Development and evaluation of anti-reflux functional-oral suspension raft composed of sodium alginate-mung bean protein complex

This study aimed to develop a sodium alginate (Na alginate) and mung bean protein (MBP) raft complex to improve gastric reflux symptoms. Na alginate and MBP complexes with different ratios (1:1, 2:1, and 3:1, respectively) were used for raft formulations through a wet Maillard reaction. Structural properties of raft strength, reflux resistance, intrinsic fluorescence emission spectroscopy, and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) were investigated for rafts. The suspension 1:1 Na alginate/MBP with 0 h Maillard reaction time exhibited the lowest sedimentation volume among the suspensions. In contrast, 3:1 Na alginate/MBP with 6 h Maillard reaction time showed the highest sedimentation volume. Based on the results, the 3:1 Na alginate/MBP rafts had the best results, and the results were within acceptable limits. Functional properties, including antioxidant properties, the Helicobacter pylori inhibition assay, the pancreatic lipase inhibition assay, and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition, were investigated for rafts. The Na alginate/MBP raft has similar characteristics to Gaviscon syrup and can be used for obesity, Helicobacter pylori infection, high blood pressure, and gastric reflux.

The Controversy of Pepsinogen A/Pepsin A in Detecting Extra-Gastroesophageal Reflux

BACKGROUND

Pepsinogen A (PGA)/pepsin A is often used as a diagnostic marker of extra-gastroesophageal reflux. We aimed to explore whether its positivity in upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) was specific enough to diagnose reflux.

METHODS

PGA/pepsin A protein levels were examined in 10 types of tissues and 10 types of body fluid by immunological staining, western blot or Elisa, using three different commercially available brands simultaneously. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry parallel reaction monitoring (LC-MS/MS PRM) served as a gold reference for the detection of PGA/pepsin A proteins. PGA gene expression was analyzed by reverse transcriptase sequencing methods for tissue samples. Specifically, 24 hour pH monitoring technique was conducted for patients who donated saliva samples.

RESULTS

Eight out of ten types of human tissue samples (stomach, esophagus, lung, kidney, colon, parotid gland, nasal turbinate and nasal polyps) were confirmed positive for PGA/pepsin A gene and protein by genetic and PRM technique, respectively. Two out of ten types of body fluid samples (gastric fluid, urine) were confirmed positive for PGA/pepsin A protein by PRM technique. The consistence rates of PGA/pepsin A positivity among three commercial antibody brands and Elisa kit were poor, and Elisa results of salivary did not match with 24-hour pH monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple tissues and body fluid could be detected baseline expression levels of PGA/pepsin A gene and protein. However, those commercially available PGA/pepsin A antibodies achieved poor sensitivity and specificity, therefore, relying on the detection of PGA/pepsin A in UADT by single antibodies to diagnose extra-gastroesophageal reflux without a specific positive cut-off value is unreliable.

Diagnostic Efficacy of 24-hr Esophageal pH Monitoring in Patients with Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

BACKGROUND:

Gastric reflux is one of the most important causes of the referral of patients to the internal clinic, which in some cases causes problems for patients due to resistance to common treatments. Therefore, timely diagnosis and treatment of this group of patients are very important.

AIM:

The purpose of the present study was to determine the off-proton pump inhibitor (off-PPI) 24 h pH-impedance analyses in patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) attending to Taleghani Hospital since 2009 to 2017.

METHODS:

In this observational descriptive-comparative off-PPI study, 572 patients with refractory GERD who were referred to Taleghani Hospital in Tehran from 2009 to 2017 were selected, and the results of 24 h pH Impedance analysis were then assessed.

RESULTS:

The results of 24h pH-impedance indicated that 7% of cases belonged to Pure Acid Reflux followed by weakly Acid (1%), non-acid (0.3%), mixed & gas (5.2%), functional (58.4%) and oesophagal hypersensitivity (28%). Furthermore, weakly acid plus acid was also found to be 8% and Weakly Acid + Acid + Non-Acid were determined as 8.3%.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our findings suggested that nearly more than half of the patients with refractory GERD would have a functional disorder in the 24h pH-impedance analysis.

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

Background

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

Method

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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