RESUMEN
Background: Non-cardiac chest pain is common with two-thirds due to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of guided vs. empirical therapy in non-cardiac chest pain. Methods: Adults with normal angiogram or stress test were randomized into either a guided or empirical group. In the guided group, after the ambulatory pH-impedance test, if GERD then dexlansoprazole 30 mg/day for 8 weeks, but if functional or hypersensitive chest pain, then theophylline SR 250 mg/day for 4 weeks. In the empirical group, dexlansoprazole 60 mg/day was given for 2 weeks. The primary outcome was global chest pain visual analog score (VAS) and secondary outcomes were Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD), GERD questionnaire (GERDQ), and pH parameters, all determined at baseline, 2nd and 8th weeks. Results: Of 200 screened patients, 132 were excluded, and of 68 randomized per-protocol, 33 were in the guided group and 35 in the empirical group. For between-group analysis, mean global pain scores were better with guided vs. empirical group at 8th week (P = 0.005) but not GERDQ or QOLRAD or any of pH measures (all P > 0.05). For within-group analysis, mean QOLRAD improved earliest at 8th week vs. baseline (P = 0.006) in the guided group and 2nd week vs. baseline (P = 0.011) in the empirical group but no differences were seen in other secondary outcomes (P > 0.05). No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Guided approach may be preferred over short-term empirical therapy in symptom response, however QOLRAD, acid-related symptoms, or pH measures are not significantly different (trial registration ID no. NCT03319121).
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Late-night supper increases the risk of postprandial reflux from the acid pocket especially in obesity. An alginate-based, raft-forming medication may be useful for obese patients with GERD. AIMS: To compare the efficacy of Gaviscon Advance (Reckitt Benckiser, UK) and a non-alginate antacid in post-supper suppression of the acid pocket and post-prandial reflux among obese participants. METHODS: Participants underwent 48 h wireless and probe-based pH-metry recording of the acid pocket and lower oesophagus, respectively, and were randomised to single post-supper (10 pm) dose of either Gaviscon Advance or a non-alginate antacid on the second night. Primary outcomes were suppression of median pH of acid pocket and lower oesophagus, measured every 10-minutes post-supper for 1 h. Secondary outcomes were suppression of % time pH < 4 at lower oesophagus and improvement in frequency and visual analogue score (VAS) of regurgitation. RESULTS: Of the 81 screened participants, 55 were excluded and 26 (mean age 33.5 years, males 77.8% and BMI 32.8 kg/m2 ) were randomised to Gaviscon Advance (n = 13) or antacid (n = 13). Median pH of the acid pocket but not the lower oesophagus was suppressed with Gaviscon Advance vs antacid (all P < 0.04) Gaviscon Advance but not antacid significantly reduced in % time pH < 4, symptom frequency and VAS on day 2 vs day 1 (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among obese individuals, Gaviscon Advance was superior to a non-alginate antacid in post-supper suppression of the acid pocket. (Clinical trial registration unique identifier: NCT03516188).
