Efficacy and safety of HIP1601 (dual delayed-release esomeprazole) 40 mg in erosive esophagitis compared to HGP1705 (delayed-release esomeprazole) 40 mg: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most effective drugs for treating acid-related disorders. However, once-daily dosing with conventional PPIs fail to fully control acid secretion over 24 h. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of HIP1601 (dual delayed-release esomeprazole) and HGP1705 (delayed-release esomeprazole) in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE). METHODS: We enrolled 213 patients with EE randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 40 mg HIP1601 (n = 107) or HGP1705 (n = 106) once daily for 4 or 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the EE healing rate, confirmed by endoscopy up to week 8. GERD-related symptoms and treatment-emergent adverse events were compared between both groups. RESULTS: By week 8, the estimated healing rates of EE were 97.8% and 96.8% in the HIP1601 and HGP1705 groups, respectively, with a 95% confidence interval of -4.7 to 7.2. After 4 or 8 weeks of treatment, the EE healing rate at week 4, complete resolution rate of symptoms, time to sustained resolution of symptoms, and number of rescue medications used were similar in both groups. The proportion of heartburn- and acid regurgitation-free nights by week 4 were higher in the HIP1601 group compared to the HGP1705 group, but the difference did not reach clinical significance (87.7% vs. 85.8%, P = 0.514, 87.5% vs. 85.8%, P = 0.774). The number of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of HIP1601 40 mg were comparable to those of HGP1705 40 mg for the treatment of EE and symptomatic improvement of GERD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04080726 ( https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT04080726 ), registration date: 25/10/2018.

On-demand Versus Continuous Maintenance Treatment With a Proton Pump Inhibitor for Mild Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study.

Background/Aims: It remains unclear which maintenance treatment modality is most appropriate for mild gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We aimed to compare on-demand treatment with continuous treatment using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in the maintenance treatment for patients with non-erosive GERD or mild erosive esophagitis. Methods: Patients whose GERD symptoms improved after 4 weeks of standard dose PPI treatment were prospectively enrolled at 25 hospitals. Subsequently, the enrolled patients were randomly assigned to either an on-demand or a continuous maintenance treatment group, and followed in an 8-week interval for up to 24 weeks. Results: A total of 304 patients were randomized to maintenance treatment (continuous, n = 151 vs on-demand, n = 153). The primary outcome, the overall proportion of unwillingness to continue the assigned maintenance treatment modality, failed to confirm the non-inferiority of on-demand treatment (45.9%) compared to continuous treatment (36.1%). Compared with the on-demand group, the GERD symptom and health-related quality of life scores significantly more improved and the overall satisfaction score was significantly higher in the continuous treatment group, particularly at week 8 and week 16 of maintenance treatment. Work impairment scores were not different in the 2 groups, but the prescription cost was less in the on-demand group. Serum gastrin levels significantly elevated in the continuous treatment group, but not in the on-demand group. Conclusions: Continuous treatment seems to be more appropriate for the initial maintenance treatment of non-erosive GERD or mild erosive esophagitis than on-demand treatment. Stepping down to on-demand treatment needs to be considered after a sufficient period of continuous treatment.

Real-world Prescription Patterns and Patient Satisfaction Regarding Maintenance Therapy of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: An Observational, Cross-sectional, Multicenter Study.

Background/Aims: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common chronic gastrointestinal disorder that typically requires long-term maintenance therapy. However, little is known about patient preferences and satisfaction and real-world prescription patterns regarding maintenance therapy for GERD. Methods: This observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study involved patients from 18 referral hospitals in Korea. We surveyed patients who had been prescribed proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for GERD for at least 90 days with a minimum follow-up duration of 1 year. The main outcome was overall patient satisfaction with different maintenance therapy modalities. Results: A total of 197 patients were enrolled. Overall patient satisfaction, patient preferences, and GERD health-related quality of life scores did not significantly differ among the maintenance therapy modality groups. However, the on-demand therapy group experienced a significantly longer disease duration than the continuous therapy group. The continuous therapy group demonstrated a lower level of awareness of potential adverse effects associated with PPIs than the on-demand therapy group but received higher doses of PPIs than the on-demand therapy group. The prescribed doses of PPIs also varied based on the phenotype of GERD, with higher doses prescribed for non-erosive reflux disease than erosive reflux disease. Conclusion: Although overall patient satisfaction did not significantly differ among the different PPI maintenance therapy modality groups, awareness of potential adverse effects was significantly different between the on-demand and continuous therapy groups.

