A randomized open-label trial of on-demand rabeprazole vs ranitidine for patients with non-erosive reflux disease.

AIM: To compare the efficacy of the proton-pump inhibitor, rabeprazole, with that of the H2-receptor antagonist, ranitidine, as on-demand therapy for relieving symptoms associated with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD). METHODS: This is a single center, prospective, randomized, open-label trial of on-demand therapy with rabeprazole (group A) vs ranitidine (group B) for 4 wk. Eighty-three patients who presented to the American University of Beirut Medical Center with persistent gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms and a normal upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were eligible for the study. Patients in group A (n = 44) were allowed a maximum rabeprazole dose of 20 mg twice daily, while those in group B (n = 39) were allowed a maximum ranitidine dose of 300 mg twice daily. Efficacy was assessed by patient evaluation of global symptom relief, scores of the SF-36 quality of life (QoL) questionnaires, total number of pills used, and number of medication-free days. RESULTS: Among the 83 patients who were enrolled in the study, 76 patients (40 in the rabeprazole group and 36 in the ranitidine group) completed the 4-wk trial. Baseline characteristics were comparable between both groups. After 4 wk, there was no significant difference in the subjective global symptom relief between the rabeprazole and the ranitidine groups (71.4% vs 65.4%, respectively; P = 0.9). There were no statistically significant differences between mean cumulative scores of the SF-36 QoL questionnaire for the two study groups (rabeprazole 22.40 ± 27.53 vs ranitidine 17.28 ± 37.06; P = 0.582). There was no significant difference in the mean number of pills used (rabeprazole 35.70 ± 29.75 vs ranitidine 32.86 ± 26.98; P = 0.66). There was also no statistically significant difference in the mean number of medication-free days between both groups. CONCLUSION: Rabeprazole has a comparable efficacy compared to ranitidine when given on-demand for the treatment of NERD. Both medications were associated with improved quality of life.

Posterior lingual lidocaine: a novel method to improve tolerance in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of posterior lingual lidocaine swab on patient tolerance to esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the ease of performance of the procedure, and to determine if such use will reduce the need for intravenous sedation. METHODS: Eighty patients undergoing diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy in a tertiary care medical center were randomized to either lidocaine swab or spray. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were given as needed during the procedure. RESULTS: Patients in the lidocaine swab group (SWG) tolerated the procedure better than those in the spray group (SPG) with a median tolerability score of 2 (1, 4) compared to 4 (2, 5) (P < 0.01). The endoscopists encountered less difficulty performing the procedures in the SWG with lower median difficulty scores of 1 (1, 5) compared to 4 (1, 5) in the SPG (P < 0.01). In addition, the need for intravenous sedation was also lower in the SWG compared to the SPG with fewer patients requiring intravenous sedation (13/40 patients vs 38/40 patients, respectively, P < 0.01). The patients in the SWG were more satisfied with the mode of local anesthesia they received as compared to the SPG. In addition, the endoscopists were happier with the use of lidocaine swab. CONCLUSION: The use of a posterior lingual lidocaine swab in esophagogastroduodenoscopy improves patient comfort and tolerance and endoscopist satisfaction and decreases the need for intravenous sedation.