Reassessment of Rebleeding Risk of Forrest IB (Oozing) Peptic Ulcer Bleeding in a Large International Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Our aims were to assess risks of early rebleeding after successful endoscopic hemostasis for Forrest oozing (FIB) peptic ulcer bleeding (PUBs) compared with other stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH). METHODS: These were post hoc multivariable analyses of a large, international, double-blind study (NCT00251979) of patients randomized to high-dose intravenous (IV) esomeprazole (PPI) or placebo for 72 h. Rebleeding rates of patients with PUB SRH treated with either PPI or placebo after successful endoscopic hemostasis were also compared. RESULTS: For patients treated with placebo for 72 h after successful endoscopic hemostasis, rebleed rates by SRH were spurting arterial bleeding (FIA) 22.5%, adherent clot (FIIB) 17.6%, non-bleeding visible vessel (FIIA) 11.3%, and oozing bleeding (FIB) 4.9%. Compared with FIB patients, FIA, FIIB, and FIIA had significantly greater risks of rebleeding with odds ratios (95% CI's) from 2.61 (1.05, 6.52) for FIIA to 6.66 (2.19, 20.26) for FIA. After hemostasis, PUB rebleeding rates for FIB patients at 72 h were similar with esomeprazole (5.4%) and placebo (4.9%), whereas rebleed rates for all other major SRH (FIA, FIIA, FIIB) were lower for PPI than placebo, but the treatment by SRH interaction test was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: After successful endoscopic hemostasis, FIB patients had very low PUB rebleeding rates irrespective of PPI or placebo treatment. This implies that after successful endoscopic hemostasis the prognostic classification of FIB ulcers as a high-risk SRH and the recommendation to treat these with high-dose IV PPI's should be re-evaluated.

Effect of baseline characteristics on response to proton pump inhibitors in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: The rate of rebleeding from peptic ulcers could differ between Asian and Western populations. This study aimed to determine whether the observed twofold difference in rebleeding rates in two similarly designed clinical trials (one in Hong Kong [n = 240], the other in a predominantly Western population [n = 764, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00251979]) can be explained by differences in baseline patient characteristics. METHODS: Two-factor and multifactor analyses (adjusted by demographics, established risk factors for peptic ulcer and peptic ulcer bleeding, and disease severity variables) were performed using pooled data from the two studies. Cox regression analysis was used to predict the rebleeding risk at 3 days. RESULTS: In the two-factor analysis (placebo vs esomeprazole/omeprazole and Western study vs Hong Kong study), data trended towards a reduced risk of rebleeding in the Western study (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-1.07, P = 0.094). The risk of rebleeding was similar in both studies after adjusted for multiple factors (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.60-1.99, P = 0.767). The strongest predictor of rebleeding (apart from study drug) was a classification of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade IV (HR 4.15, 95% CI 1.49-11.56, P = 0.006). When such patients were excluded, the difference in rebleeding rates between the studies reduced. CONCLUSION: The difference in rebleeding rates between the two studies is explained by the factors in our analysis, most importantly a classification of ASA grade IV, suggesting that other differences, including ethnicity, did not influence the rebleeding rate.

Effects of omeprazole or anti-reflux surgery on lower oesophageal sphincter characteristics and oesophageal acid exposure over 10 years.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of anti-reflux surgery (ARS) versus proton pump inhibitor therapy on lower oesophageal sphincter (LOS) function and oesophageal acid exposure in patients with chronic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) over a decade of follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this randomised, prospective, multicentre study we compared LOS pressure profiles, as well as oesophageal exposure to acid, at baseline and at 1 and 10 years after randomisation to either open ARS (n = 137) or long-term treatment with omeprazole (OME) 20-60 mg daily (n = 108). RESULTS: Median LOS resting pressure and abdominal length increased significantly and remained elevated in patients operated on with ARS, as opposed to those on OME. The proportion of total time (%) with oesophageal pH <4.0 decreased significantly in both the surgical and medical groups, and was significantly lower after 1 year in patients treated with ARS versus OME. After 10 years, oesophageal acid exposure was normalised in both groups, with no significant differences, and bilirubin exposure was within normal limits. After 10 years, patients with or without Barrett's oesophagus did not differ in acid reflux control between the two treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: Open ARS and OME were both effective in normalising acid reflux into the oesophagus even when studied over a period of 10 years. Anatomically and functionally the LOS was repaired durably by surgery, with increased resting pressure and abdominal length.

