Lansoprazole 30 mg daily versus ranitidine 150 mg b.d. in the treatment of acid-related dyspepsia in general practice

Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Histamine-2 Receptor Antagonists in the Management of Patients With Peptic Ulcer Disease: A Systematic Review

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) refers to the occurrence of an open erosion in the inner lining of the stomach, duodenum, or sometimes lower esophagus. Treatments like proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) are available on the market to efficiently treat the break in the mucosal lining. However, there is little evidence about the effects of the medication on the type and location of the ulcer and the epigastric pain caused by disintegration and increased acidity in the stomach. Given the above, we conducted a systematic review comparing the safety and efficacy of PPIs and H2RAs in various ulcer locations (gastric, duodenal, and pre-pyloric) and the effect of prolonging the treatment with the same medication or changing into a drug from another class in treatment-resistant ulcers. We employed major research literature databases and search engines such as PubMed, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Science Direct, and Google Scholar to find relevant articles. After a thorough screening, a quality check using various tools, and applying filters that suited our eligibility criteria, we identified eight articles, of which five were random clinical trials (RCTs), two review articles, and one meta-analysis. This study compares the different side effects of PPIs and H2RAs. Most studies concluded that omeprazole is superior in healing ulcers and bringing pain relief and that patients resistant to H2RAs can be treated better when switched to a PPI. This study also discusses the adverse effects of chronic use, such as diarrhea, constipation, headaches, and gastrointestinal infections. Patients on long-term PPI therapy are required to take calcium supplements to prevent the risk of fractures in older adults. Regarding long-term outcomes, PPIs remain the mainstay of treatment for peptic ulcer disease, based on the papers we reviewed.

Gastroscopy in younger patients: an analysis of referrals and pathologies

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Diagnostic guidelines for the investigation of dyspepsia for patients <50 years have been implemented. However, it is unsure whether these guidelines are used appropriately. We aimed to investigate the adherence to the national guidelines of uninvestigated dyspepsia and to examine the prevalence of upper gastrointestinal pathology in patients 18-50 years. We also aimed to detect any possible risk factors for pathology in esophagogastroduodenoscopy referrals and to evaluate differences between referrals from the hospital and primary health care.

METHOD

This is a retrospective review of medical records including patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy between January 2019 and April 2020 (n = 1809). Odds ratios (OR), positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), chi-square and Mann-Whitney U-tests were applied.

RESULTS

In total 1708 patients were included, of whom 43.6% (n = 744) had a pathologic finding. Age group 41-50 years showed the highest prevalence with an OR 1.34 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07-1.69]. Helicobacter pylori testing was performed in 21.1% (n = 167) of patients with dyspepsia lacking alarm symptoms (n = 791). PPV and OR were generally low for a pathologic esophagogastroduodenoscopy. The absence of alarm symptoms showed a high NPV for significant pathology (98.7-99.6%). Significant pathology was almost exclusively found in hospital-based referrals.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is widely performed in young adults, often without significant findings. Adherence to the national guidelines was poor. No referral factors were associated with a significant risk for a pathologic finding. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy based on primary healthcare referrals demonstrated almost exclusively benign pathology. Significant pathology was only found via hospital-based referrals.

Proton pump inhibitor monotherapy is effective to attenuate dyspepsia symptoms associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a multicenter prospective observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and functional dyspepsia (FD) are frequently overlapped. However, no treatment strategies have been established yet for such patients. This study compared the effects of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment in patients with GERD-associated FD among three groups with varying severity levels of GERD symptoms.

METHODS

The patients with GERD and FD symptoms received PPI treatment for 4 weeks after endoscopy, and the severity of the symptoms and responses to treatment were evaluated at before and after 4 weeks of treatment using the Gastroesophageal Reflux and Dyspepsia Therapeutic Efficacy and Satisfaction Test (GERD-TEST). The patients were divided into three groups in accordance with the severity of the GERD symptoms as assessed by the GERD symptom subscale (SS) scores of pre-treatment.

RESULTS

Data from 233 cases of 40 mild, 151 moderate and 42 severe symptoms were analyzed. Analysis of the pre-treatment scores for each symptom revealed that a higher GERD-SS score was significantly associated with higher scores on any kind of FD score. Four weeks of PPI treatment significantly and markedly alleviated any of GERD/FD symptoms. Most importantly, change in the score for each symptom after 4 weeks of treatment relative to the pre-treatment score was significantly greater in the groups with more severe GERD-SS.

CONCLUSION

FD symptoms associated with more severe GERD symptoms are supposed to be acid-related dyspepsia, and PPI monotherapy is recommended as the treatment of first choice in such patients.

Proton pump inhibitors for functional dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

Functional dyspepsia (FD or non-ulcer dyspepsia) is defined as continuous or frequently recurring epigastric pain or discomfort for which no organic cause can be found. Acid suppressive therapy, including proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), has been proposed as a therapeutic option in FD, but its efficacy remains controversial. While PPIs are generally considered safe and well tolerated, they have been associated with adverse events, especially in the long term. For this reason, decisions on whether to initiate or continue PPI therapy should be made based on an appropriate clinical indication. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether PPI therapy provides symptomatic relief in FD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in the improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life compared to placebo, H2 receptor antagonists or prokinetics, in people with functional dyspepsia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched in the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Library (to May 2017), MEDLINE (OvidSP; to May 2017), Embase (OvidSP; to May 2017), and SIGLE grey literature (up to May 2017) and clinical trial registries; we handsearched abstracts from conferences up to May 2017. We screened non-systematic reviews, systematic reviews and guidelines to identify any additional trials. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any PPI with placebo, H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or prokinetics for the treatment of FD of at least two weeks' duration. Participants were adults (aged 16 years or greater) with an adequate diagnosis of FD (any validated criteria such as Rome I, II, III or Lancet Working Group).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and trial quality, and extracted data. We collected data on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and number of overall adverse events. Specific adverse events were beyond the scope of this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 25 RCTs from 27 papers (with 8453 participants) studying the effect of PPIs versus placebo, H2RAs or prokinetics for improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life in people with FD. Low-dose PPIs had similar efficacy as standard-dose PPIs, therefore we combined these subgroups for the analysis. PPI was more effective than placebo at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; participants = 6172; studies = 18; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11; moderate quality evidence). PPIs may have little or no effect compared with H2RAs (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04; participants = 740; studies = 2; low quality evidence), and may be slightly more effective than prokinetics (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; participants = 1033; studies = 5; NNTB 16; low quality evidence) at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD. PPIs plus prokinetics have probably little or no effect compared with PPIs alone at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.08; participants = 407; studies = 2; moderate quality evidence).There was no difference when subgrouped by Helicobacter pylori status, country of origin, or presence of reflux or Rome III subtypes. There were no differences in the number of adverse events observed between PPIs and any of the other treatments. There were fewer adverse events in the combination of PPI plus prokinetics compared to prokinetics alone (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93; participants = 407; studies = 2; moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that PPIs are effective for the treatment of FD, independent of the dose and duration of treatment compared with placebo. PPIs may be slightly more effective than prokinetics for the treatment of FD; however, the evidence is scarce. The trials evaluating PPIs versus prokinetics are difficult to interpret as they are at risk of bias. Although the effect of these drugs seems to be small, the drugs are well tolerated.

ACG and CAG Clinical Guideline: Management of Dyspepsia

We have updated both the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) guidelines on dyspepsia in a joint ACG/CAG dyspepsia guideline. We suggest that patients ≥60 years of age presenting with dyspepsia are investigated with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to exclude organic pathology. This is a conditional recommendation and patients at higher risk of malignancy (such as spending their childhood in a high risk gastric cancer country or having a positive family history) could be offered an endoscopy at a younger age. Alarm features should not automatically precipitate endoscopy in younger patients but this should be considered on a case-by-case basis. We recommend patients <60 years of age have a non-invasive test Helicobacter pylori and treatment if positive. Those that are negative or do not respond to this approach should be given a trial of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. If these are ineffective tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) or prokinetic therapies can be tried. Patients that have an endoscopy where no pathology is found are defined as having functional dyspepsia (FD). H. pylori eradication should be offered in these patients if they are infected. We recommend PPI, TCA and prokinetic therapy (in that order) in those that fail therapy or are H. pylori negative. We do not recommend routine upper gastrointestinal (GI) motility testing but it may be useful in selected patients.

