Omalizumab prevents anaphylaxis and improves symptoms in systemic mastocytosis: Efficacy and safety observations.

BACKGROUND: Patients with systemic mastocytosis (SM) may suffer from mast cell (MC) mediator-related symptoms insufficiently controlled by conventional therapy. Omalizumab is an established treatment in other MC-driven diseases, but experiences in SM are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in SM. METHODS: In our patient cohort, we evaluated all SM patients treated with omalizumab. A physician global assessment of type and severity of symptoms was performed at baseline, at 3 and 6 months and at latest follow-up. Quality of life was assessed by visual analogue scale. S-tryptase and KIT D816V allele burden were monitored. RESULTS: A total of 14 adult SM patients (10 ISM, 2 BMM, 1 SSM, and 1 ASM-AHN) received omalizumab with a median duration of 17 months (range: 1-73 months). One patient was excluded due to concomitant cytoreductive therapy. In the remaining 13 patients, we observed a significant reduction in symptoms, with complete symptom control in five (38.5%), major response in three (23.1%), and a partial response in three (23.1%) patients, whereas two patients (15.4%) withdrew due to subjective side-effects at first dose. The treatment was most effective for recurrent anaphylaxis and skin symptoms, less for gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and neuropsychiatric symptoms. Patient-reported quality of life showed significant improvement. No significant changes in s-tryptase/KIT D816V allele burden were observed. No severe adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Omalizumab appears to be a promising treatment option in SM, effectively preventing anaphylaxis and improving chronic MC mediator-related symptoms, insufficiently controlled by conventional therapy. Controlled studies are needed to substantiate findings.

Small-bowel neoplasms in patients undergoing video capsule endoscopy: a multicenter European study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Small-bowel tumors account for 1% - 3% of all gastrointestinal neoplasms. Recent studies with video capsule endoscopy (VCE) suggest that the frequency of these tumors may be substantially higher than previously reported. The aim of the study was to evaluate the frequency, clinical presentation, diagnostic/therapeutic work-up, and endoscopic appearance of small-bowel tumors in a large population of patients undergoing VCE. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Identification by a questionnaire of patients with VCE findings suggesting small-bowel tumors and histological confirmation of the neoplasm seen in 29 centers of 10 European Countries. RESULTS: Of 5129 patients undergoing VCE, 124 (2.4%) had small-bowel tumors (112 primary, 12 metastatic). Among these patients, indications for VCE were: obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (108 patients), abdominal pain (9), search for primary neoplasm (6), diarrhea with malabsorption (1). The main primary small-bowel tumor type was gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) (32%) followed by adenocarcinoma (20%) and carcinoid (15%); 66% of secondary small-bowel tumors were melanomas. Of the tumors, 80.6% were identified solely on the basis of VCE findings. 55 patients underwent VCE as the third procedure after negative bidirectional endoscopy. The lesions were single in 89.5% of cases, and multiple in 10.5%. Retention of the capsule occurred in 9.8% of patients with small-bowel tumors. After VCE, 54/124 patients underwent 57 other examinations before treatment; in these patients enteroscopy, when performed, showed a high diagnostic yield. Treatment was surgery in 95% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that VCE detects small-bowel tumors in a small proportion of patients undergoing this examination, but the early use of this tool can shorten the diagnostic work-up and influence the subsequent management of these patients.

Effect of profound acid suppression in functional dyspepsia: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional dyspepsia (FD) is defined as persistent or recurrent pain/discomfort centred in the upper abdomen, where no structural explanation for the symptoms is found. The role of drug treatment remains controversial. The aim in this study was to evaluate the effect of omeprazole 20 mg twice daily (b.i.d) and to test methods for symptom assessment. METHODS: 197 patients fulfilling the criteria for FD were randomly allocated to double-blind treatment with omeprazole 20 mg b.i.d (n = 100) or placebo (n = 97) for 14 days. Patients with a known gastrointestinal disorder or with main symptoms indicating gastro-oesophageal reflux disease or irritable bowel syndrome were excluded. Helicobacter pylori testing and 24-h intra-oesophageal 24-h pH-metry were performed before randomization. The patients recorded dyspeptic symptoms on diary cards. RESULTS: A stringent endpoint, 'complete symptom relief on the last day of treatment', was the primary efficacy variable. For the APT cohort, this was achieved in 29.0% and 17.7% on omeprazole and placebo, respectively (95% CI of difference (11.3%): -0.4%-23.0%, P = 0.057). Similar figures in the PP cohort were 31.0% and 15.5%, respectively (95% Cl of difference (15.5%): 3.2%-27.7%, P = 0.018). The benefit of omeprazole in the PP cohort was confirmed by secondary endpoints such as, no dyspeptic symptoms on the last 2 days of treatment and overall treatment response. H. pylori status and the level of oesophageal acid exposure did not significantly influence the response to therapy. CONCLUSION: A subset of patients with FD will respond to therapy with omeprazole.