2022 Seoul Consensus on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Functional Constipation.

Chronic constipation is one of the most common digestive diseases encountered in clinical practice. Constipation manifests as a variety of symptoms, such as infrequent bowel movements, hard stools, feeling of incomplete evacuation, straining at defecation, a sense of anorectal blockage during defecation, and use of digital maneuvers to assist defecation. During the diagnosis of chronic constipation, the Bristol Stool Form Scale, colonoscopy, and a digital rectal examination are useful for objective symptom evaluation and differential diagnosis of secondary constipation. Physiological tests for functional constipation have complementary roles and are recommended for patients who have failed to respond to treatment with available laxatives and those who are strongly suspected of having a defecatory disorder. As new evidence on the diagnosis and management of functional constipation emerged, the need to revise the previous guideline was suggested. Therefore, these evidence-based guidelines have proposed recommendations developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment options available for functional constipation. The benefits and cautions of new pharmacological agents (such as lubiprostone and linaclotide) and conventional laxatives have been described through a meta-analysis. The guidelines consist of 34 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and epidemiology of functional constipation, 9 regarding diagnoses, and 22 regarding managements. Clinicians (including primary physicians, general health professionals, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients can refer to these guidelines to make informed decisions regarding the management of functional constipation.

Face-to-face interviews versus Internet surveys: Comparison of two data collection methods in the Rome foundation global epidemiology study: Implications for population-based research.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study (RFGES) assessed the prevalence, burden, and associated factors of Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction (DGBI) in 33 countries around the world. Achieving worldwide sampling necessitated use of two different surveying methods: In-person household interviews (9 countries) and Internet surveys (26 countries). Two countries, China and Turkey, were surveyed with both methods. This paper examines the differences in the survey results with the two methods, as well as likely reasons for those differences. METHODS: The two RFGES survey methods are described in detail, and differences in DGBI findings summarized for household versus Internet surveys globally, and in more detail for China and Turkey. Logistic regression analysis was used to elucidate factors contributing to these differences. RESULTS: Overall, DGBI were only half as prevalent when assessed with household vs Internet surveys. Similar patterns of methodology-related DGBI differences were seen within both China and Turkey, but prevalence differences between the survey methods were dramatically larger in Turkey. No clear reasons for outcome differences by survey method were identified, although greater relative reduction in bowel and anorectal versus upper gastrointestinal disorders when household versus Internet surveying was used suggests an inhibiting influence of social sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The findings strongly indicate that besides affecting data quality, manpower needs and data collection time and costs, the choice of survey method is a substantial determinant of symptom reporting and DGBI prevalence outcomes. This has important implications for future DGBI research and epidemiological research more broadly.

A comparative study of disorders of gut-brain interaction in Western Europe and Asia based on the Rome foundation global epidemiology study.

OBJECTIVE: Many studies have been published on disorders of the gut-brain interaction (DGBI) in Asia and Western Europe, but no previous study has directly assessed the difference between the two regions. The aim was to compare the prevalence of DGBI in Asia and Western Europe. METHODS: We used data collected in a population-based Internet survey, the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study, from countries in Western Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) and Asia (China, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore). We assessed DGBI diagnoses (Rome IV Adult Diagnostic Questionnaire), anxiety/depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-4, PHQ-4), non-GI somatic symptoms (PHQ-12), and access to and personal costs of doctor visits. RESULTS: The study included 9487 subjects in Asia and 16,314 in Western Europe. Overall, 38.0% had at least one DGBI; younger age, female sex, and higher scores on PHQ4 and PHQ12 were all associated with DGBI. The prevalence of having at least one DGBI was higher in Western Europe than in Asia (39.1% vs 36.1%, OR 1.14 [95% CI 1.08-1.20]). This difference was also observed for DGBI by anatomical regions, most prominently esophageal DGBI (OR 1.67 [1.48-1.88]). After adjustment, the difference in DGBI prevalence diminished and psychological (PHQ-4) and non-GI somatic symptoms (PHQ-12) had the greatest effect on the odds ratio estimates. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of DGBI is generally higher in Western Europe compared to Asia. A considerable portion of the observed difference in prevalence rates seems to be explained by more severe psychological and non-GI somatic symptoms in Western Europe.

