Possible etiology of improvements in both quality of life and overlapping gastroesophageal reflux disease by proton pump inhibitor treatment in a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms suggestive of functional dyspepsia (FD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) frequently overlap with those of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Despite the high prevalence of symptomatic overlap, the underlying etiology remains poorly defined. We assessed the correlation of symptomatic relief and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with healing of reflux esophagitis to further derive insights into the underlying etiology. METHODS: 626 patients with reflux esophagitis were enrolled into one of two treatment groups (classical healing concept or the complete remission concept) to investigate differences in treatment intensity. Patients were treated with pantoprazole until esophageal mucosal healing. Remission was followed for up to 6 months without treatment. Gastro-intestinal symptoms and HRQoL were analyzed using disease-specific, psychometrically validated patient-reported outcome instruments (ReQuest™, GERDyzer™). RESULTS: Symptomatic burden reflected by ReQuest™ substantially decreased from baseline to end of treatment by 83% and 88% in either treatment group, respectively. ReQuest™ scores significantly decreased in patients with or without heartburn and in those with symptoms suggestive of FD and IBS, indicating response of all symptom categories to treatment (p < 0.005). Therapy-associated relief of symptoms was paralleled by substantial gains in HRQoL, which continued to stabilize post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Pantoprazole is effective in relieving upper and lower gastro-intestinal symptoms overlapping with erosive esophagitis, and provides sustained improvement in HRQoL post-treatment. Our results propose a link between both healing of erosive esophagitis and the slower remission of upper and lower gastro-intestinal symptoms. Since the improvement observed is likely to be multifactorial, the possibility for an immune-mediated etiology and identification of putative susceptibility factors by genome-wide association study may provide focus for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00325676.

A Framework for Managing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Clinical Trials.

There is a long history of discussions about what is a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and how this term applies to clinical research. This paper deals with a practical framework for MCID and its applicability to clinical trials. A literature review on the topic confirmed the fundamental role of MCID for the clinical research, although no guide on how to best use the MCID in clinical trials was identified. We propose a framework that takes into account (1) the definition of MCID as a term when random variable is discussed, (2) a 4-level approach for classifying the MCID evidence to be considered in a clinical development program, and (3) a method of MCID evaluation, defined in a scientifically sound protocol. The proposed framework can prompt and steer stakeholders to improve the methodological sense of clinical trials based on the definition of MCID at the level of efficacy or safety, increase the quality of data derived from clinical trials and reporting of results, and allow effective planning of drug development programs.

Prevention of NSAID-associated gastrointestinal lesions: a comparison study pantoprazole versus omeprazole.

AIM: To investigate tolerability and efficacy of pantoprazole 20 mg, once daily (o.d.), pantoprazole 40 mg o.d., and omeprazole 20 mg o.d., in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug(s) (NSAIDs). METHODS: Included in this randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group study were rheumatic patients (>55 yr) on continual NSAIDs and with at least one more recognized risk factor that contributes to the development of gastrointestinal (GI) injury. Study duration was 6 months, and the treatment consisted of pantoprazole 20 mg o.d. (N = 196), pantoprazole 40 mg o.d. (N = 199), or omeprazole 20 mg o.d. (N = 200). Patients took NSAID(s) (except COX-2 inhibitors), had no more than five erosions/petechiae in the upper GI tract, no current peptic ulcers or reflux esophagitis, and had at most moderate intensity GI symptoms. Endoscopy was performed at baseline, 3, and 6 months. The primary end points were lack of "therapeutic failure" and lack of "endoscopic failure" at 6 months. RESULTS: After 6 months, the probabilities to remain in remission were 90% pantoprazole 20 mg o.d., 93% pantoprazole 40 mg o.d., and 89% omeprazole 20 mg o.d. for lack of "therapeutic failure;" 91% pantoprazole 20 mg o.d., 95% pantoprazole 40 mg o.d., and 93% omeprazole 20 mg o.d. for lack of "endoscopic failure." CONCLUSIONS: For patients taking NSAIDs continually, pantoprazole 20 mg o.d., pantoprazole 40 mg o.d., or omeprazole 20 mg o.d. provide equivalent, effective, and well-tolerated prophylaxis against GI lesions, including peptic ulcers.

Intragastric pH during continuous infusion with pantoprazole in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

OBJECTIVES: In managing patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, prevention of rebleeding is a particular challenge to hemostasis and fibrinolysis, both of which involve reactions that are impaired in acidic gastric environment. Therefore, such patients are expected to benefit from profound acid suppression. The present investigation aimed to establish a safe and, with regard to pH elevation, effective treatment that, based on in vitro evidence, should provide clinical benefit in this patient population. METHODS: Patients with acute bleeding peptic ulcers (Forrest Ia, Ib, IIa) after successful endoscopic hemostasis were enrolled in two pilot studies (N = 20 each). They were given an intravenous bolus injection of 80 mg of pantoprazole immediately followed by continuous infusion of either 6 mg/h or 8 mg/h pantoprazole for 72 h. Intragastric pH was measured continuously over 24 h and, if possible, for up to 48 h. RESULTS: Intragastric pH increased rapidly to values of about 6 with both treatments. For the 0-24 h period, the median pH values were 6.1 (68% range 4.5-7.4) and 6.1 (68% range 5.2-6.7) in patients receiving 6 mg/h and 8 mg/h continuous infusion, respectively; the values for the 0-48 h period were 5.9 (4.9-6.7) and 6.3 (5.5-7.0), respectively. The median percentage time that pH was > or =6 during the 0-48 h interval was 47% (68% range 28-89) for the 6 mg/h treatment group and 64% (68% range 41-84) for the 8 mg/h treatment group. Both treatment regimens with pantoprazole were well tolerated based on electrocardiographic measurements, vital signs, clinical laboratory values, and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the infusion with 6 mg/h pantoprazole, the continuous infusion of 8 mg/h pantoprazole showed a lower interindividual variability of the intragastric pH and a greater percentage of time that pH was >/ or =6. Thus, with regard to safety and efficacy, an initial 80-mg bolus injection, followed by 8 mg/h continuous infusion, seems to be the adequate treatment in patients with a high risk of rebleeding.