Quality of life in patients with heartburn but without esophagitis: effects of treatment with omeprazole.

OBJECTIVE: Because improvement in quality of life (QoL) is an important therapeutic goal in patients with heartburn but without esophagitis, the aim of the present study was to compare the impact of omeprazole 20 mg or 10 mg daily with that of placebo on QoL in patients with heartburn as the predominant symptom. METHODS: QoL was measured at baseline and after 4 wk using two validated questionnaires, the Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) index and the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale. RESULTS: The two questionnaires were completed by 163 patients in the omeprazole 20 mg group, 163 in the omeprazole 10 mg group, and 82 in the placebo group. The reflux dimension of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale showed a significant improvement in terms of reflux symptoms on omeprazole 20 mg versus omeprazole 10 mg and placebo, and on omeprazole 10 mg compared with placebo. The total score of the PGWB index improved significantly more on both doses of omeprazole than on placebo. The mean scores rose from 96.8 to 103.9 on omeprazole 20 mg, from 98.4 to 106.0 on omeprazole 10 mg, and from 98.0 to 100.6 on placebo. All dimensions of the PGWB index improved on treatment with omeprazole, but the improvements were most pronounced in the dimensions depicting anxiety, depressed mood, and self-control. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that treatment with omeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 10 mg restores QoL to a level comparable with that observed in a healthy population.

On demand therapy with omeprazole for the long-term management of patients with heartburn without oesophagitis--a placebo-controlled randomized trial.

AIM: To observe the natural course of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in patients without oesophagitis following effective symptom relief, and to determine the place of acid pump inhibitor therapy in the long-term management of these patients. METHODS: We investigated the efficacy of on-demand therapy with omeprazole 20 mg or 10 mg, or placebo in a double-blind, randomized multicentre trial. It involved 424 patients with troublesome heartburn without endoscopic evidence of oesophagitis in whom heartburn had been resolved with short-term treatment. Patients were told to take study medication on demand once daily on recurrence of symptoms until symptoms resolved over a 6-month period. They also had access to antacids. The primary efficacy variable was time to discontinuation of treatment, due to unwillingness to continue. RESULTS: According to life-table analysis, after 6 months the remission rates were 83% (95% CI: 77-89%) with omeprazole 20 mg, 69% (61-77%) with omeprazole 10 mg, and 56% (46-64%) with placebo (P < 0.01 for all intergroup differences). The mean (s.d.) number of study medications used per day in these groups was 0.43 (0.27), 0.41 (0.27) and 0.47 (0.27), respectively. The use of antacids was highest in the placebo group and lowest in the omeprazole 20 mg group. Treatment failure was associated with more than a doubling of antacid use, and a deterioration in patient quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 50% of patients with heartburn who do not have oesophagitis need acid inhibitory therapy in addition to antacid medication to maintain a normal quality of life. On-demand therapy with omeprazole 20 mg, is an effective treatment strategy in these patients.

Heartburn without oesophagitis: efficacy of omeprazole therapy and features determining therapeutic response.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited on the value of effective antisecretory therapy in the relief of heartburn in patients without oesophagitis. METHODS: Patients with heartburn, without endoscopic signs of oesophagitis, were randomized to double-blind treatment with omeprazole, 20 or 10 mg once daily, or placebo, for 4 weeks (n = 509). Pre-treatment oesophageal acid exposure was assessed using 24-h intra-oesophageal pH monitoring. Heartburn was assessed at 2 and 4 weeks. RESULTS: At 4 weeks the proportion of patients with complete absence of heartburn was 46% (95% confidence interval, 39-53%) with 20 mg omeprazole, 31% (25-38%) with 10 mg omeprazole, and 13% (7-20%) with placebo. Satisfaction with therapy was reported by 66%, 57%, and 31% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Omeprazole, 20 and 10 mg once daily, provides rapid relief of heartburn in patients without endoscopic oesophagitis.

