Diagnosis and treatment of acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage in a small district hospital

Ninety-eight consecutive patients admitted to a small district hospital because of acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage have been studied. Patients with haematemesis and/or melaena were treated with antacids and tranexamic acid from the very beginning and were examined with early panendscopy. All patients were closely observed in an ordinary medical ward by a staff especially trained to handle acute gastrointestinal bleeding. Seven patients required acute surgery. The overall mortality was 4.1%. It is concluded that acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage can be successfully handled with modern diagnosis and treatment in a small hospital.

Endoscopic polypectomy in the gastrointestinal tract

The results of 160 consecutive fibre-optic endoscopic polypectomies in the gastrointestinal tract are reviewed. Of 22 polyps snared in the upper digestive tract, 16 could be retrieved. One gastric polyp showed early intramucosal carcinoma. Biopsies from a pedunculated duodenal polyp, which was lost after snaring, revealed adenoma with moderate atypia. Of 138 resected colonic polyps, 132 were retrieved. Of these, 104 (79%) were adenomas. Of 49 colonic adenomas smaller than 10 mm, 4 (8%) showed severe atypia (carcinoma in situ) but not invasive carcinoma. Of 36 adenomas sized 10--19 mm 8 (22%) showed severe atypia and one (3%) invasive carcinoma. Of 19 adenomas larger than 60 mm, 6 (32%) showed severe atypia and one (5%) invasive carcinoma. Of the colonic polyp patients, 87% had only one or two polyps. Synchronous adenomas and non-neoplastic polyps were found in 6 of 11 cases with 3 or more colonic polyps. It is concluded that endoscopic polypectomy, carefully and properly performed, is a valuable and promising procedure in the diagnosis and treatment of polyps in the gastrointestinal tract, especially in the large bowel.

Oesophageal disease revealed by endoscopy in 1,000 patients referred primarily for gastroscopy

Of 1000 patients referred primarily for gastroscopy, almost 18% had endoscopic signs of clinically important oesophageal disease. Erosive oesophagitis, a disease that is notoriously difficult to diagnose on X-ray, was demonstrated in alsmot 10% and oesophageal varices in 3.6% of the patients. It is concluded that a thorough examination of the oesophagus should be included in every routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Coexistent hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia and primary thrombocythaemia--coincidence or syndrome?

Two patients with coexistent hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) and primary thrombocythaemia (PT) are presented. In one of them, both diseases were detected at the same time. In the other, signs of HHT were present 20 years prior to the diagnosis of PT. Both patients had recurrent gastrointestinal haemorrhage with consequent anaemia, and multiple gastric telangiectases were demonstrated endoscopically. Persistent and severe haemorrhage from gastric telangiectases in one of the patients was successfully controlled by endoscopic monopolar electrocoagulation. The very high platelet counts were reduced with melphalan in one patient and with busulfan in the other. The degree of severity of both disorders was parallel in both cases. We suggest that the coexistence of these two rare disorders in one and the same patient may represent a syndrome that could be more common than hitherto known.

Daily treatment with esomeprazole is superior to that taken on-demand for maintenance of healed erosive oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

On-demand therapy with esomeprazole is effective for long-term treatment of non-erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, but it has not been evaluated in erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

AIMS

To compare endoscopic and symptomatic remission over a 6-month period when patients with healed erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease are treated with esomeprazole 20 mg, either once daily or on-demand.

METHODS

Patients with verified erosive reflux oesophagitis of Los Angeles grades A-D were enrolled. Following 4-8 weeks treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg daily, those who were endoscopically healed and had symptom control during the last week were randomized to maintenance therapy for 6 months with esomeprazole 20 mg, taken either once daily or on-demand.

RESULTS

Of 539 enrolled patients, 494 (91%) were healed at 8 weeks and 477 were randomized to maintenance therapy with esomeprazole 20 mg, 243 once daily and 234 on-demand. After once daily treatment, 81% of patients were still in remission at 6 months, compared with only 58% who took on-demand treatment (P < 0.0001). A difference in remission was found irrespective of baseline grade of oesophagitis, but it was more pronounced for the more severe grades. There was no difference in overall symptomatic remission between the two treatments, although heartburn was significantly more prevalent in the on-demand group.

CONCLUSIONS

Once daily esomeprazole 20 mg was better than that taken on-demand for maintaining healed erosive oesophagitis, regardless of baseline Los Angeles grade.

