Changes of gastric mucosal architecture during long-term omeprazole therapy: results of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of long-term acid suppression on the gastric mucosa remains controversial. AIM: To report further observations on an established cohort of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, after 7 years of follow-up. METHODS: Of the original cohort randomized to either antireflux surgery or omeprazole, 117 and 98 patients remained in the medical and surgical arms, respectively. Gastric biopsies were taken at baseline and throughout the study. RESULTS: Fifty-three antireflux surgery and 39 omeprazole-treated patients had Helicobacter pylori infection at randomization. Eighty-three omeprazole-treated and 60 antireflux surgery patients remained H. pylori negative over the 7 years, and no change was observed in mucosal morphology except for a change in endocrine cell population (linear and diffuse hyperplasia, P = 0.03). During the 7-year study many patients, who were initially H. pylori infected, had the infection eradicated leaving only 13 omeprazole and 12 antireflux surgery patients still infected. In these patients, omeprazole induced a deterioration of the mucosal inflammation scores (P = 0.01) with a numerical increase of glandular atrophy. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term omeprazole therapy does not alter the exocrine oxyntic mucosal morphology in H. pylori-negative patients, but mucosal endocrine cells appear to be under proliferative stimulation; in H. pylori-positive patients there are changes in mucosal inflammation and atrophy.

The cost of long term therapy for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a randomised trial comparing omeprazole and open antireflux surgery.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To comprehensively assess the relative merits of medical and surgical therapy for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), health economic aspects have to be incorporated. We have studied the direct and indirect costs of medical and surgical therapy within the framework of a prospective randomised multicentre trial. METHODS: After initial treatment of reflux oesophagitis with omeprazole to control symptoms and to heal oesophagitis, 154 patients were randomised to continue treatment with omeprazole (20 or 40 mg daily) and 144 patients to have an open antireflux operation (ARS). In case of GORD relapse, patients allocated to omeprazole were offered ARS and those initially operated on had either a reoperation or were treated with omeprazole. The costs were assessed over five years from randomisation. RESULTS: Differences in cumulative direct medical costs per patient between the two therapeutic strategies diminished with time. However, five year direct medical costs per patient when given omeprazole were still significantly lower than for those having ARS in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (differences were DKK 8703 (US$1475), NOK 32 992 (US$ 5155), and SEK 13 036 (US$ 1946), respectively). However, in Finland the reverse was true (the difference in favour of ARS amounted to FMK 7354 (US$ 1599)). When indirect costs (loss of production due to GORD related sick leave) were also included, the cost of surgical treatment increased substantially and exceeded the cost of medical treatment in all countries. CONCLUSIONS: The total costs of medical therapy for chronic GORD were lower than those of open ARS when prospectively assessed over a five year period, although significant differences in cost estimates were revealed between countries.

Continued (5-year) followup of a randomized clinical study comparing antireflux surgery and omeprazole in gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of antireflux surgery (ARS) and proton pump inhibitor therapy in the control of gastroesophageal reflux disease is well established. A direct comparison between these therapies is warranted to assess the benefits of respective therapies. STUDY DESIGN: There were 310 patients with erosive esophagitis enrolled in the trial. There were 155 patients randomized to continuous omeprazole therapy and 155 to open antireflux surgery, of whom 144 later had an operation. Because of various withdrawals during the study course, 122 patients originally having an antireflux operation completed the 5-year followup; the corresponding figure in the omeprazole group was 133. Symptoms, endoscopy, and quality-of-life questionnaires were used to document clinical outcomes. Treatment failure was defined to occur if at least one of the following criteria were fulfilled: Moderate or severe heartburn or acid regurgitation during the last 7 days before the respective visit; Esophagitis of at least grade 2; Moderate or severe dysphagia or odynophagia symptoms reported in combination with mild heartburn or regurgitation; If randomized to surgery and subsequently required omeprazole for more than 8 weeks to control symptoms, or having a reoperation; If randomized to omeprazole and considered by the responsible physician to require antireflux surgery to control symptoms; If randomized to omeprazole and the patient, for any reason, preferred antireflux surgery during the course of the study. Treatment failure was the primary outcomes variable. RESULTS: When the time to treatment failure was analyzed by use of the intention to treat approach, applying the life table analysis technique, a highly significant difference between the two strategies was revealed (p < 0.001), with more treatment failures in patients who originally were randomized to omeprazole treatment. The protocol also allowed dose adjustment in patients allocated to omeprazole therapy to either 40 or 60 mg daily in case of symptom recurrence. The curves subsequently describing the failure rates still remained separated in favor of surgery, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.088). Quality of life assessment revealed values within normal ranges in both therapy arms during the 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized multicenter trial with a 5-year followup, we found antireflux surgery to be more effective than omeprazole in controlling gastroesophageal reflux disease as measured by the treatment failure rates. But if the dose of omeprazole was adjusted in case of relapse, the two therapeutic strategies reached levels of efficacy that were not statistically different.

