regimens was conducted using a decision analytical model. Clinical outcomes, costs and utilities were derived from recently published studies. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results to variation in model inputs and assumptions., Results: The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of PPIs, relative to nsNSAID alone, was $206,315 per QALY gained or were more costly and less effective. Other co-prescribed treatment options had higher costs per QALY gained. In patients with a history of a complicated or uncomplicated ulcer, PPIs had ICURs of $24,277 and $40,876, respectively., Conclusions: Use of PPIs in all elderly patients taking nsNSAIDs is unlikely to represent an efficient use of finite healthcare resources. Co-prescribing PPIs, however, to elderly patients taking nsNSAIDs who have a history of complicated or uncomplicated ulcers appears to be economically attractive.

Aim: To perform a systematic review on the efficacy of intermittent and on-demand therapy with either histamine H2-receptor antagonists or proton pump inhibitors for patients with erosive oesophagitis or symptomatic heartburn., Method: We conducted randomized-controlled trials of non-continuous therapy in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients., Results: Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria. Because of variation in outcome measures statistical pooling of results was not possible. Results were analysed qualitatively. Four studies evaluated intermittent therapy of treatment 3 days a week with omeprazole 20 mg or daily with ranitidine which were not efficacious compared to a daily proton pump inhibitor. Famotidine 10 and 20 mg, ranitidine 75 mg and cimetidine 200 mg were efficacious in five on-demand studies for relief of symptomatic heartburn episodes. In three of four studies, evaluating only non-erosive (endoscopy-negative) gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients, esomeprazole 20 and 40 mg and omeprazole 10 and 20 mg a day were efficacious using willingness to continue as an endpoint. Lansoprazole 30 mg and omeprazole 20 mg maintained symptom control in 60-70% of healed oesophagitis patients., Conclusions: Intermittent proton pump inhibitor or H2-receptor antagonist therapy is not effective in maintaining control in oesophagitis patients. H2-receptor antagonists are effective for relief of heartburn episodes. On-demand proton pump inhibitor therapy may work in a proportion of non-erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients.

Background: There are few data on empiric, stepped therapy for heartburn relief or subsequent relapse in primary care., Aims: To compare heartburn relief produced by a proton pump inhibitor-start or an H(2)-receptor antagonist-start with step-up therapy, as needed, followed by a treatment-free period to assess relapse., Methods: Heartburn-dominant uninvestigated dyspepsia patients from 46 primary care centres were randomized to one of two active treatment strategies: omeprazole 20 mg daily (proton pump inhibitor-start) or ranitidine 150 mg bid (H2-receptor antagonist-start) for the first 4-8 weeks, stepping up to omeprazole 40 or 20 mg daily, respectively, for 4-8 weeks for persistent symptoms. Daily diaries documented heartburn relief (score < or = 3/7 on < or = of 7 prior days) and relapse (score > or = 4 on > or = 2 of 7 prior days)., Results: For 'proton pump inhibitor-start' (n = 196) vs. 'H2-receptor antagonist-start' (n = 194), respectively, heartburn relief occurred in 55.1% vs. 27.3% (P < 0.001) at 4 weeks and in 88.3% vs. 87.1% at 16 weeks. After therapy, 308 patients were heartburn-free (159 vs. 149); median times to relapse were 8 vs. 9 days and cumulative relapse rates were 78.6% vs. 75.8%, respectively., Conclusions: An empiric 'proton pump inhibitor-start' strategy relieves heartburn more effectively than an 'H2-receptor antagonist-start' strategy up to 12 weeks but has no effect on subsequent relapse, which is rapid in most patients.

Aim: To evaluate treatment efficacy using objective quality criteria., Methods: A systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials of endoscopically investigated dyspepsia (1979-2003) using the Jadad score and Rome II guidelines. The Jadad score differentiated studies as 'high quality' (score 4-5/5) vs. 'poor quality' (score 1-3/5). Three key Rome II guidelines on study design (cut-off of 0/3 or > 0/3) were also compared with the Jadad score., Results: Poor quality trials suggested a benefit of prokinetic therapy [relative risk (RR) of remaining dyspeptic, 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39-0.56), which was not confirmed in high quality trials (RR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.84-1.19). There was a marked benefit of H2-receptor antagonist therapy in poor quality trials (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.61-0.76), but a marginal benefit in good quality trials (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97). Trial quality did not affect the small statistically significant benefit seen with Helicobacter pylori eradication. Two high quality trials suggested a limited benefit with the use of proton pump inhibitors, with no poor quality trials to provide a comparison. Separation of the studies by the Rome II criteria had a similar impact on the calculated treatment estimates., Conclusions: The magnitude of benefit of prokinetic and H2-receptor antagonist therapies reported in previous meta-analyses has been over-estimated. The quality of trials has an impact on the efficacy estimates of treatment. The Rome II criteria for study methodology may be appropriate for judging study quality.