Body mass and reflux oesophagitis: an oestrogen-dependent association?

BACKGROUND

There is widespread belief that obesity is associated with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, but the scientific evidence is weak and contradictory. Our aim is to evaluate the relation between body mass and reflux oesophagitis.

METHODS

A population-based case-control study of endoscopically verified case subjects with reflux oesophagitis, and of randomly selected, control subjects matched for age, sex and area of residence. Subjects were classified within three body mass index (BMI) categories: BMI <25 (normal in the WHO classification), BMI 25-30 (overweight) and BMI >30 (obese). Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were the measures of association.

RESULTS

Of 179 matched case-control pairs included in the study, 71 pairs were female. In males, no association between overweight and/or obesity and the risk of reflux oesophagitis was found. In females, there was a strong association between increasing BMI and the risk of reflux oesophagitis, with an OR of 2.9 (95% CI: 1.1-7.6) in the BMI 25-30 group and 14.6 (95% CI: 2.6-80.9) in the BMI >30 group (P value for trend = 0.0007). The association between obesity and oesophagitis was further strengthened by the use of oestrogen replacement medication.

CONCLUSIONS

The study discloses a strong and dose-dependent association between body mass and reflux oesophagitis in women as opposed to no association among men. This association might be caused by increased oestrogen activity in overweight and obese females.

Effect of budesonide enema on remission and relapse rate in distal ulcerative colitis and proctitis

BACKGROUND

Glucocorticosteroid enemas are equally effective as 5-ASA enemas in the treatment of active distal ulcerative colitis (UC). With the introduction of budesonide, the risk of systemic side effects may be reduced. We investigated whether budesonide enema, 2 mg/100 ml, administered twice daily (b.i.d.) could increase the remission rate in comparison with the once daily (o.d.) standard regimen. Furthermore, we evaluated whether 2 mg budesonide enema, given twice weekly, could have a relapse preventing effect.

METHODS

149 patients with active distal UC were treated in a controlled, double-blind multicentre study with two parallel groups: placebo enema in the morning and budesonide enema in the evening (i.e. 2 mg/day) or budesonide enema b.i.d. (i.e. 4 mg/day) until remission (absence of clinical symptoms and endoscopic healing) or at most 8 weeks. Patients in remission were randomized to either budesonide enema or placebo enema twice weekly for 24 weeks or until relapse.

RESULTS

The remission rates at 4 weeks were 33% for o.d. and 41% for b.i.d. regimens (NS) and correspondingly 51% and 54% at 8 weeks (NS). The b.i.d. group had an increased frequency of impaired adrenal function, 32% versus 4.8% (P = 0.001). The relapse rates during maintenance treatment with budesonide enema and placebo were 15% versus 24% after 8 weeks, 31% versus 27% after 16 weeks and 41% versus 51% after 24 weeks (NS).

CONCLUSION

Budesonide enema 2 mg o.d. appears to be the optimal dosage in active distal UC. We could not show that budesonide enema twice weekly is sufficient to maintain remission.

Gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms--clinical findings and effect of ranitidine treatment

BACKGROUND

This study was performed to study the demography, effect of treatment with ranitidine and relapse pattern in patients with reflux symptoms.

METHODS

Patients with reflux symptoms were examined by endoscopy and included in a double-blind, comparative trial of placebo and ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. for two weeks. At two weeks satisfied patients continued the same treatment. Non-satisfied patients were randomised to ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. or q.i.d for another two weeks. After four weeks medication was stopped and satisfied patients were followed for 24 weeks. No further endoscopy was performed.

RESULTS

Four hundred and twenty-seven patients were randomised. At two weeks there was no significant difference between placebo and ranitidine, regarding the proportion of patients with complete relief from symptoms or satisfied with treatment. Ranitidine was superior to placebo in improving symptoms at two weeks. Ranitidine, 150 mg q.i.d. offered no additional advantage in weeks three to four over prolonging treatment with 150 mg b.i.d. after the first two weeks. Patients with oesophagitis at inclusion relapsed more than those with symptoms only, 67% compared with 52%, (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of ranitidine was marginal compared to placebo. The relapse rate was high after treatment stopped.

