Efficacy of three different dosages of esomeprazole in the long-term management of reflux disease: a prospective, randomized study, using the wireless Bravo pH system

Efficacy of different endoscopic treatments in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Both transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) and radiofrequency ablation (Stretta) are representative endoscopic treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), but they have not been directly compared. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the comparative effects of Stretta, TIF, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of either the Stretta, TIF, or PPIs/sham procedure for GERD treatment. The NMA was conducted using frequentist methods.

RESULTS

A total of 516 participants from 10 RCTs were included in this NMA. Both Stretta (mean difference, MD - 9.77, 95% confidence interval, CI - 12.85 to - 6.70) and TIF (MD - 12.22, 95% CI - 15.93 to - 8.52) were significantly superior to PPIs at improving health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores and heartburn scores (Stretta: MD - 1.53, 95% CI - 2.98 to - 0.08; TIF: MD - 9.60, 95% CI - 17.79 to - 1.41). Stretta (MD - 3.77, 95% CI - 6.88 to - 0.65) was less effective at increasing lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure than TIF. Stretta was significantly superior to TIF (MD - 3.25, 95% CI - 5.95 to - 0.56) at improving esophageal acid exposure. Regarding the decrease in PPIs utility and esophagitis incidence, no significant differences were found between TIF and Stretta.

CONCLUSION

In terms of short-term reduction of the HRQL score and heartburn score in patients with GERD, TIF and Stretta may be comparable to each other, and both may be more effective than PPIs. TIF may increase the LES pressure in comparison with Stretta and PPIs. PPIs may reduce the percentage of time pH < 4.0 when compared with TIF. This evidence should be interpreted with caution given the small number of included studies and inherent heterogeneity. Registration No. CRD42020188345.

In search of the grail: A race for acid suppression

Proton pump inhibitors are the reference standards for the treatment of acid-related diseases. Acid suppression in gastroesophageal reflux disease is associated with a high rate of mucosal cicatrization, but symptom response differs among endoscopic phenotypes. Extraesophageal manifestations have a good clinical response in patients that present with abnormal acid exposure (diagnostic test) in the esophagus. Proton pump inhibitors have shown their effectiveness for reducing symptom intensity in nighttime reflux and sleep disorders, improving quality of life and work productivity. That can sometimes be achieved through dose modifications by splitting or increasing the dose, or through galenic formulation. Proton pump inhibitors are not exempt from controversial aspects related to associated adverse events. Technological development is directed at improving proton pump inhibitor performance through increasing the half-life, maximum concentration, and area under the curve of the plasma concentrations through galenic formulation, as well as creating safer and more tolerable drugs. The present review is focused on the mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetic properties, and technological advances for increasing the pharmacologic performance of a proton pump inhibitor.

Interchangeable Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors Based on Relative Potency

Although proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used, their relative potency and ideal dosing regimens remain unclear. We analyzed data from randomized clinical trials that performed pH testing in patients receiving solid-dose PPI formulations (omeprazole, esomeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole) for a minimum of 5 days. We used omeprazole equivalency and the surrogate biomarker, percentage time pH > 4 over a 24-hour period (pH4time), to compare PPI effectiveness for different PPIs given once, twice, or 3 times daily. We found that increasing strength of once-daily PPIs (9-64 mg omeprazole equivalents) increased pH4time linearly from approximately 10.0 to 15.6 hours; higher doses produced no further increase in pH4time. Increasing the frequency to twice-daily PPI increased pH4time linearly, from approximately 15.8 to 21.0 hours. Three-times daily PPIs performed similarly to twice-daily PPIs. The costs of PPIs varied greatly, but the cost variation was not directly related to potency. We conclude that PPIs can be used interchangeably based on potency. Using twice-daily PPIs is more effective in increasing efficacy increasing once-daily PPI dosage. Omeprazole and lansoprazole (30 mg) and 20 mg of esomeprazole rabeprazole are functionally equivalent.

Use of Mobile Devices to Measure Outcomes in Clinical Research, 2010-2016: A Systematic Literature Review

Background

The use of mobile devices in clinical research has advanced substantially in recent years due to the rapid pace of technology development. With an overall aim of informing the future use of mobile devices in interventional clinical research to measure primary outcomes, we conducted a systematic review of the use of and clinical outcomes measured by mobile devices (mobile outcomes) in observational and interventional clinical research.

Method

We conducted a PubMed search using a range of search terms to retrieve peer-reviewed articles on clinical research published between January 2010 and May 2016 in which mobile devices were used to measure study outcomes. We screened each publication for specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. We then identified and qualitatively summarized the use of mobile outcome assessments in clinical research, including the type and design of the study, therapeutic focus, type of mobile device(s) used, and specific mobile outcomes reported.