Deprescribing versus continuation of chronic proton pump inhibitor use in adults

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a class of medications that reduce acid secretion and are used for treating many conditions such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), dyspepsia, reflux esophagitis, peptic ulcer disease, and hypersecretory conditions (e.g. Zollinger-Ellison syndrome), and as part of the eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori bacteria. However, approximately 25% to 70% of people are prescribed a PPI inappropriately. Chronic PPI use without reassessment contributes to polypharmacy and puts people at risk of experiencing drug interactions and adverse events (e.g. Clostridium difficile infection, pneumonia, hypomagnesaemia, and fractures).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects (benefits and harms) associated with deprescribing long-term PPI therapy in adults, compared to chronic daily use (28 days or greater).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). The last date of search was November 2016. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant studies. We screened 2357 articles (2317 identified through search strategy, 40 through other resources). Of these articles, we assessed 89 for eligibility.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials comparing at least one deprescribing modality (e.g. stopping PPI or reducing PPI) with a control consisting of no change in continuous daily PPI use in adult chronic users. Outcomes of interest were: change in gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, drug burden/PPI use, cost/resource use, negative and positive drug withdrawal events, and participant satisfaction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed and extracted data and completed the risk of bias assessment. A third review author independently confirmed risk of bias assessment. We used Review Manager 5 software for data analysis. We contacted study authors if there was missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included six trials (n = 1758). Trial participants were aged 48 to 57 years, except for one trial that had a mean age of 73 years. All participants were from the outpatient setting and had either nonerosive reflux disease or milder grades of esophagitis (LA grade A or B). Five trials investigated on-demand deprescribing and one trial examined abrupt discontinuation. There was low quality evidence that on-demand use of PPI may increase risk of 'lack of symptom control' compared with continuous PPI use (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31 to 2.21), thereby favoring continuous PPI use (five trials, n = 1653). There was a clinically significant reduction in 'drug burden', measured as PPI pill use per week with on-demand therapy (mean difference (MD) -3.79, 95% CI -4.73 to -2.84), favoring deprescribing based on moderate quality evidence (four trials, n = 1152). There was also low quality evidence that on-demand PPI use may be associated with reduced participant satisfaction compared with continuous PPI use. None of the included studies reported cost/resource use or positive drug withdrawal effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with mild GERD, on-demand deprescribing may lead to an increase in GI symptoms (e.g. dyspepsia, regurgitation) and probably a reduction in pill burden. There was a decline in participant satisfaction, although heterogeneity was high. There were insufficient data to make a conclusion regarding long-term benefits and harms of PPI discontinuation, although two trials (one on-demand trial and one abrupt discontinuation trial) reported endoscopic findings in their intervention groups at study end.

Proton pump inhibitors for functional dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

Functional dyspepsia (FD or non-ulcer dyspepsia) is defined as continuous or frequently recurring epigastric pain or discomfort for which no organic cause can be found. Acid suppressive therapy, including proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), has been proposed as a therapeutic option in FD, but its efficacy remains controversial. While PPIs are generally considered safe and well tolerated, they have been associated with adverse events, especially in the long term. For this reason, decisions on whether to initiate or continue PPI therapy should be made based on an appropriate clinical indication. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether PPI therapy provides symptomatic relief in FD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in the improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life compared to placebo, H2 receptor antagonists or prokinetics, in people with functional dyspepsia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched in the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Library (to January 2016), MEDLINE (OvidSP; to February 2016), Embase (OvidSP; to February 2016), and SIGLE grey literature (up to February 2016) and clinical trial registries; we handsearched abstracts from conferences up to February 2016. We screened non-systematic reviews, systematic reviews and guidelines to identify any additional trials. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any PPI with placebo, H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or prokinetics for the treatment of FD. Participants were adults (aged 16 years or greater) with an adequate diagnosis of FD (any validated criteria such as Rome I, II, III or Lancet Working Group).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, trial quality and extracted data. We collected data on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and number of overall adverse events. Specific adverse events were beyond the scope of this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 23 RCTs from 22 papers (with 8759 participants) studying the effect of PPIs versus placebo, H2RAs or prokinetics for improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life in people with FD. Low-dose PPIs had similar efficacy as standard-dose PPIs, therefore we combined these subgroups for the analysis. Two to eight weeks of therapy with PPI was slightly more effective than placebo at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; participants = 5968; studies = 16; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 13; moderate quality evidence). PPIs may be slightly more effective than H2RAs (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04; participants = 740; studies = 2, NNTB 13; low quality evidence), and slightly more effective than prokinetics (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.00; participants = 892; studies = 4; NNTB 20; low quality evidence) at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD. PPIs plus prokinetics were possibly slightly more effective than PPIs alone at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.08; participants = 407; studies = 2; NNTB 18; moderate quality evidence).The was no difference when subgrouped by Helicobacter pylori status, country of origin, or presence of reflux or Rome III subtypes. There were no differences in the number of adverse events observed between PPIs and any of the other treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that PPIs are effective for the treatment of FD, independent of the dose and duration of treatment compared with placebo. PPIs may be slightly more effective than H2RAs for the treatment of FD; however, the evidence is scarce. The trials evaluating PPIs versus prokinetics are difficult to interpret as they are at risk of bias. Although the effect of these drugs seems to be small, the drugs are well tolerated.

Efficacy of magnetic sphincter augmentation in patients with large hiatal hernias

BACKGROUND

Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) has demonstrated long-term safety and efficacy in the treatment of patients with gastroesophageal reflux (GERD), but its efficacy in patients with large hiatal hernias has yet to be proven. The aim of our study was to assess outcomes of MSA in patients with hiatal hernias ≥3 cm.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent MSA at our institutions over a 6-year period. Information obtained consisted of patient demographics, symptoms of GERD, preoperative GERD Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQL) scores, perioperative details, and implantation of the MSA device. Primary endpoints included postoperative GERD-HRQL scores, proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) use, symptom change, and procedure-related complications. A large hiatal hernia was defined as a hernia measuring ≥3 cm by intraoperative measurement.

RESULTS

A total of 192 patients were reviewed. Median follow-up was 20 months (3-75 months). Mean GERD-HRQL scores in the overall population before and after MSA were 18.9 and 5.0, respectively (p < 0.001). In the majority of patients symptoms improved or resolved (N = 177, p < 0.001). Fifty-two patients (27.0 %) had a hiatal hernia ≥3 cm (range 3-7 cm). Their mean GERD-HRQL score decreased from 20.5 to 3.6 (p < 0.001) following MSA. When compared to patients with smaller hernias, patients with large hiatal hernias had decreased postoperative PPI requirement (9.6 vs. 26.6 %, p = 0.011) and lower mean postoperative GERD-HRQL scores (3.6 vs. 5.6, p = 0.027). The percent of patients requiring postoperative intervention for dysphagia was similar (13.5 vs. 17.9 %, p = 0.522), as was the incidence of symptom resolution or improvement (98.1 vs. 91.3 %, p = 0.118).

CONCLUSION

MSA in patients with large hiatal hernias demonstrates decreased postoperative PPI requirement and mean GERD-HRQL scores compared to patients with smaller hernias. The incidence of symptom resolution or improvement and the percentage of patients requiring intervention for dysphagia are similar. Short-term outcomes of MSA are encouraging in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and large hiatal hernias.

Proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic resection for esophageal squamous cell cancer: multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Whether proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) relieve heartburn or precordial pain after endoscopic resection (ER) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of PPI therapy for these symptoms after ER for ESCC.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial among 15 hospitals in Japan. In total, 229 patients with cT1a ESCC were randomly assigned to receive PPI therapy for 5 weeks after ER (the PPI group, n = 115) or follow-up without PPI therapy (the non-PPI group, n = 114). The primary end point was the incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-like symptoms after ER from a self-reported questionnaire (Frequency Scale for Symptoms of GERD). Secondary end points were ulcer healing rate at 5 weeks, incidence of pain, improvement rate of symptoms in those who started PPI therapy because of GERD-like symptoms in the non-PPI group, and adverse events.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in the incidence of GERD-like symptoms after ER between the non-PPI and PPI groups (30 % vs 34 %, respectively). No significant differences were observed in the ulcer healing rate at 5 weeks (84 % vs 85 %) and incidence of pain within 1 week (36 % vs 45 %). In nine of ten patients (90 %) who started PPI therapy because of GERD-like symptoms in the non-PPI group, PPI administration relieved GERD-like symptoms. No adverse events related to PPI administration were observed.

CONCLUSION

PPI therapy is not efficacious in reducing symptoms and did not promote healing of ulcers in patients undergoing ER for ESCC.

Association of symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux with metabolic syndrome parameters in patients with endocrine disease

Background. Metabolic syndrome (MetS) and obesity are known risk factors for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), which is often found in patients with endocrine disorders, such as thyroid dysfunction and hypopituitarism. To clarify the relationship of endocrine disease with GERD, we investigated the symptoms of GERD in patients with various endocrine diseases. Methods. Patients with various endocrine disorders who visited Kyushu University Hospital were included. GERD symptoms were examined using a self-administered questionnaire, the frequency scale for the symptoms of GERD (FSSG). Metabolic parameters, including body-mass index (BMI), waist circumference, blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides, and values of endocrine function, including thyroid stimulating hormone, free thyroxin, cortisol, and insulin-like growth factor-1, were assessed. Results. A total of 111 consecutive patients were recruited for the study. Among these, 18 (16.2%) patients were considered to have GERD. Among the parameters, BMI (P = 0.03) and triglycerides (P = 0.001) showed a positive association and HDL-C (P = 0.0007) showed an inverse association with the FSSG score. However, none of the endocrine values were associated with the FSSG score. Conclusion. Symptoms of GERD in patients with endocrine disorders might be attributed to MetS as comorbidity.

High prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease in Parkinson's disease: a questionnaire-based study

The aim of this study is to investigate the frequency and clinical features of gastroesophageal reflex disease (GERD) in Parkinson's disease (PD). Consecutively recruited PD patients and controls were questioned about heartburn and GERD with a questionnaire. In PD patients, disease duration and severity, quality of life, and nonmotor symptoms were also examined and then the clinical features of GERD were analyzed. A total of 102 patients and 49 controls were enrolled and 21 patients and 4 controls had heartburn, significantly frequent in PD. The prevalence rate of GERD was 26.5% in PD and the odds ratio was 4.05. Heartburn, bent forward flexion, and wearing-off phenomenon were frequent, and scores of UPDRS, total and part II, PD questionnaire-39, and nonmotor symptom scale were significantly higher in PD patients with GERD than without GERD. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed statistical significance in UPDRS part II and nonmotor symptom scale. This study suggests that GERD is prevalent in PD. Deterioration of daily living activities and other nonmotor symptoms can imply the presence of GERD. Because clinical symptoms of GERD are usually treatable, the management can improve the patient's quality of life. Increased attention should be given to detect GERD in PD.

Therapeutic strategies for the treatment of dyspepsia

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Dyspeptic symptoms are highly prevalent in the population and represent a major burden for healthcare systems. The ROME III criteria address and define two separate entities of functional dyspepsia: epigastric pain syndrome and postprandial distress syndrome. The etiology of dyspeptic symptoms is heterogeneous, underlying mechanisms are poorly understood and symptomatic improvement after drug therapy is often incomplete.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This review of the literature included Medline data being published in the field of functional dyspepsia and different therapies.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The reader will gain a current, unbiased understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying functional dyspepsia and of the therapeutic regimens based on randomized, controlled trials and on the meta-analyses that have been published on different therapeutic agents.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Before starting medical treatment, a careful physical examination should exclude 'alarm symptoms'. Laboratory data, ultrasound and endoscopy are recommended in patients older than 45 - 55 years (depending on the guidelines being used). In areas with a high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori, the initial strategy includes 'test and treat' for H. pylori in addition to empiric acid suppressive therapy. Many studies have focused on the role of gastrointestinal dysmotility and hypersensitivity for dyspepsia with inconclusive results. Further therapeutic medical strategies include prokinetics, herbal preparations and psycho-/neurotopic drugs as well as additional psycho- or hypnotherapy.

[Guidelines for the treatment of functional dyspepsia]

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is defined as the presence of symptoms thought to originate in the gastroduodenal area, in the absence of any organic, systemic, or metabolic disease that is likely to explain the symptoms. Based on the available evidence and consensus opinion, thirteen consensus statements for the treatment of FD were developed using the modified Delphi approach. Proton pump inhibitor, prokinetics, and histamine 2 receptor antagonists are effective for the treatment of FD. Mucosal protecting agents, fundus relaxant, and drugs for visceral hypersensitivity can improve symptoms in FD. Antacids and antidepressants may help improving symptoms in FD. Comparing endoscopy with 'test and treat' of Helicobacter pylori, endoscopy may be more effective initial strategy for managing patients with FD in Korea given high incidence of gastric cancer and low cost of endoscopy. Helicobacter pylori eradication can be one of the therapeutic options for patients with FD. Psychotherapy is effective for those who have severe symptoms and refractoriness. Further studies are strongly needed to develop better treatment strategies for Korean patients with FD.

Gastroptosis is associated with less dyspepsia, rather than a cause of dyspepsia, in Japanese persons

OBJECTIVE

Gastroptosis is recognized by its characteristic appearance on barium studies. The present prospective study assessed the relationship between gastroptosis and dyspeptic symptoms.

METHODS

Japanese subjects underwent health screening, and gastroptosis was diagnosed by barium studies. Consecutive subjects (500 women and 167 men) with gastroptosis were identified and the same number of age-matched subjects without gastroptosis were selected as controls. Dyspepsia was classified as reflux-like (heartburn and belching), dysmotility-like (bloating and fullness), or ulcer-like dyspepsia (epigastralgia) based on the Rome II criteria.

RESULTS

Body mass index was significantly lower in women with gastroptosis than in controls [19.7 ± 1.83 (SD) vs. 23.4 ± 3.70, p<0.0001], and also in men (19.7 ± 2.00 vs. 23.9 ± 2.89, p<0.0001). The incidence of dyspepsia was significantly lower in women with gastroptosis than in controls (56/500 vs. 87/500, p<0.01) and also in men (10/167 vs. 25/167, p<0.05), especially in women with ulcer-like dyspepsia (15/500 vs. 32/500, p<0.05) and in men with reflux-like dyspepsia (2/167 vs. 12/167, p<0.05). By logistic regression analysis, gastroptosis was associated with a lower risk of dyspepsia (odds ratio: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.405-0.941, p=0.025) and ulcer-like dyspepsia (odds ratio: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.177-0.726, p=0.004) in women.

CONCLUSION

Dyspeptic symptoms were significantly less common in subjects with gastroptosis. Accordingly, gastroptosis may protect against dyspeptic symptoms, rather than causing functional dyspepsia.