Lansoprazole and omeprazole in the prevention of relapse of reflux oesophagitis: a long-term comparative study

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors are superior to H2-receptor antagonists in the prevention of relapse of oesophagitis, but few data directly compare the relative efficacies of lansoprazole and omeprazole in preventing oesophagitis relapse over a prolonged period.

METHODS

Patients with healed Grade II, III or IV oesophagitis were treated with lansoprazole 30 mg o.d. or omeprazole 20 mg o.d. for 48 weeks. Endoscopy and symptom assessment were performed after 12. 24 and 48 weeks of treatment and an additional symptom assessment 36 weeks after starting treatment.

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat analysis included 248 patients (lansoprazole n = 126, omeprazole n = 122). Comparison of time to endoscopic and/or symptomatic relapse revealed no difference between the treatments. There was no significant difference between treatments with respect to the proportion of patients in whom endoscopic and/or symptomatic relapse was reported (lansoprazole 12/126 (9.5%), omeprazole 11/122 (9.0%)). No difference between the treatments in either the number or severity of adverse events was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous treatment with either lansoprazole 30 mg or omeprazole 20 mg is effective in preventing the relapse of oesophagitis over a 48-week period in a majority of patients. Both treatments exhibit a similar side-effect profile.

The effect of cisapride in maintaining symptomatic remission in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Successful treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) has traditionally been assessed as healing of reflux oesophagitis, which may not be relevant in patients with moderate disease. In these patients symptom relief and patient satisfaction with therapy are of fundamental importance. Cisapride has well-documented prokinetic effects and may be well suited for long-term therapy of GORD, but its effectiveness in purely symptomatic treatment is unknown. We therefore compared two dosage regimens of cisapride with placebo over a period of 6 months in patients with evidence of gastrooesophageal reflux, initially treated with antisecretory medication, with regard to maintaining symptom relief and satisfaction with treatment.

METHODS

Five hundred and thirty-five patients with reflux oesophagitis grade 1 (n = 293) or 2 (n = 124) or with no reflux oesophagitis but pathologic 24-h pH-metry (n = 118) achieved satisfactory symptom relief with an H2-receptor antagonist or proton pump inhibitor within 4-8 weeks. In a double-blind randomized, parallel-group study, they were then treated with cisapride, 20 mg at night or 20 mg twice daily, or placebo and followed up for a maximum period of 6 months. Relapse was defined as dissatisfaction with therapy or an average consumption of more than two antacid tablets a day.

RESULTS

Median time to relapse was 63 days for cisapride, 20 mg twice daily; 59 days for cisapride, 20 mg at night; and 49 days for placebo. Time to relapse was not significantly different (P = 0.09). Presence and grade of oesophagitis at base line, type of therapy before randomization, and pattern of non-reflux symptoms at base line did not influence these findings significantly.

CONCLUSION

The study indicates that cisapride is of limited value in maintenance therapy of GORD in patients in whom symptom relief has been accomplished with potent antisecretory medication. This 'step-down' approach to therapy seems disadvantageous in the long-term therapy of GORD.

Prevention of peptic ulcer and dyspeptic symptoms with omeprazole in patients receiving continuous non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy. A Nordic multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are known to cause gastroduodenal lesions and dyspeptic symptoms.

METHODS

Patients with a history of dyspepsia or uncomplicated peptic ulcer disease and with a need for continuous NSAID treatment were randomized to receive either 20 mg omeprazole once daily or placebo. Gastroduodenal ulcers, erosions, and dyspeptic symptoms were evaluated after 1 and 3 months.

RESULTS

During a 3-month study period 4.7% (4 of 85) of omeprazole-treated patients developed peptic ulcer, compared with 16.7% (15 of 90) of patients treated with placebo. This prophylactic effect of omeprazole was sustained independently of previous peptic ulcer history or Helicobacter pylori status. Development of dyspeptic symptoms requiring active treatment, either alone or in combination with ulcer(s) or erosions, occurred in 15.3% (15 of 85) of patients treated with omeprazole and 35.6% of those who received placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Omeprazole, 20 mg once daily, provides effective prophylactic therapy in patients at risk of developing NSAID-associated peptic ulcers or dyspeptic symptoms.

Lansoprazole versus omeprazole in active duodenal ulcer. A double-blind, randomized, comparative study

BACKGROUND

Lansoprazole is a new substituted benzimidazole that inhibits the H+,K(+)-adenosine triphosphatase in the parietal cell and, like the first developed proton pump inhibitor omeprazole, gives a strong inhibition of gastric acid output.