The efficacy of a pectin-based raft-forming anti-reflux agent in endoscopy-negative reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heartburn as their main complaint but normal oesophageal mucosa at endoscopy are classified as having endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). They have mainly postprandial reflux and low total acid exposure and could possibly be managed with a non-systemic drug. In such patients we examined the effect of a pectin-based raft-forming anti-reflux agent (Aflurax (Idoflux)) on the severity of heartburn. METHODS: Patients with heartburn but with normal/erythematous oesophageal mucosa (n = 65) were randomized to double-blind treatment with two 1200-mg tablets of Aflurax or two placebo tablets four times daily for 4 weeks. The main outcome measure was heartburn severity on day 15 and day 29. RESULTS: The number of patients scoring heartburn severity on day 15 as none, mild, moderate, and severe were 6, 14, 8, and 3, respectively, with Aflurax versus 2, 6, 13, and 11 with placebo (P < 0.05). No further treatment effect was found on day 29. CONCLUSION: Aflurax reduces heartburn in patients with endoscopy-negative GORD.

Efficacy of a pectin-based anti-reflux agent on acid reflux and recurrence of symptoms and oesophagitis in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

OBJECTIVE: Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease may be treated with a drug forming a floating neutral raft in the stomach. The pectin-based raft-forming anti-reflux agent Aflurax (Idoflux) was examined, first regarding reduction of oesophageal acid exposure, and next as to its efficacy as maintenance treatment in patients with healed oesophagitis. DESIGN: Double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. SETTING: Open access endoscopy unit. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen patients with erosive oesophagitis had measurement of acid exposure. Eighty-eight patients with healed erosive/ulcerative oesophagitis and relief of heartburn after pre-treatment with omeprazole received maintenance treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Crossover 12-h oesophageal pH monitoring during Aflurax/placebo treatment. Maintenance treatment for up to 6 months with two tablets of Aflurax 1200 mg or placebo four times daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage time pH less than 4 in 6 plus 6 h (upright + supine). Time to recurrence of moderate or severe heartburn (life table analysis). RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) acid exposure times in the upright position were: 3.1% (1.6-13.0%) on Aflurax versus 6.7% (2.5-14.9%) on placebo (P = 0.10). In the supine position no difference was found (Aflurax 13.7%, placebo 13.2%). The time to recurrence of heartburn with Aflurax treatment was prolonged significantly; after 6 months the life table estimates were 48% of patients in remission on Aflurax versus 8% on placebo (P = 0.01). Following treatment, erosive oesophagitis was found in 17/34 on Aflurax versus 28/38 on placebo (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Aflurax significantly delays recurrence of moderate or severe heartburn and erosive oesophagitis, when used as maintenance treatment. The acid exposure was not significantly reduced with pH monitoring.

Effect of omeprazole on the outcome of endoscopically treated bleeding peptic ulcers. Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Haemostasis is highly pH-dependent and severely impaired at low pH. However, there is no clear evidence that acid-suppressing drugs have beneficial effects in peptic ulcer haemorrhage. Endoscopic haemostatic treatment provides important reduction in morbidity and may be more efficient when a neutral intragastric pH is maintained. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study of intravenous infusion of omeprazole (80 mg as bolus, followed by 8 mg/h) or placebo for 72 h. All patients received 20 mg omeprazole orally from day 3 until follow-up on day 21. Only patients with ulcer haemorrhage, endoscoped within 12 h after admission, and with a history or signs of circulatory failure and spurting bleeding, oozing bleeding, visible vessel, or clot, were included. Endoscopic intervention was aimed at when spurting bleeding, oozing bleeding, or a visible vessel was observed. The primary efficacy measure was the worst ranking on an overall outcome scale (5 = death, 4 = surgery, 3 = additional endoscopic treatment, 2 = more than 3 units of blood, and 1 = no more than 3 units of blood transfused). Base-line prognostic factors of treatment success by day 3 and of other binary outcomes were considered in a logistic regression model. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-four patients were randomly assigned to omeprazole (134 patients) or placebo (140 patients). The number of patients included in the 'intention-to-treat' analysis was 130 in the omeprazole group and 135 in the placebo group. The primary variable, the overall outcome at 72 h, showed a difference (P = 0.004) between the two treatments in favour of omeprazole. Treatment success by 72 h defined as no death, no operation, or no additional endoscopic treatment was 91.0% in the omeprazole group and 79.7% in the placebo group (therapeutic gain, 11.3 percentage units; 95% confidence interval, 2.3 to 20.4 percentage units). Significant differences in favour of omeprazole were also found for secondary variables such as number of blood transfusions, duration and degree of bleeding, and the need for surgery and additional endoscopic treatments on day 3 and day 21. However, the numbers of deaths by day 3, 21, or 35 were very similar. CONCLUSIONS: We found a beneficial effect of intravenous omeprazole in severe ulcer haemorrhage, with a reduction in the number of operations, in endoscopic treatments, and in the duration and severity of bleeding.