WITHDRAWN: Initial management strategies for dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

This review considers management strategies (combinations of initial investigation and empirical treatments) for dyspeptic patients. Dyspepsia was defined to include both epigastric pain and heartburn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability, and cost effectiveness of the following initial management strategies for patients presenting with dyspepsia (a) Initial pharmacological therapy (including endoscopy for treatment failures). (b) Early endoscopy. (c) Testing for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori )and endoscope only those positive. (d) H. pylori eradication therapy with or without prior testing.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were located through electronic searches and extensive contact with trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of dyspeptic patients presenting in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and use of resources. An individual patient data meta-analysis of health economic data was conducted

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five papers reporting 27 comparisons were found. Trials comparing proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with antacids (three trials) and histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) (three trials), early endoscopy with initial acid suppression (five trials), H. pylori test and endoscope versus usual management (three trials), H. pylori test and treat versus endoscopy (six trials), and test and treat versus acid suppression alone in H. pylori positive patients (four trials), were pooled. PPIs were significantly more effective than both H2RAs and antacids. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were; for PPI compared with antacid 0.72 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.80), PPI compared with H2RA 0.63 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.85). Results for other drug comparisons were either absent or inconclusive. Initial endoscopy was associated with a small reduction in the risk of recurrent dyspeptic symptoms compared with H. pylori test and treat (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96), but was not cost effective (mean additional cost of endoscopy US$401 (95% CI $328 to 474). Test and treat may be more effective than acid suppression alone (RR 0.59 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitor drugs (PPIs) are effective in the treatment of dyspepsia in these trials which may not adequately exclude patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The relative efficacy of histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and PPIs is uncertain. Early investigation by endoscopy or H. pylori testing may benefit some patients with dyspepsia but is not cost effective as part of an overall management strategy.

It is possible to classify non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) patients into endoscopically normal groups and minimal change groups by subjective symptoms and responsiveness to rabeprazole -- a report from a study with Japanese patients

The hypothesis that non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) patients comprise various subgroups is gaining popularity. This study was conducted to investigate the possibility of categorizing NERD patients according to symptom types and response to acid-suppressive drug rabeprazole (RPZ) 10 mg/day. NERD patients were classified as grade N (endoscopically normal), M (minimal change), or erosive GERD, and answered a 51-item, yes-or-no questionnaire pre and post-treatment. Compared to erosive GERD, clear differences existed in pretreatment prevalence of symptoms and responsiveness to RPZ in grades N and M; the results suggested stomachaches (especially at night) were significant symptoms in grade N and dysmotility-like symptoms like bloated stomach were significant in grade M while gastroesophageal reflux symptoms were significant in erosive GERD. Clinical significance of classifying NERD was indicated from different symptoms and responsiveness to PPI.

Efficacy and safety of pantoprazole 20 mg once daily treatment in patients with ulcer-like functional dyspepsia

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of pantoprazole 20 mg once daily (o.d.) in relieving epigastric pain associated with ulcer-like functional dyspepsia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study, patients experiencing ulcer-like functional dyspepsia, with epigastric pain as the predominant symptom, were randomised to receive pantoprazole 20 mg or placebo o.d. for 28 days. Primary endpoint was the complete relief (i.e. absence) from epigastric pain after 28 days' treatment. The odds ratio (OR) for pantoprazole/placebo and its 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined. Significant superiority of pantoprazole was concluded if the value 1.0 was above this interval.

RESULTS

Of 419 patients (intention-to-treat [ITT]) randomised to treatment, 207 received pantoprazole and 212 received placebo. Epigastric pain relief was achieved after 28 days' treatment in 55% of pantoprazole recipients and 45% of placebo recipients (per-protocol [PP]: 58% and 47%, respectively). Pantoprazole demonstrated statistically significant superiority compared with placebo in the ITT (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46-0.99) and PP populations (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.98). Pantoprazole was more efficacious than placebo in relieving heartburn and acid regurgitation after 7, 14 and 28 days of treatment. The sum score of gastrointestinal symptoms after 28 days was statistically significantly lower in the pantoprazole than placebo group. Fewer patients receiving concomitant psychotropic medication experienced relief from epigastric pain than those not receiving such medication. Adverse events did not significantly differ between pantoprazole and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study suggest that pantoprazole 20 mg is more efficacious than placebo, and is a well-tolerated treatment for relieving epigastric pain in patients with ulcer-like functional dyspepsia. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.

Clinical trial: a randomized controlled cross-over study of flupenthixol + melitracen in functional dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

Functional dyspepsia is a prevalent condition associated with diminished quality of life (QoL) and high economic burden.

AIM

To study the efficacy of a combination of flupenthixol and melitracen (F + M) with anxiolytic and antidepressant properties in functional dyspepsia using a randomized controlled cross-over design.

METHODS

Patients met the Rome III criteria for functional dyspepsia and a validated questionnaire was used to exclude those with anxiety or depression. Moreover, patients had to have failed a trial of acid-suppressive therapy and Helicobacter pylori eradication when positive. End points included subjective global symptom relief and QoL assessed by the Nepean Dyspepsia Index (NDI).

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (14 females, 11 males; mean age = 34.3 +/- 9.9 years) were enrolled and 24 completed the 8-week study. There was a significant improvement in subjective global symptom relief with F + M vs. placebo (ITT: 73.9% vs. 26.1%, P = 0.001) and a significant drop in the NDI score vs. placebo (ITT: -9.0 +/- 11.9 vs. -2.4 +/- 8.9, P = 0.03). No difference was noted whether the initial treatment was F + M or placebo. No significant side effects were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of F and M is safe and effective in the short-term treatment of functional dyspepsia. F + M is associated with significant improvement in QoL independent of the presence of anxiety or depression.

The Rome III Classification of dyspepsia: will it help research?

A major change in the Rome III criteria relates to the condition previously called functional dyspepsia (FD). Rome I and Rome II defined FD as pain or discomfort centered in the upper abdomen without a definite structural or biochemical explanation. The condition was further sub-classified into ulcer-like or dysmotility-like dyspepsia. However, subsequent studies failed to show that single-symptoms are present in the vast majority of patients, and most symptoms failed to correlate with any physiological abnormalities. In Rome III, FD as a broad category was no longer considered useful in terms of research, but rather was defined by two new symptom entities, namely epigastric pain (epigastric pain syndrome) and meal-related symptoms (postprandial distress syndrome). We predict these changes will stimulate new research into the underlying pathophysiological disturbances, as well as impact the diagnosis and treatment of dyspepsia; the classification should advance the field, and we review the challenges ahead.

Proton pump inhibitors improve acid-related dyspepsia in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients

It has been reported that proton pump inhibitors are more effective than H2 receptor antagonists in patients with functional dyspepsia. Dyspeptic symptoms that respond to proton pump inhibitors are classified as acid-related dyspepsia. A new questionnaire for assessing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), the Frequency Scale for Symptoms of GERD, covers the 12 most common symptoms of GERD patients. A quantitative assessment of the changes of reflux symptoms and acid-related dyspepsia was made in GERD patients receiving proton pump inhibitor therapy. Sixty-eight GERD patients receiving proton pump inhibitor therapy completed the questionnaire before and after treatment for 8 weeks. There is a significant positive correlation between reflux symptoms and acid-related dyspepsia before and after therapy (r = 0.569 and r = 0.569; both P's < 0.001) and acid-related dyspepsia in patients with both nonerosive and erosive GERD. We conclude that GERD patients suffer not only from reflux symptoms, but also from acid-related dyspepsia, and proton pump inhibitors improve both types of symptoms.

Proton pump inhibitors: effective first-line treatment for management of dyspepsia

The aim of this study was to evaluate the reasons for trial exclusion among dyspeptic patients and estimate the proportion that may have benefited from proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. Stringent inclusion criteria for enrollment in two multicenter functional dyspepsia trials included dyspepsia (predominant persistent/recurrent upper abdominal discomfort [UAD] during the prior 3 months) of at least moderate intensity during > or =30% of days during the prior 2 to 3 weeks. Exclusion criteria were mild/infrequent UAD; heartburn and UAD of equal frequency; predominant heartburn with UAD; endoscopic evidence of erosive esophagitis or Barrett's or gastric and/or duodenal erosions (>5) or ulcers; irritable bowel syndrome (IBS); other gastrointestinal diagnoses; or other "non-categorized" disorders. Of 2,588 screened patients, 1,667 were excluded. Excluded patients by category had mild/infrequent UAD (12.5%, n=324), heartburn and UAD of equal frequency (1.1%, n=29), predominant heartburn with UAD (11.6%, n=300), endoscopic evidence of erosive esophagitis or Barrett's (6.2%, n=160), gastric and/or duodenal erosions (1.4%, n=36), gastric and/or duodenal ulcers (2.0%, n=53), IBS (7%, n=180), "other" gastrointestinal diagnoses (2.8%, n=73), or other "non-categorized" disorders (19.8%, n=512). Fifty-four percent of patients (902/1,667) had symptoms/diagnoses that would be expected to improve with PPI therapy. Individuals with IBS, "other," or "non-categorized" disorders were considered to have symptoms unlikely to respond to PPI treatment. Empiric PPI treatment would be expected to provide symptom relief to the majority of dyspepsia sufferer who present in clinical practice. PPIs represent the best currently available therapy for acid-related disorders and should be considered the first-line management approach in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia.