Long-term management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease with omeprazole or open antireflux surgery: results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. The Nordic GORD Study Group.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The efficacy of antireflux surgery (ARS) and omeprazole treatment in the control of gastrooesophageal reflux disease (GORD) are well established. We have compared these two therapeutic options in a randomized, clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred and ten patients with erosive oesophagitis were enrolled into the trial. After a run-in period when all patients had < or = 40 mg of omeprazole daily to heal the oesophagitis and relieve symptoms, 155 patients were randomized to continuous omeprazole therapy and 155 to open antireflux surgery, of whom 144 later had an operation. One hundred and thirty-nine and 129 in the omeprazole and antireflux surgery groups, respectively, completed the 3-year follow-up. Symptoms, 24-h pH monitoring and endoscopy were used to document the outcome. Quality of life was evaluated by the psychological general well-being (PGWB) index and the gastrointestinal symptom rating scale (GSRS). RESULTS: Analysis of time to treatment failure (defined as moderate to severe GORD symptoms for > or = 3 days during the last 7 days, oesophagitis or changed therapy) revealed a significant difference in favour of antireflux surgery (P = 0.0016). Seventeen patients originally submitted to antireflux surgery experienced symptom relapse alone, 14 had oesophagitis at endoscopy and another six had omeprazole for different reasons, leaving 97 patients in clinical remission after 3 years. The corresponding figures in the omeprazole arm were 50 relapses, 18 with oesophagitis, two had surgery, leaving 77 patients in remission. Allowing a dose adjustment in the case of relapse in those on omeprazole therapy to either 40 or 60 mg, the curves describing the failure rates were not significantly different from each other. Quality of life assessment showed a comparable outcome in the two study groups. CONCLUSION: In this randomized multicentre trial we found antireflux surgery to be very efficacious in controlling GORD, a level of control which could also be achieved by omeprazole provided that advantage was taken of the opportunity of adjusting the dose.

Lack of effect of acid suppression therapy on gastric atrophy. Nordic Gerd Study Group.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: A hypothesis suggesting that profound acid inhibition therapy facilitates and hastens the development of gastric glandular atrophy in patients infected with Helicobacter pylori was investigated in this randomized study comparing omeprazole therapy with antireflux surgery (ARS) for chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: Patients with esophagitis and/or chronic GERD were enrolled; 155 patients were randomized to ARS and 155 to long-term omeprazole therapy. Baseline data were obtained and repeated after 3 years in 131 ARS patients and in 139 omeprazole-treated patients. Histopathologic status of the oxyntic mucosa was assessed according to the Sydney system. RESULTS: Forty omeprazole-treated patients were infected with H. pylori compared with 53 in the ARS group. Basal gastrin levels were significantly higher in H. pylori-infected patients, particularly in the omeprazole group. No further increases in serum gastrin levels were observed during 3 years. Despite 3 years of therapy, only slight changes were found in the prevalence of inflammation in the corpus mucosa of H. pylori-infected subjects. A slow progression of gastric glandular atrophy was observed in these patients irrespective of therapy with no obvious difference between treatment regimens. Intestinal metaplasia (all of type I) was only exceptionally observed with no difference between the treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Acid-suppressive therapy in the form of omeprazole maintained for 3 years facilitates neither the development of gastric glandular atrophy of the corpus mucosa nor the occurrence of intestinal metaplasia in H. pylori-infected GERD patients.

Outcome of open antireflux surgery as assessed in a Nordic multicentre prospective clinical trial. Nordic GORD-Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcome of antireflux surgery in various hospitals in Scandinavian countries. DESIGN: Partly randomised controlled study, and partly open study. SETTING: Hospitals throughout Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. SUBJECTS: 310 patients with chronic reflux disease and oesophagitis who were initially entered into a randomised controlled study of omeprazole and antireflux surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Total fundic wrap, partial fundoplication, or omeprazole. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Control of symptoms at one year. RESULTS: 154 patients who had their symptoms of reflux completely controlled with omeprazole were initially randomised to have an open operation but 10 refused, leaving 144 for analysis. 34 patients who had only a partial response were also offered operation; 120/178 (68%) had a total fundic wrap, and 53 (30%) partial fundoplication. 6 patients had postoperative complications that required reoperation and 123 made a completely uneventful recovery. Reflux was controlled in most patients, and only 10 (6%) required further treatment with omeprazole. The outcome in those patients who only responded partially to omeprazole was similar to that in patients who had a complete response. CONCLUSION: The outcome of antireflux surgery throughout Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland is good.

Comprehensive 1-year cost analysis of open antireflux surgery in Nordic countries. Nordic GORD Study Group. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Antireflux surgery is a highly effective treatment option in patients with severe gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. However, because of the increasing pressure of cost containment within health care, cost aspects must also be added to the decision-making process. METHODS: The aim of this analysis was to assess the total cost of open antireflux surgery during the first year after operation in 178 patients with chronic reflux, who were recruited into a controlled, prospective clinical trial. The study was carried out in 17 hospitals in the Nordic countries. RESULTS: The cost of the operation represented more than 90 per cent of the direct medical costs which amounted to approximately US $5700. For a patient in the work force the indirect cost, i.e. loss of production, represented 47 per cent of the total cost, which was about US $10800. CONCLUSION: The total cost profile of open antireflux surgery has now been established prospectively and can form a basis for future comparisons.