Efficacy and safety of sodium zirconium cyclosilicate for hyperkalaemia: the randomized, placebo-controlled HARMONIZE-Global study.

AIMS: Sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC, formerly ZS-9) is a selective K+ binder to treat adults with hyperkalaemia. HARMONIZE-Global examined the efficacy and safety of SZC among outpatients with hyperkalaemia from diverse geographic and ethnic origins. METHODS AND RESULTS: This phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study recruited outpatients with serum K+ ≥5.1 mmol/L (measured by point-of-care i-STAT device) at 45 sites in Japan, Russia, South Korea, and Taiwan. Following open-label treatment with thrice-daily SZC 10 g during a 48 h correction phase (CP), patients achieving normokalaemia (K+ 3.5-5.0 mmol/L) were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily SZC 5 g, SZC 10 g, or placebo during a 28 day maintenance phase (MP). The primary endpoint was mean central-laboratory K+ level during days 8-29 of the MP. Of 267 patients in the CP, 248 (92.9%) entered the MP. During the CP, mean central-laboratory K+ was reduced by 1.28 mmol/L at 48 h vs. baseline (P < 0.001). During the MP (days 8-29), SZC 5 and 10 g once-daily significantly lowered mean central-laboratory K+ by 9.6% and 17.7%, respectively, vs. placebo (P < 0.001 for both). More patients had normokalaemia (central-laboratory K+ 3.5-5.0 mmol/L at day 29) with SZC 5 (58.6%) and 10 g (77.3%) vs. placebo (24.0%), with the greatest number of normokalaemic days in the 10-g group. The most common adverse events with SZC were mild or moderate constipation and oedema. CONCLUSIONS: Normokalaemia achieved during the CP was maintained over 28 days with SZC treatment among outpatients with hyperkalaemia.

Enteric-coated budesonide for the induction and maintenance of remission of Crohn's disease in children.

OBJECTIVE: These studies evaluated the safety and efficacy of enteric-coated budesonide for the induction and maintenance of remission of mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease (CD) in children. METHODS: The consecutive, multicenter, open-label, non-comparative studies enrolled patients aged 6-17 years. In the induction study, patients with active CD of the ileum and/or ascending colon received budesonide 9 mg or 6 mg once daily for 8 weeks; in the maintenance study, patients in remission received budesonide 6 mg once daily for 12 weeks. The primary objective was assessment of safety, including glucocorticosteroid-related side effects and serum cortisol levels. Efficacy was assessed using the Pediatric Crohn's Disease Activity Index (PCDAI), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using the IMPACT-III questionnaire. RESULTS: In the induction study (n = 108), most adverse events were related to CD, commonly abdominal pain; possible glucocorticosteroid-related effects included acne and increased appetite but without significant weight gain. Subnormal morning cortisol levels were observed in 32 of 103 patients after 8 weeks. Budesonide reduced disease activity from baseline (mean ± standard deviation, 9.1 ± 8.5 vs. 19.1 ± 10.1, p < .001) with 58.1% of patients reaching remission (PCDAI <10); HRQoL improved (p < .001). In the maintenance study (n = 50), mean disease activity worsened (p = .047) with HRQoL unchanged (p = .33). CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide treatment was generally well tolerated, although the potential for adrenal suppression was noted. Budesonide was effective for induction of remission in children with mild-to-moderate CD but not for maintaining remission (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01444092, NCT01453946).

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.

Randomized, multicenter study: on-demand versus continuous maintenance treatment with esomeprazole in patients with non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease experience symptomatic relapse after stopping acid-suppressive medication. The aim of this study was to compare willingness to continue treatment with esomeprazole on-demand versus continuous maintenance therapy for symptom control in patients with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) after 6 months. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group study enrolled adults with NERD who were heartburn-free after 4 weeks' treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg daily. Patients received esomeprazole 20 mg daily continuously or on-demand for 6 months. The primary variable was discontinuation due to unsatisfactory treatment. On-demand treatment was considered non-inferior if the upper limit of the one-sided 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatments was <10 %. RESULTS: Of 877 patients enrolled, 598 were randomized to maintenance treatment (continuous: n = 297; on-demand: n = 301). Discontinuation due to unsatisfactory treatment was 6.3 % for on-demand and 9.8 % for continuous treatment (difference -3.5 % [90 % CI: -7.1 %, 0.2 %]). In total, 82.1 and 86.2 % of patients taking on-demand and continuous therapy, respectively, were satisfied with the treatment of heartburn and regurgitation symptoms, a secondary variable (P = NS). Mean study drug consumption was 0.41 and 0.91 tablets/day, respectively. Overall, 5 % of the on-demand group developed reflux esophagitis versus none in the continuous group (P < 0.0001). The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale Reflux dimension was also improved for continuous versus on-demand treatment. Esomeprazole was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of willingness to continue treatment, on-demand treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg was non-inferior to continuous maintenance treatment and reduced medication usage in patients with NERD who had achieved symptom control with initial esomeprazole treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02670642 ; Date of registration: December 2015.

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).

Intravenous Esomeprazole for Prevention of Peptic Ulcer Rebleeding: A Randomized Trial in Chinese Patients.