A 14-day regimen of esomeprazole 20 mg/day for frequent heartburn: durability of effects, symptomatic rebound, and treatment satisfaction.

OBJECTIVES: Esomeprazole 20 mg once daily has been shown to be effective for treating frequent heartburn over 14 days in subjects who are likely to self-treat with over-the-counter medications. These analyses were conducted to assess durability of effects and symptomatic rebound after cessation of treatment, treatment satisfaction, and rescue antacid use with esomeprazole 20 mg once daily for 14 days. METHODS: Adults with frequent heartburn (≥ two days/week in the past four weeks) were randomly assigned to 14 days of double-blind treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg or placebo in two identical multicenter studies. All subjects entered a 1-week single-blind placebo follow-up period after treatment. The results of the primary efficacy endpoints were reported previously. The percentage of heartburn-free days during the 1-week follow-up, use of rescue antacids, and treatment satisfaction, measured with the Global Assessment Questions instrument, are described. RESULTS: The percentage of heartburn-free days was maintained during the 1-week follow-up period; the proportion was 43% among esomeprazole subjects in these studies, suggesting no evidence of symptomatic rebound. Rescue antacid use generally decreased compared with the run-in period in the 14-day treatment and 1-week follow-up periods. Significantly more subjects taking esomeprazole were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with treatment versus placebo (Study 1: 78% vs. 63%, respectively, P = 0.0038; Study 2: 81% vs. 60%, respectively, P = 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects who are likely to self-treat their frequent heartburn with over-the-counter medications reported satisfaction with esomeprazole 20 mg. Esomeprazole's treatment effect was maintained for ≥ one week after treatment ended, with no sign of symptomatic rebound. These trials were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01370525; NCT01370538.

Gastroesophageal Acid Reflux Control 5 Years After Antireflux Surgery, Compared With Long-term Esomeprazole Therapy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We compared the ability of laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LARS) and esomeprazole to control esophageal acid exposure, over a 5-year period, in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We also studied whether intraesophageal and intragastric pH parameters off and on therapy were associated with long-term outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed data from a prospective, randomized, open-label trial comparing the efficacy and safety of LARS vs esomeprazole (20 or 40 mg/d) over 5 years in patients with chronic GERD. Ambulatory intraesophageal and intragastric 24-hour pH monitoring data were compared between groups before LARS or the start of esomeprazole treatment, and 6 months and 5 years afterward. A secondary aim was to evaluate the association between baseline and 6-month pH parameters and esomeprazole dose escalation, reappearance of GERD symptoms, and treatment failure over 5 years in patients receiving LARS or esomeprazole. RESULTS: In the LARS group (n = 116), the median 24-hour esophageal acid exposure was 8.6% at baseline and 0.7% after 6 months and 5 years (P < .001 vs baseline). In the esomeprazole group (n = 151), the median 24-hour esophageal acid exposure was 8.8% at baseline, 2.1% after 6 months, and 1.9% after 5 years (P < .001, therapy vs baseline, and LARS vs esomeprazole). Gastric acidity was stable in both groups. Patients who required a dose increase to 40 mg/d had more severe supine reflux at baseline, and decreased esophageal acid exposure (P < .02) and gastric acidity after dose escalation. Esophageal and intragastric pH parameters, off and on therapy, did not predict long-term symptom breakthrough. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study of patients with chronic GERD, esophageal acid reflux was reduced greatly by LARS or esomeprazole therapy. However, patients receiving LARS had significantly greater reductions in 24-hour esophageal acid exposure after 6 months and 5 years. Esophageal and gastric pH, off and on therapy, did not predict long-term outcomes of patients. Abnormal supine acid exposure predicted esomeprazole dose escalation. ClinicalTrials.Gov identifier: NCT00251927 (available: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00251927).