Results

The search retrieved 2,530 potential articles of interest. After screening, 88 publications remained. Twenty-five percent of the publications (n = 22) described mobile outcomes used in interventional research, and the rest (n = 66) described observational clinical research. Thirteen therapeutic areas were represented. Five categories of mobile devices were identified: (1) inertial sensors, (2) biosensors, (3) pressure sensors and walkways, (4) medication adherence monitors, and (5) location monitors; inertial sensors/accelerometers were most common (reported in 86% of the publications). Among the variety of mobile outcomes, various assessments of physical activity were most common (reported in 74% of the publications). Other mobile outcomes included assessments of sleep, mobility, and pill adherence, as well as biomarkers assessed using a mobile device, including cardiac measures, glucose, gastric reflux, respiratory measures, and intensity of head-related injury.

Conclusion

Mobile devices are being widely used in clinical research to assess outcomes, although their use in interventional research to assess therapeutic effectiveness is limited. For mobile devices to be used more frequently in pivotal interventional research – such as trials informing regulatory decision-making – more focus should be placed on: (1) consolidating the evidence supporting the clinical meaningfulness of specific mobile outcomes, and (2) standardizing the use of mobile devices in clinical research to measure specific mobile outcomes (e.g., data capture frequencies, placement of device). To that aim, this manuscript offers a broad overview of the various mobile outcome assessments currently used in observational and interventional research, and categorizes and consolidates this information for researchers interested in using mobile devices to assess outcomes in interventional research.

Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) commonly starts with an empiric trial of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and complementary lifestyle measures, for patients without alarm symptoms. Optimization of therapy (improving compliance and timing of PPI doses), or increasing PPI dosage to twice daily in select circumstances, can reduce persistent symptoms. Patients with continued symptoms can be evaluated with endoscopy and tests of esophageal physiology, to better determine their disease phenotype and optimize treatment. Laparoscopic fundoplication, magnetic sphincter augmentation, and endoscopic therapies can benefit patients with well-characterized GERD. Patients with functional diseases that overlap with or mimic GERD can also be treated with neuromodulators (primarily antidepressants), or psychological interventions (psychotherapy, hypnotherapy, cognitive and behavioral therapy). Future approaches to treatment of GERD include potassium-competitive acid blockers, reflux-reducing agents, bile acid binders, injection of inert substances into the esophagogastric junction, and electrical stimulation of the lower esophageal sphincter.

Proton Pump Inhibitors in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Friend or Foe

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has been redefined, in light of recent advances highlighting GERD phenotypes that respond to PPIs, and fresh revelations of potential risks of long-term PPI therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Erosive esophagitis predicts excellent response to PPI therapy, but non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) with abnormal reflux parameters on ambulatory reflux monitoring also demonstrates a similar response. In contrast, response is suboptimal in the absence of abnormal reflux parameters. In this setting, if an alternate appropriate indication for PPI therapy does not coexist, risks may outweigh benefits of PPI therapy. Adverse events from long-term PPI therapy continue to be reported, most based on association rather than cause-and-effect. Appropriate indications need to be established before embarking on long-term PPI therapy. Future research will define true risks of long-term PPI therapy, and develop alternate management options for acid peptic diseases.

A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Efficacy of Twice Daily PPIs versus Once Daily for Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Background

To investigate whether PPIs BID is superior to QD for treatment of GERD in a short time.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, EMBASE, Ovid, EBSCO, and Web of Science databases (from 1998 to May 2016) to select RCTs, which compared the efficacy of PPIs BID versus QD for GERD. The primary outcomes were symptom relief or esophageal mucosal healing at weeks 4 and 8. The M-H method with fixed-effect or random-effect model was used to calculate RR and 95% CIs.

Results

Seven RCTs were enrolled. The esophageal healing rates were higher in PPIs BID group (P = 0.01), and rabeprazole 20 mg BID can achieve better mucosal healing than 20 mg QD after 8 weeks (P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were observed in heartburn relief (P = 0.27), sustained symptom relief rates at week 4 (P = 0.05), 24 h pH monitoring after treatment (P = 0.11), endoscopic response at week 4 (P = 0.22), and adverse events (P = 0.18).

Conclusion

PPIs BID more effectively improve endoscopic healing rate at week 8 than PPIs QD. But there are no significant differences in symptom relief, 24 h pH monitoring, sustained symptom relief, and endoscopic response at week 4.