Predicting endoscopic diagnosis in the dyspeptic patient: the value of clinical judgement.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of chance-corrected clinical diagnosis in two groups of dyspeptic patients, using endoscopy as the diagnostic standard. DESIGN: Structured interview before endoscopy and clinical predictions of endoscopic diagnosis as either malignancy, peptic ulcer, oesophagitis or non-ulcer dyspepsia. The quality of the predictions was corrected for chance using iota-correction. Patients gave a provisional prediction of their own endoscopic diagnosis. SETTING: Two endoscopy units in Odense and Svendborg, Denmark. PATIENTS: Two groups of dyspeptic outpatients: (1) 1026 patients referred for open-access endoscopy and (2) 207 empirically managed patients randomly assigned to prompt endoscopy as part of a clinical trial. RESULTS: The overall diagnostic validity for all diagnoses was equal in the two groups of patients (57 and 59%) and was mainly accounted for by positive predictive values for non-ulcer dyspepsia of 75%. Elimination of random accuracy for non-ulcer dyspepsia showed a validity of only 23 and 21%. Patients with a major pathologic lesion (cancer, ulcer, complicated oesophagitis) were misclassified clinically as non-ulcer dyspepsia in 36 and 38% of cases. The sensitivity of a clinical prediction of ulcer was only 52 and 36%, despite positive predictive values of 34%, and most valid when corrected for chance in the group of patients referred for open-access endoscopy. The patients' provisional diagnoses had no predictive value. CONCLUSION: Clinical diagnosis in dyspepsia was unreliable as it misclassified one-third of patients with a major pathological lesion. Fifty percent of patients with ulcer were misclassified and that clinical diagnosis could only be confirmed in one-third of the cases. The chance-corrected validity of non-ulcer dyspepsia was only slightly better than chance. There was no predictive value of the patients' predictions of their own diagnosis.

Omeprazole in the long-term treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. A double-blind randomized dose-finding study.

BACKGROUND: Omeprazole is effective in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis, and it is important to determine the lower dose limit with still appropriate clinical efficacy. METHODS: Patients with endoscopic oesophagitis grade 1-4 (N = 220) were randomized to double-blind treatment with 20 mg or 40 mg omeprazole daily for 4-8 weeks. Those healed after this initial treatment phase were re-randomized to double-blind treatment with 20 mg omeprazole daily (n = 67), 10 mg omeprazole daily (n = 68), or placebo (n = 33) for 6 months. Remission was defined as the absence of any endoscopic sign of oesophagitis. RESULTS: Healing rates were increased with 40 mg omeprazole, the therapeutic gain compared with the 20-mg dose being 15% after 4 and 8 weeks. The proportion of patients in remission after 6 months was 59% with 20 mg omeprazole, 35% with 10 mg omeprazole, and 0% with placebo. CONCLUSION: Maintenance treatment with 10 mg omeprazole can prevent recurrence of oesophagitis in about one-third of patients with all grades of oesophagitis, and 20 mg omeprazole in about twice as many.

[Non-pharmacological therapeutic possibilities in gastroesophageal reflux dyspepsia]. / Ikkefarmakologiske behandlingsmuligheder ved gastroøsofageal refluksdyspepsi.

New knowledge concerning the pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux gives an opportunity for updating measures of conservative antireflux treatment. There are only few controlled trials, and it is uncertain whether the requirement for pharmacological treatment may hereby be diminished. General advice such as eating small meals, reducing the fat intake, avoiding food intake for three hours before bedtime are recommended to all, while advice on more specific foods should be individualized according to actual food related symptoms. Patients with annoying symptoms of reflux are advised not to consume alcohol every day, while the consumption of tobacco seems to be of minor importance. Advising weight loss isn't well founded, but ought to be given to obese patients. Elevation of the head of the bed is suggested to patients with nocturnal symptoms of reflux, which usually coincide with the presence of a hiatal hernia. If possible, revision of other current pharmacotherapy should be done. Theophylline, calcium channel blockers, benzodiazepines and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, seem in particular to be able to provoke or aggravate reflux. Patient support groups with medical supervision might be useful and reduce the number of consultations. The non-pharmacological measures should still be the basis of treatment and it might be sufficient in mild cases. It is recommended that the advise be individualized to each patient in such a way that no unfounded changes of life style are recommended that impair the quality of life. Gastroesophageal reflux, nonpharmacological treatment, food advices, alcohol, tobacco, overweight, hiatal hernia, drugs, patient education.