Daytime intragastric acid control: post hoc analyses of esomeprazole 20 mg and over-the-counter proton-pump inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES: In mild gastroesophageal reflux disease, which accounts for the great majority of cases, the major burden of reflux occurs during daytime hours, after food intake. The aim of these analyses was to evaluate intragastric pH control during the typical 14-hour daytime awake period by proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) given at over-the-counter (OTC) dosages. METHODS: In one double-blind and three open-label, randomized, crossover studies, intragastric pH was monitored for 24 hours on day 5 of treatment. The 24-hour data have been reported previously. Post hoc analyses reassessed these studies for the 14-hour daytime period, comparing esomeprazole 20 mg with currently available OTC PPIs omeprazole, pantoprazole (not available in the US) and lansoprazole. RESULTS: Subjects maintained intragastric pH >4 for a significantly greater mean percentage of the 14-hour daytime period with esomeprazole 20 mg compared with any of the PPI comparators at OTC dosages. Geometric mean ratios (95% confidence intervals) for esomeprazole 20 mg versus the comparators were: 1.45 (1.14-1.85; p = 0.003) versus omeprazole 20 mg; 2.50 (2.01-3.11; p < 0.0001) versus pantoprazole 20 mg; and 1.69 (1.46-1.97; p < 0.0001) and 1.89 (1.05-3.37; p = 0.03) versus lansoprazole 15 mg. A greater proportion of subjects had better pH control with esomeprazole than with the other PPIs (range: 69-97%). CONCLUSIONS: Across the 14-hour daytime period, esomeprazole 20 mg once daily given 30 minutes before breakfast for 5 days provided acid control for a significantly greater average proportion of time versus the PPI comparators omeprazole, pantoprazole and lansoprazole at currently available OTC dosages.

Long-term effect on symptoms and quality of life of maintenance therapy with esomeprazole 20 mg daily: a post hoc analysis of the LOTUS trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term effect on symptoms and quality of life of esomeprazole 20 mg once daily, a recommended dose for maintenance therapy of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of 5 year data from patients in the LOTUS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00251927) who were randomized to esomeprazole 20 mg once daily. All participants had chronic, symptomatic GERD responsive to treatment. Gastrointestinal symptoms were assessed by physicians and by using patient-reported outcome instruments. Investigations included gastrointestinal endoscopy (with biopsy sampling), 24 hour esophageal pH monitoring and laboratory measurements. RESULTS: In total, 157 of 256 patients randomized to esomeprazole 20 mg once daily remained on this dose until the end of follow-up or study discontinuation, whereas 99 patients had their dose increased because of inadequate symptom control (of these, 29 subsequently returned to the allocated dose). On logistic regression, a long objectively defined GERD history, smoking, female sex, absence of Helicobacter pylori infection and high supine baseline acid reflux into the esophagus were associated with an increased likelihood of requiring dose escalation to esomeprazole 40 mg daily (all p < 0.05). Symptoms were fairly stable and quality of life was normal throughout follow-up in patients remaining on esomeprazole 20 mg once daily, with no more than mild symptom severity, and mean (standard deviation) percentage time with intraesophageal pH <4 was reduced from 10.7 (10.7) pre-randomization to 6.3 (10.2) at 6 months and 4.9 (7.3) at 5 years. The number of serious adverse events was low (0.079 per patient per year). LIMITATIONS: Post hoc analysis with no control group. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole at a maintenance dose of 20 mg once daily offers effective long-term treatment for chronic GERD in patients initially responsive to the medication, with durable symptom control and sustained reductions in intraesophageal acid exposure.

Esomeprazole treatment of frequent heartburn: two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of a 14-day regimen of esomeprazole 20 mg for the treatment of frequent heartburn in subjects who are likely to self-treat with over-the-counter medications without consulting a health care provider. METHODS: Adults with frequent heartburn ≥ 2 days per week in the past 4 weeks were randomly assigned to 14-day double-blind treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg once daily or placebo in 2 identical multicenter studies (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01370525, NCT01370538). The primary efficacy outcome was percentage of heartburn-free 24-hour days across 14 days. Secondary efficacy outcomes included heartburn resolution, defined as heartburn ≤ 2 days over 14 days, and percentages of subjects reporting ≤ 1 day with heartburn in the first and final weeks of treatment. Subjects recorded data in daily self-assessment diaries. RESULTS: The percentage of heartburn-free 24-hour days over 14 days was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in subjects receiving esomeprazole 20 mg compared with placebo in study 1 (N = 331; 46.13% vs. 33.07%, respectively) and study 2 (N = 320; 48.00% vs 32.75%, respectively). Significantly more subjects treated with esomeprazole 20 mg had heartburn resolution over 14 days and in the first and final weeks compared with placebo. Within the first 4 days, the proportion of subjects with heartburn-free days was significantly greater with esomeprazole 20 mg versus placebo. Treatment was generally well tolerated, with a safety pattern consistent with the known profile for esomeprazole. CONCLUSION: A 14-day regimen of esomeprazole 20 mg once daily was effective for treating frequent heartburn in subjects who are likely to self-treat with over-the-counter medications.

