Challenges of correlating pH change with relief of clinical symptoms in gastro esophageal reflux disease: a phase III, randomized study of Zegerid versus Losec.

BACKGROUND: Zegerid (on demand immediate-release omeprazole and sodium bicarbonate combination therapy) has demonstrated earlier absorption and more rapid pH change compared with Losec (standard enteric coated omeprazole), suggesting more rapid clinical relief of heartburn. This Phase III, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized study assessed the clinical superiority of Zegerid versus Losec for rapid relief of heartburn associated with gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: Patients with a history of frequent (2 3 days/week) uncomplicated GERD, were randomized to receive Zegerid (20 mg) or Losec (20 mg) with corresponding placebo. Study medication was self-administered on the first episode of heartburn, and could be taken for up to 3 days within a 14 day study period. Heartburn severity was self assessed up to 180 minutes post dose (9 point Likert scale). Primary endpoint was median time to sustained response (≥3 point reduction in heartburn severity for ≥45 minutes). RESULTS: Of patients randomized to Zegerid (N=122) or Losec (N=117), 228/239 had recorded ≥1 evaluable heartburn episodes and were included in the modified intent-to-treat population. No significant between-group differences were observed for median time to sustained response (60.0 vs. 52.2 minutes, Zegerid [N=117] and Losec [N=111], respectively), sustained partial response (both, 37.5 minutes) and sustained total relief (both, 105 minutes). Significantly more patients treated with Zegerid reached sustained total relief within 0-30 minutes post dose in all analysis sets (p<0.05). Both treatments were well tolerated and did not raise any safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Superiority of Zegerid over Losec for rapid heartburn relief was not demonstrated; both treatments were equally effective however the rapid onset of action of Losec was unexpected. Factors, including aspects of study design may have contributed to this. This study supports previously reported difficulty in correlating intra-gastric pH change with clinical effect in GERD therapy, highlighting the significance of several technical considerations for studies of this type. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01493089.

Validation of the Harefield Cleansing Scale: a tool for the evaluation of bowel cleansing quality in both research and clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Variations in bowel cleansing quality before colonoscopy can cause confounding of results within clinical trials and inappropriate treatment decisions in clinical practice. A new tool-the Harefield Cleaning Scale-has been developed, which addresses the limitations of existing scales. OBJECTIVE: Validation exercise for the new cleansing scale. DESIGN: Retrospective validation study. SETTING: Various colonoscopy units in France. PATIENTS: Patients who had a total of 337 colonoscopies recorded. INTERVENTION: Video-recorded colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Comparisons of 2 scoring systems to assess direct correlation, interrater reliability, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability, based on assessment of video recordings from 337 colonoscopies. RESULTS: Correlation analysis for expert scores by using the 2 scales yielded a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.833. Similarly, the comparison of the segmental sum score revealed a Spearman correlation coefficient of -0.778. Cross-tabulation for successful colon cleansing was 92.88% versus unsuccessful colon cleansing in 7.12%. Reliability assessment indicated an acceptable internal consistency with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.81. Test-retest reliability demonstrated an overall agreement of 0.639 (kappa statistic). Receiver operating characteristic analysis versus Aronchick Scale scores yielded an area under the curve of 0.945, with sensitivity of 99% and specificity of 83% at the optimum score cut-off point. LIMITATIONS: Test-retest reliability was assessed by using a different patient population to the other measures. There were insufficient patient numbers to assess performance by using adenoma detection rate. CONCLUSION: This validation analysis has demonstrated that the Harefield Cleansing Scale is a robust, reliable, and consistent tool that has the potential to improve the effective standardization of bowel preparation assessment in both clinical and research practice.

Hepatic transport mechanisms of cholyl-L-lysyl-fluorescein.