Efficacy of omeprazole in lower grades of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

Grade I oesophagitis is usually considered to be a less severe form of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). However, with regard to symptom severity, patients without macroscopic mucosal lesions have been shown not to differ from those with more severe oesophagitis. A number of controlled trials on the efficacy of omeprazole in GORD have included patients with lower grades of the disease. The results show that the differences in efficacy between omeprazole and H2-receptor antagonists, which have been established for the treatment of erosive and ulcerative oesophagitis, also extend to patients with grade I oesophagitis (erythema and friability). In these studies, omeprazole provided more rapid symptom resolution and histological improvement than ranitidine. In one double-blind comparative trial, complete endoscopic normalization of the oesophageal mucosa was observed in 90% of patients with grade I oesophagitis within 4 weeks of treatment with omeprazole, 40 mg once daily, compared with 55% of those treated with ranitidine, 150 mg twice daily; at 8 weeks the mucosa in all patients in the omeprazole group had completely healed at endoscopy, while oesophagitis was still present in 21% of the patients receiving ranitidine. A separate 6-month, placebo-controlled maintenance study was performed in patients who had completed a short-term study and who had total relief from the major symptoms of GORD and complete healing of endoscopic oesophagitis. All patients given placebo had an endoscopic recurrence (i.e. endoscopic grade I or more) and this was associated with the return of symptoms in 75% of cases.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

[Liver disease in erythropoietic protoporphyria]. / Leversygdom ved erytropoietisk protoporfyri.

In erythropoietic protoporphyria, the genetically determined decreased activity of the enzyme ferrochelatase causes accumulation of the photoreactive molecule protoporphyrin in various tissues. Dermatological symptoms are dominant, but in some patients the excess protoporphyrin affects hepato-biliary structures, and a spectrum of changes, which ranges from ultrastructural bile canalicular damage to cirrhosis, can be observed. Most clinical reports have described severe cases with a rapid deterioration and a fatal outcome. We present a case with spontaneous recovery from hepatic decompensation on two occasions with three years interval. The first incidence might have been provoked by hormonal substitution therapy.

Interobserver variation in the endoscopic diagnosis of reflux esophagitis.

The interobserver variation among three experienced endoscopists in the endoscopic diagnosis and grading of reflux esophagitis was investigated in 150 dyspeptic patients. The interobserver variation was analyzed with kappa statistics to correct for the extent of agreement expected by chance alone. The observers diagnosed esophagitis in 22.7%, 32.7%, and 35.3% of the patients, respectively (p < 0.0002). Kappa values for grade-1 esophagitis varied from 0.34 to 0.47, a level generally considered to signify poor agreement, and despite partial agreement on the diagnosis in the individual patient there was almost complete disagreement on the features used to characterize grade 1. Kappa values for diagnosing erosive esophagitis (grades 2-4) were 0.68-0.79. Considering all three observers and all grades of esophagitis (grades 0-4) the overall chance-corrected agreement was 0.55. In patients with low-grade esophagitis without reflux-like dyspepsia and when the observers expressed uncertainty in the diagnosis, the agreement rates were particularly poor. Due to a large chance-corrected interobserver variation, the endoscopic diagnosis grade 1 esophagitis is not reliable and thus may be problematic as a selection criterion for clinical trials. Interobserver variation on the presence of erosive/ulcerative esophagitis is acceptable and comparable to the level for peptic ulcer.

Omeprazole 20 mg three days a week and 10 mg daily in prevention of duodenal ulcer relapse. Double-blind comparative trial.

In a double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial of 195 patients with duodenal ulcers who after a short-term study had relief of pain and healed ulcers proved endoscopically, 65 were randomized to receive 20 mg omeprazole 3 days a week (once in the morning from Friday to Sunday), 64 to receive 10 mg omeprazole once daily in the morning, and 66 to receive placebo for up to 6 months. The patients underwent repeat endoscopy with biopsy of the gastric fundic mucosa (qualitative assessment of argyrophilic cell population), assessment of symptoms, and laboratory screening with measurement of basal serum gastrin concentrations at 3 and 6 months or more often if indicated by recurrence of symptoms. At 3 months, endoscopically proved ulcer relapse occurred in 16% receiving 20 mg omeprazole 3 days a week; 21% receiving 10 mg omeprazole daily; and 50% receiving placebo. At 6 months, corresponding rates were 23%, 27%, and 67% with 95% confidence intervals of difference between the placebo group and omeprazole groups of 28%-60% and 24%-56% (P less than 0.00001), respectively, and between omeprazole groups of -19%-11% (NS). No major clinical or laboratory side effects were noted. Thus both omeprazole regimens are effective and safe in preventing duodenal ulcer relapse.