Progression of specialized intestinal metaplasia at the cardia to macroscopically evident Barrett's esophagus: an entity of concern in the ProGERD study.

OBJECTIVES AND AIMS: Histological Barrett's esophagus, defined as specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM+) at the cardia without endoscopic suspicion of columnar epithelium, is found frequently in biopsies at the gastro-esophageal junction although its clinical relevance is unknown. The authors aim was to evaluate prospectively the progression of SIM+ to macroscopically evident Barrett's esophagus (BE/SIM+), and to identify risk factors for this progression. METHODS: Data were obtained from a sub-group of patients (no visible BE at presentation, but SIM+) included in the ProGERD study, a prospective evaluation of the clinical course of GERD under routine clinical care. They had esomeprazole 20-40 mg/day for 2-8 weeks. Symptom assessment was performed annually, and endoscopy with biopsy was planned at baseline, after healing treatment and after 2 and/or 5 years. RESULTS: 128 of 171 (74.8%) patients with unequivocal SIM at the z-line after healing were biopsied again after 2 and/or 5 years. At follow-up, 33 (25.8%) of these patients showed progression to BE/SIM+. Factors significantly associated with progression were smoking, a long history of GERD and severe esophagitis at baseline. Patients who had progressed to BE/SIM+ already at 2 years showed consistent findings at 5 years. CONCLUSION: More than 20% of GERD patients with SIM+ in this study were found to have BE/SIM+ within 2-5 years. This finding supports the hypothesis that SIM+ at the cardia could be the missing link explaining increased cancer risk in GERD patients without overt BE and merits further investigation in a prospective study.

Limited ability of the proton-pump inhibitor test to identify patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The efficacy of proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy often is assessed to determine whether patients' symptoms are acid-related and if patients have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), although the accuracy of this approach is questionable. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the PPI test, in conjunction with other tests, for the diagnosis of GERD. METHODS: We analyzed data from the DIAMOND study, a multinational trial that compared the ability of the reflux disease questionnaire with that of symptom-based clinical diagnosis to identify GERD in primary care patients with frequent upper-gastrointestinal symptoms. Patients (n = 308) were given placebo and further evaluated by endoscopy, wireless esophageal pH-metry, and symptom association monitoring. Those with GERD (n = 197) were identified based on the presence of reflux esophagitis, esophageal pH level less than 4 for more than 5.5% of 24 hours, or positive results from symptom association monitoring (or a positive result from the PPI test in patients with borderline levels of esophageal acidity). All patients then were given single-blind therapy with esomeprazole (40 mg once daily) for 2 weeks and symptoms were recorded daily. RESULTS: A positive response to the PPI test was observed in 69% of patients with GERD and in 51% of those without GERD. Response to placebo did not influence the diagnostic ability of the subsequent PPI test. More patients with reflux esophagitis had a positive result from the PPI test than patients without GERD (57% vs 35%; P = .002) or patients with GERD but no esophagitis. A clinical diagnosis by the primary care physician of an acid-related disease was not associated with response to PPIs. CONCLUSIONS: In a well-characterized population of primary care patients with frequent upper-gastrointestinal symptoms of any type, the PPI test has limited ability to identify patients with GERD, diagnosed by current standard tests. (ClinicalTrials.gov Number, NCT00291746.).

Erosive esophagitis is a risk factor for Barrett's esophagus: a community-based endoscopic follow-up study.