Effects of proton-pump inhibitors on functional dyspepsia: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess systematically the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in the treatment of functional dyspepsia compared with placebo and to determine if any difference in the response exists between symptom subgroups of functional dyspepsia.

METHODS

A literature search was performed through September 2005 in PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases to include randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of PPIs for the treatment of functional dyspepsia. Relative risk (RR) and relative risk reduction (RRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated under a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seven studies with a total of 3725 patients were identified. PPIs were found to be more effective than placebo for reducing symptoms in patients with functional dyspepsia (RRR, 10.3%; 95% CI, 2.7%-17.3%). The estimated number needed to treat is 14.6 (95% CI, 8.7-57.1). When stratified analyses were performed, a significant difference in the efficacy was observed only in patients with ulcer-like (RRR, 12.8%; 95% CI, 7.2%-18.1%) and reflux-like dyspepsia (RRR, 19.7%; 95% CI, 1.8%-34.3%), but not in those with dysmotility-like (RRR, 5.1%; 95% CI, -10.9% to 18.7%) and unspecified dyspepsia (RRR, -8.0%; 95% CI, -23.7% to 5.6%). The effect of H pylori on the efficacy of PPIs remains unclear. Significant heterogeneity among studies was found for the overall analysis, dysmotility-like dyspepsia, H pylori-negative subgroup, and different dose subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

PPIs are more effective than placebo for the management of patients with ulcer-like and reflux-like functional dyspepsia.

Funktionelle Dyspepsie – eine Verlegenheitsdiagnose?

Dyspepsia comprises a broad spectrum of predominantly upper abdominal symptoms, such as pain, indigestion, nausea, early satiety and bloating. While these symptoms are highly prevalent, in less than 50% of patients presenting with dyspepsia, structural lesions or biochemical abnormalities are found that explain the symptoms when routine clinical tests are used. In patients without structural lesions the diagnosis of functional dyspepsia is justified. Exclusion of life-threatening disorders as the cause of symptoms and reassurance of the patient as well as proper explanation of the diagnosis and its underlying disease mechanisms (i.e. symptoms are due to a sensitive gut) is crucial and can be considered as an essential element of treatment. Since there is a remarkable comorbidity of anxiety and depression, psychosomatic interventions might be necessary in selected patients. Based on controlled clinical trials few drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, prokinetics, tricyclic antidepressants, simethicone and selected herbal preparations have been found to be effective for treatment of functional dyspepsia. Effects of H. pylori eradication, even though strongly advocated, are most likely due to undiagnosed peptic ulcer disease in a very small group of patients. While there is currently no therapy that cures functional dyspepsia, the therapeutic target is to control symptoms.

Therapeutic strategies for functional dyspepsia and the introduction of the Rome III classification

Although placebo response rates in clinical trials for functional dyspepsia (FD) are more than 30%, a recent meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that antisecretory drugs were more or less superior to placebos. On the other hand, large-scale RCTs on the efficacy of treatment with prokinetics on FD are still needed. Indications for antibiotic eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori-positive FD are still controversial, but there seems to be a small but significant therapeutic gain achieved with H. pylori eradication. Since preprandial and postprandial symptomatic disturbances are very important targets for FD treatment, ghrelin, a novel appetite-promoting gastrointestinal peptide that also promotes gastric motility or basal acid secretion can be expected to be a therapeutic target. In the recently published Rome III classification, FD is redefined for patients with symptoms thought to originate from the gastroduodenal region, specifically epigastric pain or burning, postprandial fullness, or early satiation, and it is divided into the subcategories postprandial distress syndrome and epigastric pain syndrome. These new criteria are of value in clinical practice, for epidemiological, pathophysiological, and clinical research, and for the development of new therapeutic strategies.

Drug treatment of functional dyspepsia

Symptomatic improvement of patients with functional dyspepsia after drug therapy is often incomplete and obtained in not more than 60% of patients. This is likely because functional dyspepsia is a heterogeneous disease. Although great advance has been achieved with the consensus definitions of the Rome I and II criteria, there are still some aspects about the definition of functional dyspepsia that require clarification. The Rome criteria explicitly recognise that epigastric pain or discomfort must be the predominant complaint in patients labelled as suffering from functional dyspepsia. However, this strict definition can create problems in the daily primary care clinical practice, where the patient with functional dyspepsia presents with multiple symptoms. Before starting drug therapy it is recommended to provide the patient with an explanation of the disease process and reassurance. A thorough physical examination and judicious use of laboratory data and endoscopy are also indicated. In general, the approach to treat patients with functional dyspepsia based on their main symptom is practical and effective. Generally, patients should be treated with acid suppressive therapy using proton-pump inhibitors if the predominant symptoms are epigastric pain or gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Although the role of Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) in functional dyspepsia continues to be a matter of debate, recent data indicate that there is modest but clear benefit of eradication of H pylori in patients with functional dyspepsia. In addition, H pylori is a gastric carcinogen and if found it should be eliminated. Although there are no specific diets for patients with FD, it may be helpful to guide the patients on healthy exercise and eating habits.

Initial management strategies for dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

This review considers management strategies (combinations of initial investigation and empirical treatments) for dyspeptic patients. Dyspepsia was defined to include both epigastric pain and heartburn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability, and cost effectiveness of the following initial management strategies for patients presenting with dyspepsia: (a) Initial pharmacological therapy (including endoscopy for treatment failures). (b) Early endoscopy. (c) Testing for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori )and endoscope only those positive. (d) H. pylori eradication therapy with or without prior testing.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were located through electronic searches and extensive contact with trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of dyspeptic patients presenting in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and use of resources. An individual patient data meta-analysis of health economic data was conducted

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five papers reporting 27 comparisons were found. Trials comparing proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with antacids (three trials) and histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) (three trials), early endoscopy with initial acid suppression (five trials), H. pylori test and endoscope versus usual management (three trials), H. pylori test and treat versus endoscopy (six trials), and test and treat versus acid suppression alone in H. pylori positive patients (four trials), were pooled. PPIs were significantly more effective than both H2RAs and antacids. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were; for PPI compared with antacid 0.72 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.80), PPI compared with H2RA 0.63 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.85). Results for other drug comparisons were either absent or inconclusive. Initial endoscopy was associated with a small reduction in the risk of recurrent dyspeptic symptoms compared with H. pylori test and treat (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96), but was not cost effective (mean additional cost of endoscopy US$401 (95% CI $328 to 474). Test and treat may be more effective than acid suppression alone (RR 0.59 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitor drugs (PPIs) are effective in the treatment of dyspepsia in these trials which may not adequately exclude patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The relative efficacy of histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and PPIs is uncertain. Early investigation by endoscopy or H. pylori testing may benefit some patients with dyspepsia but is not cost effective as part of an overall management strategy.

Heartburn-dominant, uninvestigated dyspepsia: a comparison of 'PPI-start' and 'H2-RA-start' management strategies in primary care--the CADET-HR Study

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.

Efficacy and safety of lansoprazole in adolescents with symptomatic erosive and non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of lansoprazole in the treatment of adolescents with symptomatic, endoscopically proven, non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease and erosive esophagitis.

METHODS

Adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age with esophagitis were enrolled in this open-label trial and treated with lansoprazole 15 mg (non-erosive) or 30 mg (erosive) once daily for 8 weeks. If unhealed at week 8, those with erosive esophagitis were treated with an additional 4 weeks of lansoprazole 30 mg once daily.