METHODS

In this double-blind randomized comparative study patients with active duodenal ulcers were treated with either 30 mg lansoprazole or 20 mg omeprazole in the morning. All demographic data in the two treatment groups were comparable.

RESULTS

A total of 279 patients entered the study. There was no difference in healing rates between the groups either after 2 weeks (86.2% for lansoprazole and 82.1% for omeprazole) or after 4 weeks (97.1% and 96.2%). No patient ceased treatment owing to side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Both lansoprazole and omeprazole generate very high healing rates and good symptom relief in active duodenal ulcer. Side effects are few and mild.

Omeprazole or ranitidine in long-term treatment of reflux esophagitis. The Scandinavian Clinics for United Research Group

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Patients with reflux esophagitis have rapid relapses after treatment withdrawal. This study was designed to investigate the relapse rate of symptomatic esophagitis during maintenance treatment with omeprazole or ranitidine.

METHODS

Patients with endoscopically verified acute erosive or ulcerative esophagitis were initially treated with 20-40 mg omeprazole daily for 8-12 weeks. After healing, the patients were randomized to maintenance treatment with omeprazole (20 or 10 mg each morning) or ranitidine (150 mg twice daily). Control endoscopy was performed at the end of the healing phase and after 12 months of maintenance treatment or symptomatic relapse.

RESULTS

Of 426 initially treated patients, 392 were healed and entered the maintenance study. The months of maintenance treatment with 20 mg omeprazole once daily (n = 131), 10 mg omeprazole once daily (n = 133), and 150 mg ranitidine twice daily (n = 128) were 72%, 62%, and 45%, respectively. Both the 10- and 20-mg doses of omeprazole were significantly better than the dose of ranitidine (P < 0.001 and P < 0.005, respectively). There was no significant difference between the 10- and 20-mg doses of omeprazole (P = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance treatment with omeprazole (20 or 10 mg once daily) is superior to ranitidine (150 mg twice daily) in keeping patients with erosive reflux esophagitis in remission over a 12-month period.

Lansoprazole versus omeprazole in short-term treatment of reflux oesophagitis. Results of a Scandinavian multicentre trial

To evaluate the therapeutic potential of the newly developed proton pump inhibitor lansoprazole in patients with reflux oesophagitis, we performed a double-blind randomized clinical trial comparing 20 mg omeprazole and 30 mg lansoprazole, involving 229 patients at 9 Scandinavian hospitals. The treatment period was 4 or 8 weeks, and main efficacy variables were healing of endoscopic changes, relief of reflux symptoms, and occurrence of adverse events. No significant difference in terms of healing was found, either after 4 or after 8 weeks' treatment. Patients receiving lansoprazole experienced a greater improvement in heartburn after 4 weeks (p = 0.03), and there was a similar trend for acid regurgitation. Lansoprazole was found to be an effective and safe alternative to omeprazole in short-term treatment of moderate reflux oesophagitis.

Effect of cisapride on relapse of reflux oesophagitis, healed with an antisecretory drug

Maintenance treatment with cisapride was evaluated in 298 patients in whom reflux oesophagitis had been healed with antisecretory drugs. Initially, 34% of the patients had grade-I oesophagitis, 33% had grade II, and 33% had grade III. The patients were treated with 20 mg cisapride twice daily or placebo for 6 months or until endoscopic relapse was shown if this occurred earlier. Survival analysis showed that cisapride significantly prolonged the time to endoscopic relapse in grade-I patients (P = 0.02). The intergroup difference in symptomatic relapse in all patients was also significant (P = 0.010). The effect of cisapride was less clearcut in grade II or III, and/or in patients healed with omeprazole. Factors associated with early relapse were placebo therapy, prior omeprazole therapy, duration of pre-trial symptomatic period, and initial endoscopic severity grade. Adverse experiences were limited; diarrhoea was reported by 9% of the cisapride patients.