OBJECTIVES: Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is associated with a significantly increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma, but its natural history in the general population is poorly understood. Whether nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) is a risk factor for Barrett's esophagus (BE), the precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma, is unknown. Furthermore, quantifying the risk of incident BE in those with untreated reflux esophagitis has not been possible. We aimed, in a prospective follow-up study with endoscopy, to evaluate the risk of BE in a cohort from the Swedish general population (the Kalixanda Study). METHODS: Those with endoscopic or histological findings suggestive of GERD and randomly half of those with NERD (n=481) were invited for follow-up investigation including endoscopy and a validated symptom questionnaire 5 years after the initial study. Multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate relative risk ratios (RRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for change in presentation of GERD. RESULTS: Of the 405 subjects available for inclusion, endoscopy was performed in 284 (response rate 70.1%). The incidence of BE was 9.9/1,000 person-years. Of those with NERD at baseline (n=113), progression to erosive esophagitis was found in 11; 2 developed BE. Erosive esophagitis (n=90) progressed to a more severe grade in 12 and to BE in 8 cases. Erosive esophagitis at baseline was independently associated with BE at follow-up (RRR 5.2; 95% CI 1.2-22.9). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with being free of GERD at follow-up, erosive esophagitis is a major risk factor for BE (with a fivefold increased risk) after 5 years in the general population.

Laparoscopic antireflux surgery vs esomeprazole treatment for chronic GERD: the LOTUS randomized clinical trial.

CONTEXT: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic, relapsing disease with symptoms that have negative effects on daily life. Two treatment options are long-term medication or surgery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate optimized esomeprazole therapy vs standardized laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LARS) in patients with GERD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The LOTUS trial, a 5-year exploratory randomized, open, parallel-group trial conducted in academic hospitals in 11 European countries between October 2001 and April 2009 among 554 patients with well-established chronic GERD who initially responded to acid suppression. A total of 372 patients (esomeprazole, n = 192; LARS, n = 180) completed 5-year follow-up. Interventions Two hundred sixty-six patients were randomly assigned to receive esomeprazole, 20 to 40 mg/d, allowing for dose adjustments; 288 were randomly assigned to undergo LARS, of whom 248 actually underwent the operation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Time to treatment failure (for LARS, defined as need for acid suppressive therapy; for esomeprazole, inadequate symptom control after dose adjustment), expressed as estimated remission rates and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Estimated remission rates at 5 years were 92% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89%-96%) in the esomeprazole group and 85% (95% CI, 81%-90%) in the LARS group (log-rank P = .048). The difference between groups was no longer statistically significant following best-case scenario modeling of the effects of study dropout. The prevalence and severity of symptoms at 5 years in the esomeprazole and LARS groups, respectively, were 16% and 8% for heartburn (P = .14), 13% and 2% for acid regurgitation (P < .001), 5% and 11% for dysphagia (P < .001), 28% and 40% for bloating (P < .001), and 40% and 57% for flatulence (P < .001). Mortality during the study was low (4 deaths in the esomeprazole group and 1 death in the LARS group) and not attributed to treatment, and the percentages of patients reporting serious adverse events were similar in the esomeprazole group (24.1%) and in the LARS group (28.6%). CONCLUSION: This multicenter clinical trial demonstrated that with contemporary antireflux therapy for GERD, either by drug-induced acid suppression with esomeprazole or by LARS, most patients achieve and remain in remission at 5 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00251927.

Safety and tolerability of high-dose intravenous esomeprazole for prevention of peptic ulcer rebleeding.

INTRODUCTION: Efficacy of a continuous high-dose intravenous infusion of esomeprazole, followed by an oral regimen after successful endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) was established in the PUB study (ClinicalTrials. gov identifier: NCT00251979). Mortality rates and detailed safety and tolerability results from this study are reported here. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized study in patients ≥18 years with overt signs of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, following endoscopic diagnosis of a single gastric or duodenal ulcer (≥5 mm) with stigmata indicating current/ recent bleeding (Forrest class Ia, Ib, IIa, or IIb). Postendoscopic hemostasis, patients received intravenous esomeprazole (80 mg/30 minutes, then 8 mg/hour for 71.5 hours) or placebo. Postinfusion, all patients received open-label oral esomeprazole 40 mg once daily for 27 days. Mortality rates were analyzed using Fisher's exact test; other safety variables were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 767 patients were randomized; 764 comprised the safety analysis set (375 patients received esomeprazole, 389 placebo). Baseline characteristics were similar across the two treatment groups. Three deaths from the esomeprazole treatment group and eight from the placebo group occurred during the trial (0.8% versus 2.1%; P=0.22). From these 11 all-cause deaths, one (esomeprazole group; rebleeding from duodenal ulcer) occurred during the 72-hour intravenous treatment phase. Adverse event (AE) frequency was similar for the two groups over the intravenous treatment phase (esomeprazole, 39.2%; placebo, 41.9%), with gastrointestinal disorders being most commonly reported (12.3% and 19.8%, respectively). Serious AEs were mostly related to bleeding events. Infusion-site reactions (mild, transient) were reported in 4.3% of esomeprazole-treated patients versus 0.5% of placebo patients. These did not lead to treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Esomeprazole, given as a continuous high-dose intravenous infusion followed by an oral regimen after successful endoscopic therapy for PUB, was well tolerated, with no apparent safety concerns from either the high-dose intravenous treatment or oral phases.