RESULTS

Lansoprazole produced a significant reduction from baseline in the median percentage of days with reflux symptoms (91 to 43% in the 64 adolescents with non-erosive disease and 85 to 16% in the 23 adolescents with erosive esophagitis, P < or = 0.001 for each comparison). At week 8, mucosal healing had occurred in 95% (21 of 22) of those with erosive esophagitis. Treatment-related adverse events were reported by 19% of patients with non-erosive and 4% of patients with erosive esophagitis. Headache (7%), abdominal pain (5%), nausea (3%) and dizziness (3%) were the most frequently reported adverse events. One patient discontinued treatment early because of dizziness and vomiting. An elevation in mean serum gastrin from baseline (59 pg/mL at pretreatment to 80 pg/mL at final visit) was observed.

CONCLUSION

Lansoprazole 15 mg or 30 mg once daily reduced symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux in adolescents with non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease and erosive esophagitis, respectively. Lansoprazole 30 mg once daily for 8 weeks was effective in healing erosive esophagitis. Both treatment regimens were considered safe.

A novel option in proton pump inhibitor dosing: lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet dispersed in water and administered via nasogastric tube

BACKGROUND

Lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet, which rapidly disintegrates on the tongue or in water, provides a dosing alternative for patients with difficulty in swallowing. Gastric and nasogastric tubes are increasingly placed in patients with more severe swallowing disorders.

AIM

This study assessed the pharmacokinetic profile of lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet dispersed in a small volume of water and administered through a small-bore nasogastric tube.

METHODS

Forty healthy adult men and women (18-43 years) received two single 30 mg lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet doses (one administered directly onto the tongue without water, and one dispersed in water and administered via nasogastric tube) in a randomized, crossover fashion.

RESULTS

The total plasma exposure to lansoprazole was comparable following both dosing regimens; mean AUC values for the lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet nasogastric dispersion were < or =8.6% greater than those for the intact lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet. Lansoprazole Cmax for the lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet nasogastric dispersion was 20.9% greater than that for the intact lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet, a difference of no clinical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Dispersion of the lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet in a small volume of water and administering via nasogastric tube does not reduce the pharmacokinetic profile of the intact lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet. This alternative dosing method may be useful in patients with nasogastric or gastric tubes.

A novel option for dosing of proton pump inhibitors: dispersion of lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet in water via oral syringe

BACKGROUND

A new formulation of lansoprazole, the lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet, rapidly disintegrates in water eliminating the need for swallowing whole pills.

AIM

To assess the effect that dispersing the lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet in water would have on lansoprazole pharmacokinetics.

METHODS

Forty healthy adult men and women (18-43 years) received two single 15 mg lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet doses separated by 3 days (one administered directly onto the tongue without water and one dispersed in water and administered orally via syringe) in a randomized, crossover fashion. Serial plasma samples were determined from 0 to 12 h for each dose. Ratios of central values for peak plasma exposure (C(max)) and mean overall extent of exposure (area under the plasma concentration) were used to compare the bioavailability.

RESULTS

The two dosing regimens were bioequivalent, with the point estimate for area under the plasma concentration equalling 1.080 (confidence interval 1.012-1.152) and the point estimate for C(max) equalling 1.082 (confidence interval 0.961-1.218).

CONCLUSIONS

Dispersing the 15 mg lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet in water and administering the dose orally via syringe is bioequivalent to the 15 mg intact lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet with respect to lansoprazole area under the plasma concentration and C(max). This dosing route provides an additional, convenient dosing option for lansoprazole.

Review article: uninvestigated dyspepsia and non-ulcer dyspepsia-the use of endoscopy and the roles of Helicobacter pylori eradication and antisecretory therapy

Due to its prevalence, impact on quality-of-life and the associated significant health resource utilization, dyspepsia is a major healthcare concern. The available management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia include prompt endoscopy, the 'test-and-treat' strategy for Helicobacter pylori, and empiric antisecretory therapy. There is consensus that endoscopy should be reserved for patients with alarm features (e.g. symptom onset after 45 years of age, recurrent vomiting, weight loss, dysphagia, evidence of bleeding, anaemia), H. pylori-positive individuals who fail test-and-treat, and those with an inadequate response to empiric antisecretory therapy. Factors influencing the decision between test-and-treat and empiric antisecretory therapy in uninvestigated dyspepsia include the local prevalence of H. pylori and peptic ulcer disease and the proportion of ulcers attributable to H. pylori. For uninvestigated dyspepsia in patients without alarm features, test-and-treat is the preferred initial management method in Europe based on the relatively high prevalence of H. pylori/peptic ulcer disease whereas empiric antisecretory therapy is preferred in many parts of the United States, where the prevalence of H. pylori/peptic ulcer disease is relatively low. In patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia, H. pylori eradication and empiric antisecretory therapy result in comparable and small, but statistically significant, improvements in dyspepsia. Empiric antisecretory therapy is the preferred initial method of managing non-ulcer dyspepsia in Europe and the US. The test-and-treat approach would receive increased enthusiasm if H. pylori cure is shown to prevent development of gastric cancer in non-ulcer dyspepsia patients in a large Western trial.

Review article: management of mild and severe gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

Treatment of endosocopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (s-GERD) should be directed towards rapid relief of symptoms and then maintenance of relief using minimum yet effective therapy. Responses to proton pump inhibitors are somewhat lower in s-GERD patients compared to GERD with overt erosive damage (e-GERD). The reasons for a lower response rate are not clear but may relate to the inclusion of patients who do not have reflux disease or patients with a lower oesophageal sensory threshold. Also poorly understood is the lower yield of complete heartburn relief when the number of associated dyspeptic symptoms is high. Some form of long-term therapy is needed in the majority of patients. 'On demand' proton pump inhibitor therapy to control reflux symptoms is a new and attractive option. Time to study discontinuation due to insufficient control of heartburn, or any other reason resulting in unwillingness to continue with on-demand therapy, is a pragmatic outcome that is well suited to definition of the efficacy of on-demand therapy. The goals of treatment of e-GERD should be to relieve symptoms and to heal lesions. Symptom severity and much less endoscopic abnormalities drives the therapeutic choices. When symptoms are mild or intermittent and when oesophagitis is of limited degree, standard dose proton pump inhibitor is usually instituted. Fewer and fewer clinicians would still opt for an H2-receptor antagonist. If there is moderate or severe oesophagitis or if symptoms are particularly troublesome, then the patient should start with standard-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy once a day, but not uncommonly a b.d. dosage maybe necessary. Once the dose of the acid suppressant that relieves symptoms is found, this dose should be maintained for a period of 3 months. After this time, an attempt should be made to reduce the dose. If symptoms recur, then the patients should go back to the full-dose proton pump inhibitor and a plan should be formulated for long-term treatment. The long-term treatment options vary between ongoing acid and suppressant therapy, with occasional attempts to reduce the dose, or to go for 'on demand' therapy and (rarely) includes consideration for surgery or endoscopic anti-reflux therapy.

Functional dyspepsia: evaluation and treatment

Functional dyspepsia is one of the most common disorders seen in general practice and by gastroenterologists. New concepts regarding the pathophysiology and its role for the symptom pattern have emerged during the last few years. This is of importance for development of new treatment alternatives in the near future. At the moment, however, empirical treatment with acid-suppressive agents and prokinetics is the recommended therapeutic approach in the management of these patients, despite limited efficacy. Identification and treatment of H pylori infection has been recommended for uninvestigated dyspepsia, because it may cure underlying peptic ulcer disease, but is unlikely to provide symptomatic benefit to patients with functional dyspepsia. Refractory patients may respond to antidepressants or to psychologic treatments, but proof of efficacy is limited. New and more effective approaches are badly needed for functional dyspepsia.

Empirical prescribing for dyspepsia: randomised controlled trial of test and treat versus omeprazole treatment

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of a "Helicobacter pylori test and treat" strategy with that of an empirical trial of omeprazole in the non-endoscopic management by empirical prescribing of young patients with dyspepsia.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Hospital gastroenterology unit.

PARTICIPANTS

219 patients under 45 years old presenting with dyspepsia without alarm symptoms.

