101. Ulcer complications during short-term therapy of duodenal ulcer with active agents and placebo
- Author
-
John S. Fordtran and Lawrence R. Schiller
- Subjects
Risk ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Time Factors ,Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage ,Placebo ,Gastroenterology ,Placebos ,Random Allocation ,Peptic Ulcer Perforation ,Double-Blind Method ,Internal medicine ,Humans ,Medicine ,Cimetidine ,Clinical Trials as Topic ,Wound Healing ,Hepatology ,business.industry ,Anti-ulcer Agent ,Anti-Ulcer Agents ,Pain, Intractable ,Short term therapy ,Duodenal ulcer ,Sucralfate ,Duodenal Ulcer ,business ,medicine.drug - Abstract
One of the surprises of the flood of placebocontrolled, endoscopic, double-blind studies of duodenal ulcer healing in the last 10 yr has been the realization that placebo therapy results in healing in up to 50% of patients treated for 4-6 wk and may approach the rate of healing noted with active therapy* after this time (;1,2). For example, in a large American multicenter double-blind study of cimetidine versus placebo for duodenal ulcer (3), a significant difference in healing rates was evident only at 2 wk but not at 4 or 6 wk. Even more striking is the similarity in symptom relief between placebo and active agents: no statistically significant differences are demonstrable in most studies (4-6). These observations have led some to conclude that ulcer therapy with currently available drugs such as antacids, antisecretory agents, or sucralfate may not be truly efficacious (7) and others to conclude that placebo treatment for peptic ulcer might be the ideal therapy: safe, cheap, and effective (8). These conclusions, however, may be wrong. Because of the relatively small size of each individual study, the good overall results with placebo might mask rare but important complications or problems that might be avoided by using active agents. To evaluate this, we examined the results of 48 double
- Published
- 1986