Randomised clinical trial: comparison of tegoprazan and lansoprazole as maintenance therapy for healed mild erosive oesophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Tegoprazan is a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker used to treat acid-related disorders. AIM: To compare tegoprazan 25 mg with lansoprazole 15 mg as maintenance therapy in healed erosive oesophagitis (EE) METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, multi-centre study, patients with endoscopically confirmed healed EE were randomised 1:1 to receive tegoprazan 25 mg or lansoprazole 15 mg once daily for up to 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the endoscopic remission rate after 24 weeks. The secondary efficacy endpoint was the endoscopic remission rate after 12 weeks. Safety endpoints included adverse events, clinical laboratory results and serum gastrin and pepsinogen I/II levels. RESULTS: We randomised patients to tegoprazan 25 mg (n = 174) or lansoprazole 15 mg (n = 177). Most had mild EE (Los Angeles (LA) grade A: 57.3%, LA grade B: 37.3%). The endoscopic remission rate after 24 weeks was 90.6% with tegoprazan and 89.5% with lansoprazole. Tegoprazan was not inferior to lansoprazole for maintaining endoscopic remission at 24 weeks and 12 weeks. In subgroup analysis, tegoprazan 25 mg showed no significant difference in maintenance rate according to LA grade (p = 0.47). The maintenance effect of tegoprazan was consistent in CYP2C19 extensive metabolisers (p = 0.76). Increases in serum gastrin were not higher in tegoprazan-treated than lansoprazole-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Tegoprazan 25 mg was non-inferior to lansoprazole 15 mg in maintenance of healing of mild EE. In this study, tegoprazan had a similar safety profile to lansoprazole.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Control, Noninferiority, Multicenter, Phase 4 Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Esomeprazole/Sodium Bicarbonate 20/800 mg in Patients with Nonerosive Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

Background/Aims: Efficacy of proton pump inhibitors is limited in patients with nonerosive reflux disease (NERD). The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the efficacy and safety of esomeprazole with sodium bicarbonate and esomeprazole alone. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, noninferiority comparative study. A total of 379 patients with NERD were randomly allocated to receive either EsoduoⓇ (esomeprazole 20 mg with sodium bicarbonate 800 mg) or NexiumⓇ (esomeprazole 20 mg) once daily for 4 weeks from January 2019 to December 2019. The patients had a history of heartburn for at least 2 days in the week before randomization as well as in the last 3 months and no esophageal mucosal breaks on endoscopy. The primary endpoint was a complete cure of heartburn at week 4. The secondary and exploratory endpoints as well as the safety profiles were compared in the groups at weeks 2 and 4. Results: A total of 355 patients completed the study (180 in the EsoduoⓇ group and 175 in the NexiumⓇ group). The proportions of patients without heartburn in the entire 4th week of treatment were not different between the two groups (33.33% in the EsoduoⓇ group and 35% in the NexiumⓇ group, p=0.737). There were no significant differences in most of the secondary and exploratory endpoints as well as the safety profiles. Conclusions: EsoduoⓇ is as effective and safe as NexiumⓇ for managing typical symptoms in patients with NERD (ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT03928470).

Randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fexuprazan compared with esomeprazole in erosive esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, reversibly suppresses the K+/H+-ATPase enzyme in proton pumps within gastric parietal cells. Fexuprazan's suppression of gastric acid was maintained in healthy individuals for 24 h in a dose-dependent manner. AIM: To compare fexuprazan to esomeprazole and establish its efficacy and safety in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE). METHODS: Korean adult patients with endoscopically confirmed EE were randomized 1:1 to receive fexuprazan 40 mg or esomeprazole 40 mg once daily for eight weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with healed EE confirmed by endoscopy at week 8. The secondary endpoints included the healing rate of EE at week 4, symptom response, and quality of life assessment. Safety profiles and serum gastrin levels were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Of the 263 randomized, 218 completed the study per protocol (fexuprazan 40 mg, n = 107; esomeprazole 40 mg, n = 111). Fexuprazan was non-inferior to esomeprazole regarding the healing rate at week 8 [99.1% (106/107) vs 99.1% (110/111)]. There were no between-group differences in the EE healing rate at week 4 [90.3% (93/103) vs 88.5% (92/104)], symptom responses, and quality of life assessments. Additionally, serum gastrin levels at weeks 4 and 8 and drug-related side effects did not significantly differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Fexuprazan 40 mg is non-inferior to esomeprazole 40 mg in EE healing at week 8. We suggest that fexuprazan is an alternative promising treatment option to PPIs for patients with EE.