INTERVENTION

Patients received treatment with omeprazole 20 mg (group A) or with a urea breath test followed by an eradication treatment in case of H pylori infection or omeprazole alone in non-infected patients (group B). Lack of improvement or recurrence of symptoms prompted endoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Improvement in symptoms assessed by a dyspepsia severity score every two months; use of medical resources (endoscopic workload and medical consultation); clinical outcome.

RESULTS

96/109 (88%) patients in group A and 61/110 (55%) in group B (P < 0.0001) had endoscopy: in 19 patients in group A and 32 in group B (20/67 infected and 12/43 non-infected) because of no improvement; in 77 further patients in group A and 29 in group B (7 infected and 22 non-infected) because of recurrence of symptoms during follow up. Endoscopy showed peptic ulcers only in group A; oesophagitis occurred significantly more often in group B than in group A. About 80% of examinations were normal in both groups, but nine duodenal scars occurred in group A.

CONCLUSIONS

Eradication treatment allows resolution of symptoms in a large number of patients with dyspepsia and reduces the endoscopic workload. After a trial of omeprazole, symptoms recur in nearly every patient. Such treatment is also likely to mask an appreciable number of peptic ulcers and cases of oesophagitis.

Gastroesophageal reflux in children: pathogenesis, prevalence, diagnosis, and role of proton pump inhibitors in treatment

A substantial percentage of infants, children and adolescents experience gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and its accompanying symptoms, as well as disease complications. The diagnosis of GERD in children is made based upon the child's history, and data derived primarily from pH monitoring tests and endoscopy. In those children with confirmed reflux disease, the options for management parallel those recommended in adult patients, with the first step consisting of lifestyle changes. Surgical procedures may also be performed; however, these are rarely recommended prior to an adequate course of pharmacologic therapy, and appropriate case selection is important. Among the current pharmacotherapeutic options available in the US, the prokinetic agents and the acid-inhibitory agents (histamine-2 receptor antagonists, proton pump inhibitors) are the most widely used. The clinical utility of the prokinetic agents has been limited by the recent withdrawal of cisapride from the US marketplace and the potential for irreversible central nervous system complications with metoclopramide. Numerous clinical studies performed in adults, and several studies involving children, have demonstrated that the proton pump inhibitors are more effective than the histamine-2 receptor antagonists in the relief of GERD symptoms and healing of erosive esophagitis. In children, omeprazole and lansoprazole may be administered as the intact oral capsule, or in those who are unable or unwilling to swallow, the granule contents of the capsule may be mixed with soft foods (e.g. apple sauce) or fruit drinks/liquid dietary supplements prior to oral administration with no detrimental effects on pharmacokinetics, bioavailability, or pharmacodynamics. Studies performed with omeprazole and lansoprazole in children have shown pharmacokinetic parameters that closely resemble those observed in adults. In over a decade of use in adults, the proton pump inhibitor class of agents has been found to have a good safety profile. Studies involving children have also shown these agents to be well tolerated. In numerous drug-drug interaction studies performed with these two proton pump inhibitors, relatively few clinically significant interactions have been observed.

Evaluation and treatment of dyspepsia

Dyspepsia is a common symptom. Dyspeptic symptoms may be caused by a variety of conditions such as peptic ulcer disease, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and malignancy. Most often, however, no cause is identified and dyspepsia is deemed to be functional. While symptom severity does influence frequency of consultation, dyspeptic consulters also differ from non-consulters with respect to symptom perception and anxiety. This highlights the importance of understanding the patient's agenda early in the course of evaluation. Patients over the age of 55 years or with alarm symptoms should be referred for prompt endoscopy. In the absence of other clinically apparent aetiologies, uninvestigated dyspeptics can be either tested and treated for Helicobacter pylori or empirically treated with proton pump inhibitors. Uninvestigated dyspeptics failing empiric therapy should be referred for evaluation that includes endoscopy. Further therapy with prokinetics, tricyclic antidepressants, fundal relaxants, antidepressants, or psychotherapy is guided by predominant symptoms and assessment of possible psychiatric factors.

Lansoprazole: an update of its place in the management of acid-related disorders

Lansoprazole is an inhibitor of gastric acid secretion and also exhibits antibacterial activity against Helicobacter pylori in vitro. Current therapy for peptic ulcer disease focuses on the eradication of H. pylori infection with maintenance therapy indicated in those patients who are not cured of H. pylori and those with ulcers resistant to healing. Lansoprazole 30 mg combined with amoxicillin 1g, clarithromycin 250 or 500mg, or metronidazole 400 mg twice daily was associated with eradication rates ranging from 71 to 94%, and ulcer healing rates were generally >80% in well designed studies. In addition, it was as effective as omeprazole- or rabeprazole-based regimens which included these antimicrobial agents. Maintenance therapy with lansoprazole 30 mg/day was significantly more effective than either placebo or ranitidine in preventing ulcer relapse. Importantly, preliminary data suggest that lansoprazole-based eradication therapy is effective in children and the elderly. In the short-term treatment of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), lansoprazole 15, 30 or 60 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo, ranitidine 300 mg/day or cisapride 40 mg/day and similar in efficacy to pantoprazole 40 mg/day in terms of healing of oesophagitis. Lansoprazole 30 mg/day, omeprazole 20 mg/day and pantoprazole 40 mg/day all provided similar symptom relief in these patients. In patients with healed oesophagitis. 12-month maintenance therapy with lansoprazole 15 or 30 mg/day prevented recurrence and was similar to or more effective than omeprazole 10 or 20 mg/day. Available data in patients with NSAID-related disorders or acid-related dyspepsia suggest that lansoprazole is effective in these patients in terms of the prevention of NSAID-related gastrointestinal complications, ulcer healing and symptom relief. Meta-analytic data and postmarketing surveillance in >30,000 patients indicate that lansoprazole is well tolerated both as monotherapy and in combination with antimicrobial agents. After lansoprazole monotherapy commonly reported adverse events included dose-dependent diarrhoea, nausea/vomiting, headache and abdominal pain. After short-term treatment in patients with peptic ulcer, GORD, dyspepsia and gastritis the incidence of adverse events associated with lansoprazole was generally < or = 5%. Similar adverse events were seen in long-term trials, although the incidence was generally higher (< or = 10%). When lansoprazole was administered in combination with amoxicillin, clarithromycin or metronidazole adverse events included diarrhoea, headache and taste disturbance. In conclusion, lansoprazole-based triple therapy is an effective treatment option for the eradication of H. pylori infection in patients with peptic ulcer disease. Preliminary data suggest it may have an important role in the management of this infection in children and the elderly. In the short-term management of GORD, lansoprazole monotherapy offers a more effective alternative to histamine H2-receptor antagonists and initial data indicate that it is an effective short-term treatment option in children and adolescents. In adults lansoprazole maintenance therapy is also an established treatment option for the long-term management of this chronic disease. Lansoprazole has a role in the treatment and prevention of NSAID-related ulcers and the treatment of acid-related dyspepsia; however, further studies are needed to confirm its place in these indications. Lansoprazole has emerged as a useful and well tolerated treatment option in the management of acid-related disorders.

Lack of symptom benefit following presumptive Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy in primary care

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori eradication regimens have failure rates under 10%, however little information is available on the effect of treatment success in reducing the subsequent prescription of anti-ulcer medications in primary care.

AIMS

To determine, using a large prescription database in eastern Ireland, the success of presumptive eradication therapy in improving symptoms of dyspepsia in primary care, as judged by a reduction in the subsequent prescription of anti-ulcer medications.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, we identified 3847 patients who received a prescription for eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori, including 826 who were followed for 9-11 months. Those who subsequently received anti-ulcer medications were deemed failures to obtain symptom relief.

RESULTS

For 3847 patients with a median follow-up of 8 months, the failure rate was 49%. Of 826 patients, followed for a longer period (9-11 months), the overall failure rate was 56% (range 44-62% depending on the eradication regimen used). Age over 65 years (hazard ratio=1.57, 95% confidence interval= 1.29-1.91, P < 0.001), prior use of anti-ulcer medications (hazard ratio=1.97, 95% confidence interval=1.63-2.37, P < 0.001) and prior use of aspirin/NSAIDs (hazard ratio=1.43, 95% confidence interval=1.18-1.73, P < 0.001) all predicted failure to obtain relief of symptoms of dyspepsia from eradication therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Such high failure rates of eradication therapy in reducing the subsequent consumption of anti-ulcer medications have both clinical and economic implications for the use of eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori in primary care.