Cholyl-L-lysyl-fluorescein (CLF) is a fluorescent bile salt derivative that is being developed as an agent for determining in vivo liver function. However, the mechanisms of uptake and excretion by hepatocytes have not been rigorously studied. We have directly assessed the transport capacity of various hepatobiliary transporters for CLF. Uptake experiments were performed in Chinese hamster ovary cells transfected with human NTCP, OATP1B1, OATP1B3, and OATP2B1. Conversely, excretory systems were tested with plasma membrane vesicles from Sf21 insect cells expressing human ABCB11, ABCC2, ABCC3, and ABCG2. In addition, plasma clearance and biliary excretion of CLF were examined in wild-type, Abcc2(-/-), and Abcc3(-/-) mice. Human Na(+)-dependent taurocholic-cotransporting polypeptide (NTCP) and ATP-binding cassette B11 (ABCB11) were incapable of transporting CLF. In contrast, high-affinity transport of CLF was observed for organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1B3 (OATP1B3), ABCC2, and ABCC3 with K(m) values of 4.6 +/- 2.7, 3.3 +/- 2.0, and 3.7 +/- 1.0 microM, respectively. In Abcc2(-/-) mice biliary excretion of CLF was strongly reduced compared with wild-type mice. This resulted in a much higher hepatic retention of CLF in Abcc2(-/-) versus wild-type mice: 64 versus 1% of the administered dose (2 h after administration). In mice intestinal uptake of CLF was negligible compared with that of taurocholate. Our conclusion is that human NTCP and ABCB11 are incapable of transporting CLF, whereas OATP1B3 and ABCC2/Abcc2 most likely mediate hepatic uptake and biliary excretion of CLF, respectively. CLF can be transported back into the blood by ABCC3. Enterohepatic circulation of CLF is minimal. This renders CLF suitable as an agent for assessing in vivo liver function.

Randomized trial of low-volume PEG solution versus standard PEG + electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based gut lavage solutions are safe and effective, but require consumption of large volumes of fluid. We compared a new 2 L solution of PEG plus ascorbic acid (PEG + Asc) with standard 4 L PEG with electrolytes (PEG + E) for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy to determine efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability. METHODS: Consenting adult inpatients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy were randomized to receive either 2 L PEG + Asc or 4 L PEG + E. Preparations were taken as split doses the evening before colonoscopy and the following morning. The PEG + Asc group took 1 L at each administration (i.e., total dose of 2 L). The PEG + E group took 2 L at each administration (i.e., total dose of 4 L). Bowel cleansing success was assessed via videotapes by independent, blinded raters. Statistical noninferiority was predefined as a difference of <15% in the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for treatment difference. Patient views on the preparations were elicited. Adverse events were noted. RESULTS: Successful gut cleansing was achieved in 136 of 153 (88.9%) cases of the PEG + Asc group and 147 of 155 (94.8%) cases of the 4 L PEG + E group (mean difference -5.9 [-12.0-infinity]). The difference fell within the predefined limit for noninferiority. Clinical and laboratory parameters showed no difference in safety profile. Patient ratings of acceptability and taste were better for the PEG + Asc group than for the PEG + E group (P < 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ascorbic acid and PEG-based bowel preparation reduces the volume patients have to drink without compromising efficacy or safety. The low-volume PEG + Asc preparation was more acceptable to patients, and should, therefore, improve effectiveness in routine practice.

[Fecal incontinence in elderly diabeteic patients]. / Stuhlinkontinenz des älteren Diabetikers.

Faecal incontinence is a challenging clinical condition in the elderly diabetic patient and has a significant impact on the overall quality of life, but is often neglected by the care giving professionals. Up to 22% of diabetic patients have faecal incontinence depending on the definition applied. Multiple factors are almost always involved in the pathophysiology of faecal incontinence, including physiological age-related changes, diabetic neuropathy, multimorbidity and polymedication. As for constipation, the use of a stepwise approach for the diagnosis of faecal incontinence is highly recommended. The verification of the diagnosis and underlying causes of faecal incontinence are important for improving the quality of life, as well as the employment of the appropriate therapy particularly in the case of the elderly diabetic patient. Treatment options include, in addition to an optimised blood sugar control, the use of conservative measures, bio-feedback therapy and surgical interventions.