Metalloendopeptidase ADAM-like Decysin 1 (ADAMDEC1) in Colonic Subepithelial PDGFRα+ Cells Is a New Marker for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Metalloendopeptidase ADAM-Like Decysin 1 (ADAMDEC1) is an anti-inflammatory peptidase that is almost exclusively expressed in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. We have recently found abundant and selective expression of Adamdec1 in colonic mucosal PDGFRα+ cells. However, the cellular origin for this gene expression is controversial as it is also known to be expressed in intestinal macrophages. We found that Adamdec1 mRNAs were selectively expressed in colonic mucosal subepithelial PDGFRα+ cells. ADAMDEC1 protein was mainly released from PDGFRα+ cells and accumulated in the mucosal layer lamina propria space near the epithelial basement membrane. PDGFRα+ cells significantly overexpressed Adamdec1 mRNAs and protein in DSS-induced colitis mice. Adamdec1 was predominantly expressed in CD45- PDGFRα+ cells in DSS-induced colitis mice, with only minimal expression in CD45+ CD64+ macrophages. Additionally, overexpression of both ADAMDEC1 mRNA and protein was consistently observed in PDGFRα+ cells, but not in CD64+ macrophages found in human colonic mucosal tissue affected by Crohn's disease. In summary, PDGFRα+ cells selectively express ADAMDEC1, which is localized to the colon mucosa layer. ADAMDEC1 expression significantly increases in DSS-induced colitis affected mice and Crohn's disease affected human tissue, suggesting that this gene can serve as a diagnostic and/or therapeutic target for intestinal inflammation and Crohn's disease.

Psychological Characteristics and Quality of Life of Patients with Upper and Lower Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders.

Background: This study aimed to identify the differences in the psychological characteristics of the anatomical location of functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) and the factors that influence the quality of life (QOL). Methods: Altogether, 233 patients with FGIDs were classified into the upper gastrointestinal disorder (UGID; n = 175) group and the lower gastrointestinal disorder group (LGID; n = 58). Psychological characteristics and QOL were evaluated using the validated questionnaires. Results: The LGID group demonstrated higher scores in 'emotional depression' than the UGID group in depressive symptoms (t = −3.031, p < 0.01). A significant difference was observed between groups in 'significant others' in social supports (t = 2.254, p < 0.05). Significant differences were observed between the groups in hardiness (t = 2.259, p < 0.05) and persistence (t = 2.526, p < 0.05) in resilience, while the LGID group demonstrated significantly lower scores than the UGID group in 'negative affectivity' in type-D personality (t = −1.997, p < 0.05). Additionally, the LGID group demonstrated lower QOL than the UGID group (t = 2.615, p < 0.05). The stepwise regression analysis on QOL involved depression, resilience, social support, and childhood trauma, which accounted for 48.4% of the total QOL explanatory variance. Conclusions: Psychological characteristics and QOL significantly differed when FGIDs were classified according to anatomical location. Thus, psychological interventions customized for each type of FGIDs may be necessary for effective treatment.