Comparing lansoprazole and omeprazole in onset of heartburn relief: results of a randomized, controlled trial in erosive esophagitis patients

OBJECTIVE

This randomized, double-blind, multicenter study was conducted to confirm a previous finding that lansoprazole relieves heartburn faster than omeprazole in patients with erosive esophagitis.

METHODS

A total of 3510 patients with erosive esophagitis and at least one episode of moderate to very severe daytime and/or nighttime heartburn during the 3 days immediately before the screening visit were randomized to lansoprazole 30 mg once daily or omeprazole 20 mg once daily for 8 wk. Patients recorded the presence and severity of daytime and nighttime heartburn in daily diaries. On treatment days 1-4, patients were telephoned to confirm the completion of their daily diary. The primary efficacy parameters were the percentage of heartburn-free days and heartburn-free nights, as well as the average severity of daytime and nighttime heartburn.

RESULTS

During treatment day I and all evaluation time points including the entire 8-wk treatment period, significantly (p < 0.05) higher percentages of patients treated with lansoprazole than those treated with omeprazole did not experience a single episode of heartburn. Onset of heartburn relief was more rapid in lansoprazole-treated versus omeprazole-treated patients: on day 1, 33% versus 25% of lansoprazole- versus omeprazole-treated patients were heartburn-free. The percentages of heartburn-free days and heartburn-free nights were also significantly (p < 0.01) greater for patients treated with lansoprazole at all evaluation time points. Heartburn severity was significantly less among those treated with lansoprazole compared with omeprazole. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Over 8 wk, lansoprazole 30 mg once daily relieved heartburn symptoms faster and more effectively than omeprazole 20 mg once daily in patients with erosive esophagitis.

Current indications for acid suppressants in dyspepsia

Anti-secretory drug use is common in patients with uninvestigated and functional dyspepsia, but the value of such agents has been controversial. Four large studies have evaluated the symptomatic outcome after a short course of acid inhibition in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia presenting in primary care. All of these studies demonstrated a superior symptom response to proton pump inhibitor therapy compared with placebo and acid-alginates or H(2)-receptor antagonists. In patients with documented functional dyspepsia, 17 parallel group trials have evaluated an H(2)-receptor antagonist against placebo, with mixed results. A recent Cochrane review based on eight controlled trials concluded that there was a significant benefit of H(2)-blockers over placebo with a relative risk reduction of 30%, but as gastro-oesophageal reflux disease was not excluded, the conclusions are questionable. Six controlled studies have compared symptom relief after a short course of proton pump inhibitor therapy compared with placebo. Overall, there does appear to be a therapeutic gain with proton pump inhibitors over placebo, although how much of this is explained by undiagnosed gastro-oesophageal reflux disease remains unclear. There is conflicting evidence on the value of symptom subgrouping as a predictor of response to acid suppression. Overall, there is little convincing evidence that Helicobacter pylori infection influences the therapeutic outcome of acid-suppressant therapy. In conclusion, there appears to be a subgroup of patients with functional dyspepsia who will respond to acid suppression over and above placebo, but further work is required to characterize these responders.

Management of heartburn in a large, randomized, community-based study: comparison of four therapeutic strategies

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compare four management strategies for heartburn: therapy with an H2-receptor antagonist (ranitidine), therapy with a proton pump inhibitor (lansoprazole), crossover from ranitidine to lansoprazole ("step-up" therapy), and crossover from lansoprazole to ranitidine ("step-down" therapy).

METHODS

This was a controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial comprising 593 adults with heartburn, randomized to one of four groups for 20 wk. Subjects received either ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. for 20 wk, or lansoprazole 30 mg once daily for 20 wk, or ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. for 8 wk [corrected] followed by lansoprazole 30 mg once daily for 12 wk ("step-up"), or lansoprazole 30 mg once daily for 8 wk followed by ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. for 12 wk ("step-down"). Outcome measures were based on self-reports in daily diaries of 24-h heartburn severity, measured by maximum daytime and nighttime severity, and percentage of 24-h heartburn-free days measured by absence of both daytime and nighttime heartburn.

RESULTS

Median heartburn severity was significantly lower (p < 0.05) for lansoprazole (0.25) than the other groups (0.46 ranitidine, 0.44 "step-up," 0.35 "step-down"). The lansoprazole group had a significantly higher percentage of 24-h heartburn-free days (median 81.4%, p < 0.01) than other groups (66.6, 66.9, and 73.6%, respectively). In the "step-up" and "step-down" groups, heartburn was less severe, and percentages of 24-h heartburn-free days were higher during lansoprazole treatment regardless of treatment sequence.

CONCLUSION

Proton pump inhibitor treatment provides more consistent heartburn relief than an H2-receptor antagonist, or "step-up" or "step-down" therapy.

Therapeutic options in nonulcer dyspepsia

Dyspepsia, defined as pain or discomfort centered in the upper abdomen, affects an estimated 25% of the U.S. population each year; accounts for up to 5% of all visits to primary care physicians, and generates over $1.3 billion in prescription drug costs annually. In the majority of patients evaluated, no clear cause of symptoms can be identified, and the condition is termed functional or nonulcer dyspepsia (NUD). The pathophysiology of NUD remains unclear, but disturbances in gastrointestinal motility or sensation are often found. Clinically, NUD can be subdivided into dysmotility-like (in which discomfort, fullness, bloating, early satiety, or nausea [but not pain] predominate) or ulcer-like (in which epigastric pain is predominant). In ulcer-like NUD, antisecretory therapy is useful, but in dysmotility-like NUD, acid suppression is not superior to placebo. Cisapride accelerates gastric emptying and enhances gastric accommodation but probably does not blunt perception. Although cisapride relieves symptoms of dyspepsia without the adverse central nervous system effects often associated with metoclopramide, its cardiac toxicity has led to disuse. Antidepressants are of uncertain efficacy but are widely used. New prokinetics and other enteric neuromodulating agents are being tested in NUD and are likely to find an important place in clinical practice in the future.

Failure of a motilin receptor agonist (ABT-229) to relieve the symptoms of functional dyspepsia in patients with and without delayed gastric emptying: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Motilin-receptor agonists are prokinetics; whether they relieve the symptoms of functional dyspepsia is unknown. We aimed to test the efficacy of the motilin agonist ABT-229 in functional dyspepsia patients with and without delayed gastric emptying.

METHODS

Patients were randomized with postprandial symptoms and documented functional dyspepsia by endoscopy (n=589 in intention-to-treat analysis). Patients were assigned to either the delayed or normal gastric emptying strata, based on a validated 13C octanoic acid breath test. Patients were then further randomized within each strata, to receive one of four doses of ABT-229 (1.25, 2. 5, 5 or 10 mg b.d. before breakfast and dinner) or placebo for 4 weeks, following a 2-week baseline. The primary outcome was the assessment of change in symptom severity over the 2 weeks from baseline to final visit, based on a self-report questionnaire measuring severity on visual analogue scales.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics across the treatment arms were very similar. No significant differences in the upper abdominal discomfort severity score (maximum 800 mm) were observed for any active treatment arm vs. placebo (mean change from baseline -139, -141, -145, -160 and -134 mm for placebo, 1.25, 2.5, 5, and 10 mg, respectively, at 4 weeks by intention-to-treat). More patients on placebo reported a good or excellent global response than patients on 1.25 or 5 mg of active therapy (both P < 0.05). The results were very similar in those with and without delayed gastric emptying. Helicobacter pylori status did not predict response. Excluding patients with any baseline heartburn (total remaining n=240), ABT-229 10 mg was inferior to placebo in relief of upper abdominal discomfort.

CONCLUSIONS

ABT-229 was of no value for relief of symptoms in functional dyspepsia, compared with placebo.