Pneumothorax after Colonoscopy - A Review of Literature

The purpose of this study was to determine the anatomical aspects, mechanisms, risk factors and appropriate management of development of pneumothorax during a routine colonoscopy. A systematic search of the literature (MEDLINE, Embase and Google Scholar) revealed 21 individually documented patients of pneumothorax following a colonoscopy, published till December 2015. One additional patient treated at our center was added. A pooled analysis of these 22 patients was performed including patient characteristics, indication of colonoscopy, any added procedure, presenting symptoms,risk factors and treatment given. The review suggested that various risk factors may be female gender, therapeutic interventions, difficult colonoscopy and underlying bowel pathology. Diagnosis of this condition requires a high index of suspicion and treatment should be tailored to individual needs.

The impact of obesity on oesophageal acid exposure time on and off proton pump inhibitor therapy

BACKGROUND

Obesity is associated with increased oesophageal acid exposure time (AET) in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux (GER), and may decrease the effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

AIM

To evaluate the effects of increased body mass on the ability of PPI therapy to decrease AET in patients with reflux symptoms.

METHODS

Acid exposure time profiles collected from adult patients using wireless pH-metry while on or off PPI therapy was retrospectively reviewed. Patients were separated into five body mass index (BMI) categories as defined by the World Health Organization. A multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association between abnormal AET and BMI groups while controlling for age, gender and pH capsule placement methods.

RESULTS

The study group comprised 968 patients with 336 (34.7%) studied on a PPI and 632 (65.3%) studied off PPI therapy. AET (total greater than 5.3%) was found more frequently in the overweight (67%) and obese classes (74-80%) compared to those who were normal weight (40%) while off acid-suppressing medications (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found between these groups when studied on acid-suppressing medications, and the proportion of patients with abnormal AET across BMI classes was similar regardless of taking a PPI either once or twice daily.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study to report on the relationship between BMI and oesophageal acid exposure time in patients with GER on and off PPI therapy. We conclude that obesity is related to increased acid exposure time, but with no significant difference in acid exposure time among different weight-based groups when taking a once or twice-daily PPI.

Comparison of health care resource utilization and costs among patients with GERD on once-daily or twice-daily proton pump inhibitor therapy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess differences in health care resource utilization and costs associated with once-daily and twice-daily proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. Most patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) achieve symptom control on once-daily PPI therapy, but approximately 20%-30% require twice-daily dosing.

METHODS

Patients were ≥18 years of age with at least one medical claim for GERD and at least two PPI claims from HealthCore's Integrated Research Database (HIRD(SM)) during 2004-2009. Patients were continuously eligible for 12 months before and after the index date (date of first PPI claim). Based on PPI dosing throughout the post-index period (quantity of medication dispensed/number of days supply), patients were classified as once-daily (dose ≤ 1.5 pills per day) or twice-daily (≥1.5) PPI users.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 248,386 patients with GERD (mean age 52.8 ± 13.93 years, 56% females) of whom 90% were once-daily and 10% were twice-daily PPI users. The Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index for once-daily and twice-daily PPI users was 0.70 ± 1.37 and 0.89 ± 1.54, respectively (P < 0.05). More once-daily patients had claims for Barrett's esophagus (5% versus 2%, P < 0.0001) than twice-daily patients. Post-index, higher proportions of twice-daily patients had at least one GERD-related inpatient visit (7% versus 5%), outpatient visit (60% versus 49%), and office visit (48% versus 38%) versus once-daily patients (P < 0.0001). Mean total GERD-related health care costs were $2065 ± $6636 versus $3749 ± $11,081 for once-daily and twice-daily PPI users, respectively (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving twice-daily PPI therapy were likely to have more comorbid conditions and greater health care utilization and overall costs compared with patients using once-daily PPI therapy.

[The Mexican consensus on gastroesophageal reflux disease. Part I]

BACKGROUND

The changes, advances, and new discoveries regarding different aspects of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) have made it necessary to update the Mexican Consensus published in 2002.

AIMS

To elaborate a new Mexican Consensus on GERD.

METHODS

The general project coordinators selected six GERD experts to carry out an extensive review of the literature for the purpose of elaborating statements on the principal aspects of GERD. These were then placed under the consideration of specialists in the study of this disease. Definitive approval by all participants was reached using the modified Delphi method with three rounds of anonymous and iterative voting. The following scale was employed: A- in complete agreement; B- in agreement, but with minor concerns; C- in agreement, but with major concerns; D- in disagreement, but with major concerns; E- in disagreement, but with minor concerns; or F- in complete disagreement. Consensus was declared when 67.00% or more of the participants concurred on a category of agreement (A, B, or C).

RESULTS

A consensus was reached on 160 of the statements upon completion of the voting rounds, with 90.00% concurrence for the majority of them.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2011 Mexican Consensus on Gastroesophageal Disease is a practical and up-to-date consultation tool, providing the opinion of Mexican experts on all the new information available about this disease. It allows there to be homogeneity in diagnostic and therapeutic criteria, all of which serves to benefit our patients.