Two and four weeks' treatment for duodenal ulcer. Symptom relief and clinical remission comparing omeprazole and ranitidine. Scandinavian Clinics for United Research

In a Swedish-Norwegian multicentre study patients with endoscopically verified duodenal ulcers (greater than 5 mm) were randomized to 2 or 4 weeks of treatment with either 20 mg omeprazole once daily or 300 mg ranitidine once daily. The aim was to evaluate 2 and 4 weeks' treatment with regard to symptomatic improvement during treatment, relapse after treatment, and safety of the two drugs. Endoscopy was not performed to check healing at the end of treatment. Instead the patients were instructed to contact the investigator in the event of recurrence of symptoms for renewed endoscopy. Follow-up was ended 10 weeks after stopping active treatment. Altogether 450 patients were evaluated at 17 centres. The symptomatic improvement during treatment was good in all groups, with significantly better reductions of daytime pain and heartburn in omeprazole-treated patients. Symptomatic relapse was commonest in the 2-week ranitidine group (57%), significantly more than in the 2-week omeprazole group (31%) (p less than 0.003). In the 4-week groups relapse rates were 34% (ranitidine) and 39% (omeprazole) (NS). It is suggested that in the short-term treatment of acute duodenal ulcer 20 mg omeprazole once daily is most rationally used in a 2- to 4-week regimen, whereas 300 mg ranitidine once daily should not be used for less than 4 weeks.

Sucralfate versus placebo in reflux esophagitis. A double-blind multicenter study

The healing capacity and symptom relief were studied in 138 patients with symptomatic endoscopically verified reflux esophagitis treated with sucralfate (n = 69) or placebo (n = 69), 1 g four times daily (granules suspended in half a glass of water), for at most up to 12 weeks. The reflux esophagitis (modified Savary-Miller scale) was distributed with 71 patients having grade 1, 39 patients having grade 2 or 3, and 28 patients having grade 4. All patients were told to follow the antireflux regimen. Antacid tablets were supplied, to be used only for the relief of severe pain, and were counted. The esophageal lesions were completely healed in 42% (sucralfate) and 35% (placebo) after 6 weeks of treatment (NS). Corresponding cumulative healing rates at 12 weeks of treatment were 54% and 41% (NS), respectively. The symptom improvement, however, was significantly better in the sucralfate group after 3 weeks of treatment. The results indicate a symptomatic benefit of sucralfate in reflux esophagitis.

Relapse rate of healed duodenal, prepyloric, and gastric ulcers treated either with sucralfate or cimetidine

A multicenter double-blind study was designed to compare the relapse rates of peptic ulcers after initial healing with a cytoprotective agent and a histamine (H2)-receptor antagonist. Patients with endoscopically verified prepyloric or duodenal ulcers were treated with cimetidine 400 mg twice daily or sucralfate 1 g four times daily for a maximum of eight weeks; gastric ulcers were treated for up to 12 weeks. Patients with healed ulcers were followed up to 12 months, during which time anti-ulcer medication was not permitted. Control endoscopy was performed two to four and nine to 11 months after healing and at the time of symptomatic relapse. A total of 258 patients were followed for 12 months; of these, 143 had been previously treated with cimetidine and 115 had been treated with sucralfate. The relapse rates and the median time to relapse did not differ between the two groups. After 12 months, 71 percent of the previously cimetidine-treated patients and 68 percent of the sucralfate-treated patients had experienced a relapse. Smoking significantly increased the relapse rate and shortened the time to relapse in the total study population and among cimetidine-treated patients; it had no such effect in the sucralfate-treated group.

Recurrent ulcer after treatment with cimetidine or sucralfate

The recurrence of peptic ulcer disease after successful treatment with 400 mg cimetidine twice daily or 1 g sucralfate four times daily was investigated in a double-blind, 1-year follow-up study. Endoscopy was performed if ulcer symptoms recurred and 2-4 and 9-11 months after endoscopically confirmed healing of the initial ulcer. No anti-ulcer medication was permitted during the follow-up period. The recurrence rates were 71% in the cimetidine group (n = 143) and 68% in the sucralfate group (n = 115) (p greater than 0.3). The rate of asymptomatic ulcer relapse was 26% in the cimetidine and 23% in the sucralfate group (p greater than 0.4). The time to relapse did not differ between the treatment groups (p greater than 0.3). In the cimetidine group smokers had a higher 12-month recurrence rate than non-smokers, 83% compared with 58% (p less than 0.01). The corresponding figures in the sucralfate group were 76% and 57% (p = 0.057). The median time to recurrence in the cimetidine-treated group was 17 weeks among smokers, compared to 43 weeks among non-smokers (p less than 0.001). In the sucralfate-treated group the median time to recurrence was 23 weeks among smokers and 32 weeks among non-smokers (p greater than 0.3). Pre-study use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the time to healing of the initial ulcer did not influence the relapse rates in either of the treatment groups.