Background While empiric acid-suppressive therapy for uninvestigated dyspepsia patients with symptoms of epigastric pain or burning is standard practice, it is unknown whether an early response to therapy predicts outcome. Aim To evaluate whether a 1-w acid suppression trial is effective for predicting 8-w response in such patients. Methods Helicobacter pylori-negative patients (aged 18–50 years) in primary care with uninvestigated epigastric pain or burning were randomized to esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s. or b.d. for 1w, followed by esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s. or placebo for 7w. Each day, patients rated the severity of their symptoms. Results Based on the last 3d, 1-w response rates were 39% (231 of 588) and 43% (258 of 596) with esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s. and b.d., respectively. Based on the last 7d, response rates at 4w were 38% (283 of 738) and 25% (93 of 380) for esomeprazole and placebo, respectively, and 47% (339 of 716) and 34% (124 of 368), respectively, at 8w (both P < 0.001 vs. placebo). The sensitivity and specificity of esomeprazole treatment were 58% and 70%, respectively, at 8w. Conclusion A 1-w acid suppression trial is of limited clinical value for predicting 8-w response in patients with symptoms of epigastric pain or burning. Esomeprazole provides greater symptom control than placebo at 4w and 8w. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Early identification of true responders to acid suppression in functional dyspepsia patients with symptoms of epigastric pain or burning may enable clinicians to optimally tailor treatment. Aim To evaluate whether a 1-w acid suppression trial is useful for identifying true responders in this population. Methods Patients (18–70 years) were randomized to either esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s., b.d. or placebo for 1w, and then esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s. or placebo for 7w. Epigastric pain and/or burning were recorded on a 4-point scale (0 = none, 3 = severe). Trial-week response was defined as symptom score sum ≤1 on last 3d of therapy; response at 8w was symptom score sum ≤1 over preceding 7d. Results 1-w response rates were 33% (199 of 597), 29% (188 of 629) and 23% (71 of 315) with esomeprazole q.d.s., esomeprazole b.d. and placebo, respectively ( P = 0.002 for esomeprazole groups vs. placebo). At 8w, trial week sensitivity and specificity were 46% and 80%, respectively, for esomeprazole (40 or 80 mg), and 33% and 87%, respectively, for placebo. The positive and negative predictive values for esomeprazole were 60% and 69%. Conclusion Response to a 1-w acid suppression trial is of limited use for predicting symptom response at 8w in patients with unexplained epigastric pain or burning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The reflux disease questionnaire (RDQ) is a short, patient-completed instrument. Aims To investigate the psychometric characteristics of the RDQ in patients with heartburn-predominant (HB) and non-heartburn predominant (NHB) dyspepsia. Methods HB ( n = 388) and NHB ( n = 733) patients were randomized to esomeprazole 40 mg daily or twice daily for 1 week, followed by 3 weeks of esomeprazole 40 mg daily. Results High factor loadings (0.78–0.86) supported the ‘regurgitation’ dimension of the RDQ. Overlapping factor loadings in the ‘heartburn’ and ‘dyspepsia’ dimensions suggested symptom overlap. All dimensions demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.79–0.90). Intra-class correlation coefficients over 4 weeks were good (0.66–0.85). The RDQ showed good responsiveness over 4 weeks of treatment, with high effect sizes (≥0.80). Moderate or large symptom improvements were reported by 90% and 77% of HB and NHB patients, respectively, following treatment. Patients who responded to acid suppression also experienced symptom benefits in all RDQ dimensions. Conclusions The RDQ is reliable, valid and responsive to change in HB and NHB patients. The symptom overlap is important but need not play a major role in determining treatment strategy as both patient groups benefited from proton pump inhibitor treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Several meta-analyses assessing the efficacy of anti- Helicobacter pylori treatment in adults have been published but a comparable meta-analysis in children is lacking. Aims To summarize the efficacy of treatments aimed at eradicating H. pylori in children and to identify sources of variation in treatment efficacy across studies. Methods We searched Medline, reference lists from published study reports, and conference proceedings for anti- H. pylori treatment trials in children. Weighted meta-regression models were used to find sources of variation in efficacy. Results Eighty studies (127 treatment arms) with 4436 children were included. Overall, methodological quality of these studies was poor with small sample sizes and few randomized-controlled trials. The efficacy of therapies varied across treatment arms, treatment duration, method of post-treatment assessment and geographic location. Among the regimens tested, 2–6 weeks of nitroimidazole and amoxicillin, 1–2 weeks of clarithromycin, amoxicillin and a proton pump inhibitor, and 2 weeks of a macrolide, a nitroimidazole and a proton pump inhibitor or bismuth, amoxicillin and metronidazole were the most efficacious in developed countries. Conclusions Before worldwide treatment recommendations are given for eradication of H. pylori, additional well-designed randomized placebo-controlled paediatric trials are needed, especially in developing countries where both drug resistance and disease burden is high. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: To perform a systematic review on the efficacy of intermittent and on-demand therapy with either histamine H2-receptor antagonists or proton pump inhibitors for patients with erosive oesophagitis or symptomatic heartburn.: We conducted randomized-controlled trials of non-continuous therapy in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients.: Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria. Because of variation in outcome measures statistical pooling of results was not possible. Results were analysed qualitatively. Four studies evaluated intermittent therapy of treatment 3 days a week with omeprazole 20 mg or daily with ranitidine which were not efficacious compared to a daily proton pump inhibitor. Famotidine 10 and 20 mg, ranitidine 75 mg and cimetidine 200 mg were efficacious in five on-demand studies for relief of symptomatic heartburn episodes. In three of four studies, evaluating only non-erosive (endoscopy-negative) gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients, esomeprazole 20 and 40 mg and omeprazole 10 and 20 mg a day were efficacious using willingness to continue as an endpoint. Lansoprazole 30 mg and omeprazole 20 mg maintained symptom control in 60–70% of healed oesophagitis patients.: Intermittent proton pump inhibitor or H2-receptor antagonist therapy is not effective in maintaining control in oesophagitis patients. H2-receptor antagonists are effective for relief of heartburn episodes. On-demand proton pump inhibitor therapy may work in a proportion of non-erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: There are few data on empiric, stepped therapy for heartburn relief or subsequent relapse in primary care.: To compare heartburn relief produced by a proton pump inhibitor-start or an H2-receptor antagonist-start with step-up therapy, as needed, followed by a treatment-free period to assess relapse.: Heartburn-dominant uninvestigated dyspepsia patients from 46 primary care centres were randomized to one of two active treatment strategies: omeprazole 20 mg daily (proton pump inhibitor-start) or ranitidine 150 mg bid (H2-receptor antagonist-start) for the first 4–8 weeks, stepping up to omeprazole 40 or 20 mg daily, respectively, for 4–8 weeks for persistent symptoms. Daily diaries documented heartburn relief (score≤3/7 on≤1 of 7 prior days) and relapse (score≥4 on≥2 of 7 prior days).: For‘proton pump inhibitor-start’ (n = 196) vs.‘H2-receptor antagonist-start’ (n = 194), respectively, heartburn relief occurred in 55.1% vs. 27.3% (P < 0.001) at 4 weeks and in 88.3% vs. 87.1% at 16 weeks. After therapy, 308 patients were heartburn-free (159 vs. 149); median times to relapse were 8 vs. 9 days and cumulative relapse rates were 78.6% vs. 75.8%, respectively.: An empiric‘proton pump inhibitor-start’ strategy relieves heartburn more effectively than an‘H2-receptor antagonist-start’ strategy up to 12 weeks but has no effect on subsequent relapse, which is rapid in most patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Esomeprazole is the first proton pump inhibitor to be developed as an optical isomer for the treatment of acid-related diseases. Methods: Four hundred and forty eight duodenal ulcer patients with Helicobacter pylori infection, confirmed by 13C-urea breath test (UBT), and no current ulcer, were randomised to double-blind treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg twice daily (b.d.) (n=224) or omeprazole 20 mg b.d. (n=224), in combination with amoxicillin 1 g b.d. and clarithromycin 500 mg b.d. for 1 week (EAC and OAC, respectively). A negative UBT at both 4 and 8 weeks after completing therapy indicated successful H. pylori eradication. Results: Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis comprised 400 patients (EAC, n=204; OAC, n=196) and per protocol (PP) analysis 377 patients (EAC, n=192; OAC, n=185). Eradication rates (95% confidence intervals) for ITT and PP populations were: EAC, 90% (85–94%) and 91% (86–94%); OAC, 88% (82–92%) and 91% (86–95%). Between-group differences in eradication rates were not statistically significant. Both regimens were well tolerated, with an adverse event profile and frequency typical of proton pump inhibitor plus antibiotic combination therapy. Conclusions: Esomeprazole-based triple therapy for 1 week is highly effective in eradicating H. pylori infection in duodenal ulcer disease, offers comparable efficacy to omeprazole-based therapy, and is well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the role of treatment with proton pump inhibitors and anti-Helicobacter therapy in functional dyspepsia. Methodological problems in the design and execution of functional dyspepsia studies; Recommendations for the optimal design of clinical trials of gastrointestinal disorders, including functional dyspepsia; Benefits of eradicating Helicobacter pylori in infected functional dyspepsia patients.