Correlation of serum pepsinogens and gastrin-17 with atrophic gastritis in gastroesophageal reflux patients: a matched-pairs study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: An algorithm (GastroPanel) for the non-invasive diagnosis of atrophic gastritis has been previously proposed, based on serum pepsinogen-I, gastrin-17, and Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) antibodies. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether serum markers correlate with and predict gastric atrophy in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients. METHODS: The baseline data of the prospective ProGERD study, a study on the long-term course of GERD (n=6215 patients), served to select patients with atrophic gastritis diagnosed in biopsies from gastric antrum and corpus, and control cases without atrophy. A total of 208 pairs were matched for age, sex, GERD status (erosive vs non-erosive), presence of Barrett's esophagus, and histological H. pylori status were retrieved. Serum pepsinogen-I, gastrin-17, and H. pylori antibodies were determined using specific enzyme immunoassays. RESULTS: A significant negative correlation was found between the degree of corpus atrophy and the level of serum pepsinogen-I. A previously-reported negative correlation between the degree of antral atrophy and serum gastrin-17 could not be confirmed. The low sensitivity (0.32) and specificity (0.70) of the GastroPanel algorithm were mainly due to over diagnosis and under diagnosis of advanced atrophy in the antrum. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic validity of the GastroPanel algorithm to diagnose gastric atrophy non-invasively is not sufficient for general use in GERD patients.

Accuracy of the diagnosis of GORD by questionnaire, physicians and a trial of proton pump inhibitor treatment: the Diamond Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) by the Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ), family practitioners, gastroenterologists and a test of esomeprazole therapy. METHODS: This was a single-blind, single-arm study over 3-4 weeks from September 2005 to November 2006. Each symptom-based diagnostic assessment was made blinded to prior diagnoses. Patients were those presenting to their family practitioner with troublesome upper gastrointestinal symptoms (n=308). The RDQ was completed and a symptom-based diagnosis was made by the family practitioner. Placebo esomeprazole was started. Gastroenterologists made a symptom-based diagnosis and then performed endoscopy with 48 h oesophageal pH and symptom association monitoring to determine the presence/absence of GORD. Symptoms were recorded during treatment with 40 mg of esomeprazole for 2 weeks. The main outcome measure was RDQ scoring for the presence of GORD compared with symptom-based diagnosis by family physicians and gastroenterologists. RESULTS: GORD was present in 203/308 (66%) patients. Only 49% of the patients with GORD selected either heartburn or regurgitation as the most troublesome symptom. Sensitivity and specificity, respectively, of the symptom-based diagnosis of GORD, were 62% and 67% for the RDQ, 63% and 63% for family practitioners, and 67% and 70% for gastroenterologists. Symptom response to esomeprazole was neither sensitive nor specific for the diagnosis of GORD. CONCLUSIONS: The RDQ, family practitioners and gastroenterologists have moderate and similar accuracy for diagnosis of GORD. Symptom response to a 2 week course of 40 mg of esomeprazole does not add diagnostic precision.

Cost effectiveness of high-dose intravenous esomeprazole for peptic ulcer bleeding.

Peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) is a serious and sometimes fatal condition. The outcome of PUB strongly depends on the risk of rebleeding. A recent multinational placebo-controlled clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00251979) showed that high-dose intravenous (IV) esomeprazole, when administered after successful endoscopic haemostasis in patients with PUB, is effective in preventing rebleeding. From a policy perspective it is important to assess the cost efficacy of this benefit so as to enable clinicians and payers to make an informed decision regarding the management of PUB. Using a decision-tree model, we compared the cost efficacy of high-dose IV esomeprazole versus an approach of no-IV proton pump inhibitor for prevention of rebleeding in patients with PUB. The model adopted a 30-day time horizon and the perspective of third-party payers in the USA and Europe. The main efficacy variable was the number of averted rebleedings. Healthcare resource utilization costs (physician fees, hospitalizations, surgeries, pharmacotherapies) relevant for the management of PUB were also determined. Data for unit costs (prices) were primarily taken from official governmental sources, and data for other model assumptions were retrieved from the original clinical trial and the literature. After successful endoscopic haemostasis, patients received either high-dose IV esomeprazole (80 mg infusion over 30 min, then 8 mg/hour for 71.5 hours) or no-IV esomeprazole treatment, with both groups receiving oral esomeprazole 40 mg once daily from days 4 to 30. Rebleed rates at 30 days were 7.7% and 13.6%, respectively, for the high-dose IV esomeprazole and no-IV esomeprazole treatment groups (equating to a number needed to treat of 17 in order to prevent one additional patient from rebleeding). In the US setting, the average cost per patient for the high-dose IV esomeprazole strategy was $US14 290 compared with $US14 239 for the no-IV esomeprazole strategy (year 2007 values). For the European setting, Sweden and Spain were used as examples. In the Swedish setting the corresponding respective figures were Swedish kronor (SEK)67 862 ($US9220 at average 2006 interbank exchange rates) and SEK67 807 ($US9212) [year 2006 values]. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $US866 and SEK938 ($US127), respectively, per averted rebleed when using IV esomeprazole. For the Spanish setting, the high-dose IV esomeprazole strategy was dominant (more effective and less costly than the no-IV esomeprazole strategy) [year 2008 values]. All results appeared robust to univariate/threshold sensitivity analysis, with high-dose IV esomeprazole becoming dominant with small variations in assumptions in the US and Swedish settings, while remaining a dominant approach in the Spanish scenario across a broad range of values. Sensitivity variables with prespecified ranges included lengths of stay and per diem assumptions, rebleeding rates and, in some cases, professional fees. In patients with PUB, high-dose IV esomeprazole after successful endoscopic haemostasis appears to improve outcomes at a modest increase in costs relative to a no-IV esomeprazole strategy from the US and Swedish third-party payer perspective. Whereas, in the Spanish setting, the high-dose IV esomeprazole strategy appeared dominant, being more effective and less costly.

Effect of esomeprazole 40 mg once or twice daily on asthma: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

RATIONALE: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common among patients with asthma; however, studies investigating the effect of proton pump inhibitors on asthma outcomes report conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of esomeprazole 40 mg once or twice daily on asthma outcomes in patients with concomitant symptoms of GERD. METHODS: This 26-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT00317044) included adult patients (18-70 yr) with moderate-to-severe asthma and symptomatic GERD. The change in morning peak expiratory flow (primary variable), evening peak expiratory flow, FEV(1), asthma symptoms, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Reflux Disease Questionnaire, and tolerability were assessed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 961 patients were randomized and 828 completed the study. Relative to baseline, improvement in morning peak expiratory flow was observed for both esomeprazole 40 mg once daily (+3.5 L/min; 95% CI, -3.2 to 10.2) and 40 mg twice daily (+5.5 L/min; 95% CI, -1.2 to 12.2), although no statistically significant between-treatment differences were apparent. At treatment end, both doses of esomeprazole significantly improved FEV(1) versus placebo (+0.09 L and +0.12 L; P = 0.0039 and P < 0.0001, respectively). However, only esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily demonstrated a significant improvement when FEV(1) was calculated over the entire 26-week period (+0.07 L; P = 0.0042). Significant improvements in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire total score were demonstrated for both esomeprazole doses compared with placebo (+0.28 and +0.41; P = 0.0006 and P < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole may improve pulmonary function and asthma-related quality of life. However, the improvements were minor and of small clinical significance.

Long-term outcome of microscopic esophagitis in chronic GERD patients treated with esomeprazole or laparoscopic antireflux surgery in the LOTUS trial.