2020 Seoul Consensus on the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition in which gastric contents regurgitate into the esophagus or beyond, resulting in either troublesome symptoms or complications. GERD is heterogeneous in terms of varied manifestations, test findings, and treatment responsiveness. GERD diagnosis can be established with symptomatology, pathology, or physiology. Recently the Lyon consensus defined the "proven GERD" with concrete evidence for reflux, including advanced grade erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles classification grades C and or D esophagitis), long-segment Barrett's mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal esophageal acid exposure time > 6% on 24-hour ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring. However, some Asian researchers have different opinions on whether the same standards should be applied to the Asian population. The prevalence of GERD is increasing in Asia. The present evidence-based guidelines were developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. In GERD with typical symptoms, a proton pump inhibitor test can be recommended as a sensitive, cost-effective, and practical test for GERD diagnosis. Based on a meta-analysis of 19 estimated acid-exposure time values in Asians, the reference range upper limit for esophageal acid exposure time was 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.7-3.9%) in the Asian countries. Esophageal manometry and novel impedance measurements, including mucosal impedance and a post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave, are promising in discrimination of GERD among different reflux phenotypes, thus increasing its diagnostic yield. We also propose a long-term strategy of evidence-based GERD treatment with proton pump inhibitors and other drugs.

Randomised clinical trial: comparison of tegoprazan and placebo in non-erosive reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Tegoprazan is a novel, fast- and long-acting potassium-competitive acid blocker that suppresses gastric acid secretion, which could benefit patients with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), a type of gastroesophageal reflux disease. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of tegoprazan compared with those of a placebo in Korean patients with NERD. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study, 324 Korean patients with NERD were randomised into three treatment groups: tegoprazan 50 mg, tegoprazan 100 mg and placebo. These drugs were provided once daily for 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete resolution of major symptoms (both heartburn and regurgitation) for the last 7 days of the 4-week treatment period. Other outcomes related to efficacy, safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS: Among all, 42.5% (45/106), 48.5% (48/99) and 24.2% (24/99) of patients showed complete resolution of major symptoms at week 4 after receiving tegoprazan 50 mg, tegoprazan 100 mg, and placebo, respectively. Both doses of tegoprazan showed superior efficacy than the placebo (P = 0.0058 and P = 0.0004, respectively). The complete resolution rates of heartburn and proportions of heartburn-free days (as other efficacy outcomes) were significantly higher in both tegoprazan groups than in the placebo group (P < 0.05 for all). No significant difference in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Tegoprazan 50 and 100 mg showed superior therapeutic efficacy compared with the placebo, as well as a favourable safety profile in patients with NERD. Registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02556021.

Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of a Controlled-release, Once-daily UIC201609/UIC201610 Combination Therapy for Functional Dyspepsia: Preliminary Study.

Backgrounds/Aims: Functional dyspepsia is a disease involving a range of upper gastrointestinal symptoms derived from various pathophysiologies. Tablets containing a combination of rabeprazole and controlled-release (CR) mosapride were recently developed. To investigate a more effective treatment, this trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of UIC201609/UIC201610 as a preliminary study. Methods: A multicenter, double-blind, randomized study was performed on 30 subjects. UIC201609/UIC201610 (combination of rabeprazole and CR mosapride) was the case group, and the two control groups were rabeprazole 10 mg once a day and mosapride 15 mg CR tablet once a day. As a primary efficacy endpoint of the study, the changes in the total score of eight items of the Nepean Dyspepsia Index-Korean version were analyzed at 2 weeks and 4 weeks. The outcomes regarding safety were collected. Results: The total symptom score of Nepean Dyspepsia Index-Korean decreased in the rabeprazole single group (29.4±17.1), mosapride CR single group (33.4±15.6), and UIC201609/UIC201610 group (33.4±11.8) at 4 weeks without significant differences. On the other hand, the UIC201609/UIC201610 combination group showed more score reduction of pain in the upper abdomen, burning in the upper abdomen compared to each control group, but it did not reach statistical significance. No difference was found in safety analysis. Conclusions: UIC201609/UIC201610 once daily showed some improvement in epigastric pain and dyspepsia in patients with functional dyspepsia, but there was no significance. Further study based on the advanced clinical trial design will be needed to confirm the efficacy of UIC201609/UIC201610 combination therapy in the future.

Gender difference in the overlap of irritable bowel syndrome and functional dyspepsia: a prospective nationwide multicenter study in Korea.