Geographic differences in the prevalence and distribution of large-bowel polyps--colonoscopic findings

The large-bowel polyp pattern in two widely separated geographic regions of Sweden, Bollnäs in the central part and Trelleborg in the south, was studied prospectively by colonoscopic polypectomy. In Bollnäs 11.8% of 1,153 patients had neoplastic, and 3.8% hyperplastic, polyps. In Trelleborg 29% of 1,040 patients had neoplastic, and 17.3% hyperplastic, polyps. Furthermore, the Trelleborg patients had, on average, more polyps per patients than their Bollnäs counterparts: 2.0 versus 1.5 neoplastic, and 2.1 versus 1.7 hyperplastic, polyps. There was a marked difference in the anatomic location of the polyps between the two regions: in Trelleborg 55.4% of the neoplastic, and 40.5% of the hyperplastic polyps were distributed above the rectosigmoid, compared with 20.9% and 26.4%, respectively, in Bollnäs. The findings offer an explanation of the fact that the incidence of colorectal carcinoma in the Malmö region, close to the Trelleborg area, is the highest in Sweden.

Enprostil and cimetidine: comparative efficacy and safety in patients with duodenal ulcer

The safety and efficacy of enprostil, 35 micrograms twice daily, and of cimetidine, 400 mg twice daily, in the treatment of duodenal ulcers were compared in a randomized, double-blind, parallel, multiclinic study. Endoscopy was performed before treatment and at 2-week intervals for 6 weeks or until the ulcer healed. Patients recorded their drug compliance, antacid use, ulcer symptoms, and adverse experiences daily. One hundred and six patients entered the trial, of which 104 were eligible for the initial endoscopy analysis. Base-line characteristics were similar in the two treatment groups. The cumulative healing rates in the enprostil group were 56%, 86%, and 92% at 2, 4, and 6 weeks, respectively, and those in the cimetidine group were 53%, 84%, and 90% (NS). The healing rates for nonsmokers at 6 weeks were 96% in the enprostil group and 97% in the cimetidine group, which were significantly greater than those for smokers--88% and 81%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the duration, severity, or frequency of daytime or nighttime pain between the groups. Seventeen of the enprostil patients (32%) reported 21 adverse experiences during the trial, and 20 of the cimetidine patients (39%) reported 23 adverse experiences. No patients withdrew because of adverse experiences. The two drugs were similarly safe and effective in the treatment of duodenal ulcer.

Short-term treatment of prepyloric ulcer. Comparison of sucralfate and cimetidine

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter study was performed to compare the effect of sucralfate (1 g qid) and cimetidine (400 mg bid) in the treatment of prepyloric ulcer. Altogether 142 patients (68 in the sucralfate and 74 in the cimetidine group) with endoscopically confirmed ulcer within 2 cm of the pylorus completed the study. Endoscopic follow up was performed after four weeks and, if the ulcer was not healed, after eight weeks of treatment. After four weeks, 65% of the ulcers in the sucralfate group were healed, compared to 70% in the cimetidine group. There was no significant difference between sucralfate and cimetidine at either time point. The 95% confidence interval for the difference in ulcer healing with sucralfate or cimetidine ranged from +4 to -19% at eight weeks. Said another way, with an observed difference of 7% (83% vs 90%), the 95% confidence limit ranged from 4% in favor of sucralfate to 19% in favor of cimetidine. Symptomatic relief, antacid intake, and side effects did not differ significantly between the two groups. The healing rate of prepyloric ulcer in this study is similar to that reported for duodenal ulcer after four and eight weeks when treated with sucralfate or cimetidine. Sucralfate is safe and as effective as cimetidine in the short-term treatment of prepyloric ulcer.