OBJECTIVES: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-associated changes in esophageal histology have been reported mainly after short-term medical antireflux therapy, and few individual lesions have been examined. We report detailed histological findings from the LOTUS study, at baseline and at 1 and 3 years after laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LARS) or esomeprazole treatment in patients with chronic GERD. METHODS: LOTUS is a long-term, open, parallel-group, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted in 11 European countries that compared LARS (n=248) with esomeprazole 20-40 mg daily (n=266). Biopsies from the distal esophagus 2 cm above the Z-line and at the Z-line were taken at baseline, and 1 and 3 years. The following lesions were assessed: basal cell hyperplasia (BCH), papillary elongation (PE), intercellular space dilatations (ISDs), intraepithelial eosinophils (EOSs), neutrophils, and necrosis/erosion. A severity score (SS, range 0-2) was calculated by taking the average score of all assessable lesions. RESULTS: All lesions were more severe on Z-line biopsies than at 2 cm, and almost all improved significantly from baseline to 1 and 3 years. The average SS (from 2 cm to Z-line) changed from 0.95 to 0.57 (1 year) and to 0.49 (3 years) on esomeprazole, and from 0.91 to 0.56 (1 year) and to 0.52 (3 years) after LARS (P<0.001 for both treatments at 1 and 3 years, with no significant difference between treatments). The proportions of patients with severe histological changes decreased from approximately 50% at baseline to 11% at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Both continuous esomeprazole treatment and laparoscopic fundoplication are associated with significant and similar overall improvement in microscopic esophagitis after 1 year that is maintained at 3 years.

Comparison of outcomes twelve years after antireflux surgery or omeprazole maintenance therapy for reflux esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is important to evaluate the long-term effects of therapies for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In a 12-year study, we compared the effects of therapy with omeprazole with those of antireflux surgery. METHODS: This open, parallel group study included 310 patients with esophagitis enrolled from outpatient clinics in Nordic countries. Of the 155 patients randomly assigned to each arm of the study, 154 received omeprazole (1 withdrew before therapy began), and 144 received surgery (11 withdrew before surgery). In patients who remained in remission after treatment, post-fundoplication complaints, other symptoms, and safety variables were assessed. RESULTS: Of the patients enrolled in the study, 71 who were given omeprazole (46%) and 53 treated with surgery (37%) were followed for a 12-year follow-up period. At this time point, 53% of patients who underwent surgery remained in continuous remission, compared with 45% of patients given omeprazole with a dose adjustment (P = .022) and 40% without dose adjustment (P = .002). In addition, 38% of surgical patients required a change in therapeutic strategy (eg, to medical therapy or another operation), compared with 15% of those on omeprazole. Heartburn and regurgitation were significantly more common in patients given omeprazole, whereas dysphagia, rectal flatulence, and the inability to belch or vomit were significantly more common in surgical patients. The therapies were otherwise well-tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: As long-term therapeutic strategies for chronic GERD, surgery and omeprazole are effective and well-tolerated. Antireflux surgery is superior to omeprazole in controlling overall disease manifestations, but post-fundoplication complaints continue after surgery.

Cost of detecting malignant lesions by endoscopy in 2741 primary care dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Current guidelines recommend empirical, noninvasive approaches to manage dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms, but concerns about missed lesions persist; the cost savings afforded by noninvasive approaches must be weighed against treatment delays. We investigated the prevalence of malignancies and other serious abnormalities in patients with dyspepsia and the cost of detecting these by endoscopy. METHODS: We studied 2741 primary-care outpatients, 18-70 years in age, who met Rome II criteria for dyspepsia. Patients with alarm features (dysphagia, bleeding, weight loss, etc) were excluded. All patients underwent endoscopy. The cost and diagnostic yield of an early endoscopy strategy in all patients were compared with those of endoscopy limited to age-defined cohorts. Costs were calculated for a low, intermediate, and high cost environment. RESULTS: Endoscopies detected abnormalities in 635 patients (23%). The most common findings were reflux esophagitis with erosions (15%), gastric ulcers (2.7%), and duodenal ulcers (2.3%). The prevalence of upper gastrointestinal malignancy was 0.22%. If all dyspeptic patients 50 years or older underwent endoscopy, 1 esophageal cancer and no gastric cancers would have been missed. If the age threshold for endoscopy were set at 50 years, at a cost of $500/endoscopy, it would cost $82,900 (95% CI, $35,714-$250,000) to detect each case of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms rarely have serious underlying conditions at endoscopy. The costs associated with diagnosing an occult malignancy are large, but an age cut-off of 50 years for early endoscopy provides the best assurance that an occult malignancy will not be missed.