Rioprostil and ranitidine in the treatment of prepyloric gastric ulcer. A double-blind comparative trial.

Rioprostil, a synthetic 16-methylprostaglandin E1, combines antisecretory with cytoprotective properties, the latter being active even at doses below those required for acid inhibition. To test whether rioprostil given in antisecretory doses would heal prepyloric ulcers rapidly, we assigned patients with endoscopically proved ulcers randomly to double-blind treatment with 100 micrograms rioprostil twice daily or 150 mg ranitidine twice daily for up to 8 weeks. Recruitment was terminated at the time point of planned interim analysis because the total healing rate was markedly lower than expected. Thirty patients were allocated to each treatment group. The cumulative healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks were 40% and 60%, respectively, in the rioprostil group versus 70% and 90%, respectively, in the ranitidine group (p less than 0.01). Pain relief occurred simultaneously in the two groups. No major adverse effects were noted. These findings question the clinical relevance of using 'cytoprotection' by prostaglandin analogues as treatment for prepyloric ulcer disease in the short term.

Effect of 10 mg and 20 mg omeprazole daily on duodenal ulcer: double-blind comparative trial.

One-hundred and seventy-one patients with endoscopically proven duodenal ulcers were allocated at random to double-blind treatment with 10 or 20 mg of omeprazole in the morning for up to 4 weeks. Patients completed the study if ulcer healing and pain relief had occurred at 2 weeks. A total of 155 patients completed the trial. Patients treated with 20 mg of omeprazole daily responded significantly more rapidly than those treated with 10 mg of omeprazole daily (P less than 0.001; Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test covering both time points), cumulative healing rates at 2 and 4 weeks were 74% (58/78) and 91% (71/78), respectively. The corresponding rates in the group treated with 10 mg daily were 48% (39/81) and 75% (58/77). Pain relief was again more pronounced during treatment with the larger dose (P less than 0.05; stratified Wilcoxon test). No major clinical or biochemical side effects were noted. An omeprazole dose of 20 mg daily is preferable to a lower dose for the treatment of duodenal ulcer disease in the short term.

[Prostaglandin analogues in the treatment of peptic ulcer disease]. / Prostaglandinanaloger i behandling af ulcussygdommen.

The cytoprotective properties of native prostaglandins have been exploited for ulcer therapy through the development of analogous molecules, which are characterized by longer duration of action, more potent acid inhibitory effect and higher pharmacologic specificity. The therapeutic efficacy of prostaglandin analogues has been evaluated in a variety of controlled clinical trials, which are summarized briefly. The experience with arbaprostil, enprostil, misoprostol, rioprostil and trimoprostil shows that their effect on ulcer healing is superior to that of a placebo in acid inhibitory doses, which are also cytoprotective. Nevertheless, prostaglandin analogues are inferior to H2-receptor antagonists as regards their effects on ulcer healing, pain relief, and relapse prevention and less effective than expected from their acid inhibitory action. Placebo controlled trials of arbaprostil in acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage have failed to demonstrate any reduction in numbers of patients whose bleeding stopped, numbers with rebleeding or transfusion requirement. Diarrhoea occurs in 4%-34% of all patients and prostaglandin analogues are contraindicated in pregnant women. Although these drugs will probably not be marketed in Denmark for ulcer therapy, they may prove useful as replacement therapy in patients requiring nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.

Effect of omeprazole and cimetidine on prepyloric gastric ulcer: double blind comparative trial.

We conducted a six week double blind randomised study of 176 patients with prepyloric gastric ulcer to determine whether the proton pump inhibitor, omeprazole 30 mg daily would accelerate healing and pain relief, as compared with cimetidine 1 g daily. At two, four, and six weeks after entry ulcers healed in a larger percentage of patients treated with omeprazole (54, 81, and 86%) than of those treated with cimetidine (39, 73, and 78%) ('intention to treat' cohort; p less than 0.05 at two weeks). A higher proportion of patients on omeprazole became free of pain during the first week of treatment (p less than 0.05). No major clinical or biochemical side effects were noted. Omeprazole is an efficient treatment for patients with prepyloric gastric ulcers.