BACKGROUND: The overlap between functional dyspepsia (FD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is associated with more severe gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and lower quality of life. However, the gender differences in FD-IBS overlap remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the gender differences in patients with FD-IBS overlap. METHODS: Controls and cases were prospectively enrolled from July 2019 to June 2020 at nine tertiary referral centers. The patients underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and their symptoms were evaluated using a questionnaire including GI symptom-related items and the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS). FD and IBS were diagnosed according to the Rome IV criteria, and the clinical characteristics of the FD-IBS overlap group were compared with those of the FD-only or IBS-only group. RESULTS: Among 667 subjects (334 healthy controls, 168 with FD-only, 37 with IBS-only, 128 with FD-IBS overlap), the FD-IBS overlap group (19.2%) showed a higher rate of preference for dairy products, a higher rate of history of Helicobacter pylori eradication, and higher HADS scores than the non-overlap group (P < 0.05). In the FD-IBS overlap group, men complained of reflux symptom and loose/watery stools more than women (P < 0.05), whereas women showed more severe GI symptoms, especially epigastric pain/burning symptoms, and higher depression scores than men (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: FD-IBS overlap patients are associated with severe upper GI symptoms and depression compared to non-overlap patients. Moreover, women with FD-IBS overlap experience more severe GI and depression symptoms than men.

Worldwide Prevalence and Burden of Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders, Results of Rome Foundation Global Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs), now called disorders of gut-brain interaction, have major economic effects on health care systems and adversely affect quality of life, little is known about their global prevalence and distribution. We investigated the prevalence of and factors associated with 22 FGIDs, in 33 countries on 6 continents. METHODS: Data were collected via the Internet in 24 countries, personal interviews in 7 countries, and both in 2 countries, using the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire, Rome III irritable bowel syndrome questions, and 80 items to identify variables associated with FGIDs. Data collection methods differed for Internet and household groups, so data analyses were conducted and reported separately. RESULTS: Among the 73,076 adult respondents (49.5% women), diagnostic criteria were met for at least 1 FGID by 40.3% persons who completed the Internet surveys (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.9-40.7) and 20.7% of persons who completed the household surveys (95% CI, 20.2-21.3). FGIDs were more prevalent among women than men, based on responses to the Internet survey (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.6-1.7) and household survey (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4). FGIDs were associated with lower quality of life and more frequent doctor visits. Proportions of subjects with irritable bowel syndrome were lower when the Rome IV criteria were used, compared with the Rome III criteria, in the Internet survey (4.1% vs 10.1%) and household survey (1.5% vs 3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In a large-scale multinational study, we found that more than 40% of persons worldwide have FGIDs, which affect quality of life and health care use. Although the absolute prevalence was higher among Internet respondents, similar trends and relative distributions were found in people who completed Internet vs personal interviews.

Efficacy and Safety of DWJ1252 Compared With Gasmotin in the Treatment of Functional Dyspepsia: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Active-controlled Study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Prokinetics such as mosapride citrate CR (conventional-release; Gasmotin) are commonly used in functional dyspepsia (FD). This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-a-day mosapride citrate SR (DWJ1252), a sustained-release formulation of mosapride citrate, compared with mosapride citrate CR 3 times a day, in patients with FD. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study, 119 patients with FD (by the Rome III criteria, 60 for mosapride citrate SR and 59 for mosapride citrate CR) were randomly allocated to mosapride citrate SR once daily or mosapride citrate CR thrice daily for 4 weeks in 16 medical institutions. Primary end point was the change in gastrointestinal symptom (GIS) score from baseline, assessed by GIS questionnaires on 5-point Likert scale after 4-week treatment. Secondary end points and safety profiles were also analyzed. RESULTS: The study included 51 and 49 subjects in the mosapride citrate SR and mosapride citrate CR groups, respectively. GIS scores at week 4 were significantly reduced in both groups (mean ± SD: -10.04 ± 4.45 and -10.86 ± 5.53 in the mosapride citrate SR and mosapride citrate CR groups, respectively; P < 0.001), and the GIS changes from baseline did not differ between the 2 groups (difference, 0.82 point; 95% CI, -1.17, 2.81; P = 0.643). Changes in GIS at weeks 2 and 4 and quality of life at week 4, and the improvement rates of global assessments at weeks 2 and 4, did not differ between the groups. Adverse events were similar in the 2 groups, and there were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: In patients with FD, mosapride citrate SR once daily is as effective as mosapride citrate CR thrice daily, with a similar safety profile.