Swedish multicenter study on prepyloric and gastric ulcer

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter study was performed to compare the effects of sucralfate and cimetidine for the short-term treatment of gastric and prepyloric ulcers. Ulcer healing was evaluated endoscopically at 4-week intervals up to 8 weeks in the PPU study and up to 12 weeks in the GU study. A total of 142 PPU and 134 GU patients completed the study. The overall healing rates after 8 weeks in the PPU study were 83% for the sucralfate group and 90% for the cimetidine group (NS), while the cumulative healing rates after 12 weeks in the GU study were 98% for the sucralfate group and 94% for the cimetidine group (NS). The confidence interval means that the 95% confidence limit ranges from 11% in favour of sucralfate to 2% in favour of cimetidine in the GU study and corresponding figures of 4% 19% in the PPU study. There were significantly more patients in the cimetidine group taking antacid tablets after 3 weeks in the GU study. Symptomatic relief did not differ significantly. Reported side effects and symptoms, pooled together with our duodenal ulcer study, were mostly non-specific and in some part related to the ulcer disease. In conclusion, sucralfate and cimetidine are both excellent healing agents for the short-term treatment of PPU and GU. Both give rapid and good symptomatic relief with no side effects of any importance.

Short term treatment of gastric ulcer: a comparison of sucralfate and cimetidine

A double blind randomised study was undertaken to compare sucralfate and cimetidine in short term treatment of gastric ulcer. The study included 149 patients with endoscopically confirmed gastric ulcerations. Patients with prepyloric ulcers 2 cm or less from the pyloric ring were not accepted for participation in the trial. Ulcer healing was assessed endoscopically at four week intervals. A total of 134 patients completed the study. The cumulative healing rates after 12 weeks were 98% for sucralfate and 94% for cimetidine treated patients. After four and eight weeks, the healing rates were 61% and 94% for sucralfate and 69% and 94% for the cimetidine-treated group respectively. No statistically significant differences in healing rates were seen. The 95% confidence interval was calculated for the difference between the ulcer healing rates of sucralfate and cimetidine. This interval was found to range between +11% and -2% after 12 weeks of treatment - that is, the healing efficacy of sucralfate was calculated to be at most 11% better or 2% worse than that of cimetidine. No significant differences in symptom relief, side effects or antacid intake were found.

Short-term treatment of duodenal ulcer. A comparison of sucralfate and cimetidine

A multicenter randomized double-blind study was performed to compare a cytoprotective agent (sucralfate) and an acid-reducing agent (cimetidine) in the treatment of duodenal ulcer. Patients with acute ulcerations in the pyloric ring and duodenal bulb confirmed by endoscopy were included in the trial. All patients were examined after 4 and, if not cured, after 8 weeks. A total of 371 patients from 15 centers completed the trial. The patient groups were comparable. At 8 weeks 86% of 177 patients receiving sucralfate treatment were cured, compared with 92% of 194 receiving cimetidine (NS). The corresponding figures at 4 weeks were 71% (sucralfate) and 77% (cimetidine) (NS). The 95% confidence interval for the difference in ulcer healing efficacy of sucralfate compared with cimetidine at 8 weeks was -12% to +5%. Antacid intake and symptoms decreased rapidly in both groups. Three patients were withdrawn owing to side effects. It is concluded that sucralfate and cimetidine. representing two different approaches to ulcer therapy, are both very effective and compare well with regard to ulcer healing, symptom relief, and side effects in the short-term treatment of acute duodenal ulcer.

Hypothyroidism with subacute pseudomyotonia--an early form of Hoffmann's syndrome? Report of a case

A 25-year-old man was admitted to the hospital because of painful muscle cramps and action myospams of subacute onset and 6 weeks' duration. No myotonia could be demonstrated objectively and his deep tendon reflexes showed no prolongation of the relaxation phase. Serum creatinine was raised but creatinine clearance was normal. Serum levels of aldose, CPK, ASAT and ALAT were increased but ordinary light microscopy revealed no histological signs of muscle disease in a quadriceps biopsy. ECG showed a prolonged PQ interval and flat T waves in the left precordial leads. Laboratory tests of thyroid function revealed intensive hypothyroidism, and high titers of circulating thyroid antibodies were demonstrated. During 2 1/2 months of thyroid therapy, the muscle symptoms gradually disappeared completely and the patient could return to work. By that time the serum enzymes and the ECG had normalized. Despite the lack of objective signs of myotonia, we consider that the very dominant subjective muscle symptoms, severe enough to prevent the patient from performing his ordinary manual work and completely reversible on thyroid therapy, justify the designation of hypothyroid myopathy. The question is raised whether the case represents an early form of Hoffmann's syndrome.