INTRODUCTION: High-dose intravenous esomeprazole is the only approved pharmacological treatment for the prevention of peptic ulcer rebleeding (currently approved in over 100 countries worldwide), but has not yet been approved in China. This study aimed to evaluate a high-dose esomeprazole intravenous regimen vs. an active control (cimetidine) for the prevention of rebleeding in Chinese patients with a high risk of peptic ulcer rebleeding who had undergone primary endoscopic hemostatic treatment. METHODS: This was a parallel-group study conducted at 20 centers in China. The study comprised a randomized, double-blind, intravenous treatment phase of 72 h in which 215 patients received either high-dose esomeprazole (80 mg + 8 mg/h) or cimetidine (200 mg + 60 mg/h), followed by an open-label oral treatment phase in which all patients received esomeprazole 40 mg tablets once daily for 27 days. The primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant rebleeding within the first 72 h after initial endoscopic hemostatic therapy. Secondary outcomes included the rates of clinically significant rebleeding within 7 and 30 days; proportions of patients who had endoscopic retreatment and other surgery due to rebleeding; and number of blood units transfused. RESULTS: The rate of clinically significant rebleeding within 72 h was low overall (3.3%) and numerically lower in patients treated with esomeprazole compared with cimetidine (0.9% vs. 5.6%). Overall, the results of the secondary outcomes also showed a numerical trend towards superiority of esomeprazole over cimetidine. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In this phase 3, multicenter, randomized trial conducted in China, esomeprazole showed a numerical trend towards superior clinical benefit over cimetidine in the prevention of rebleeding in patients who had successfully undergone initial hemostatic therapy of a bleeding peptic ulcer, with a similar safety and tolerability profile. These findings suggest that esomeprazole may be an alternative treatment option to cimetidine for this indication in China. FUNDING: AstraZeneca. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01757275.

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.

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.

Twelve-month endoscopic and histological analysis following proton-pump inhibitor-based triple therapy in Helicobacter pylori-positive patients with gastric ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate endoscopic and histological findings after Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy in gastric ulcer (GU) patients after 12 months' follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 401 GU patients were randomized to receive either twice-daily (b.i.d.) esomeprazole 20 mg+amoxicillin 1000 mg+clarithromycin 500 mg (EAC) for 1 week followed by placebo for 3 weeks, EAC followed by once-daily (o.d.) esomeprazole 20 mg for 3 weeks or esomeprazole 20 mg b.i.d. plus placebo antibiotics for 1 week followed by esomeprazole 20 mg o.d. for 3 weeks. Endoscopy with biopsy was performed at baseline, after treatment and at 6 and 12 months' follow-up (healed patients). RESULTS: Endoscopic abnormalities, particularly in the stomach, were common at baseline and remained similar during follow-up, regardless of ulcer status and treatment. Helicobacter gastritis was present (antrum or corpus) in approximately 20% of patients following eradication therapy (versus approximately 80% with esomeprazole alone); these effects were sustained during follow-up. Similar trends were observed for other histological variables (granulocyte and lymphoplasmocytic cell infiltration, replacement of gastric surface cells by regenerative epithelium, and mucous depletion). No changes in atrophy or intestinal metaplasia were observed. Eighteen gastric cancer cases were detected: 11 at baseline endoscopy, and seven during treatment and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic abnormalities are common in GU patients and persist after proton-pump inhibitor-based triple therapy for H. pylori eradication, which is associated with large, sustained improvements in histological variables. Follow-up endoscopy and histology may be necessary, even in patients with apparently non-malignant GU, to improve the detection rate of gastric malignancy in populations with a high prevalence of gastric cancer.

Effect of esomeprazole triple therapy on eradication rates of Helicobacter pylori, gastric ulcer healing and prevention of relapse in gastric ulcer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare esomeprazole-based triple therapy with esomeprazole alone for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), healing of ulcer and prevention of relapse in H. pylori-related gastric ulcer (GU) diseases. METHODS: In this double-blind study, 401 H. pylori-positive patients with more than or equal to two GUs were randomized to: esomeprazole (20 mg) twice daily (bid) and amoxicillin (1000 mg) bid and clarithromycin (500 mg) bid (EAC) for 1 week, followed by placebo for 3 weeks (EAC and placebo); EAC for 1 week, followed by esomeprazole (20 mg) once daily (E20) for 3 weeks (EAC and E20); or esomeprazole (20 mg) bid and placebo antimicrobials for 1 week, followed by E20 for 3 weeks (E20 bid and E20). Patients with unhealed GUs at 4 weeks received E20 for an additional 4 weeks. Healed patients were followed up for 12 months. RESULTS: Eradication rates at 4 weeks or 8 weeks were 82% for EAC and E20, 77% for EAC and placebo and 9.5% for E20 bid and E20 (intention-to-treat analysis). Significantly more patients receiving EAC than those receiving esomeprazole alone remained free of GUs during follow-up [EAC and E20, 90%; EAC and placebo, 87%; P=0.0005 for combined group vs. esomeprazole alone [E20 bid and E20 (74%)]. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Esomeprazole-based triple therapy is effective for the eradication of H. pylori, healing of GU and prevention of relapse. Esomeprazole monotherapy for 3 weeks after triple therapy may be beneficial in terms of healing.

Standardization of surgical technique in antireflux surgery: the LOTUS Trial experience.

BACKGROUND: To date, it has been difficult to compare medical therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease with that of surgical management from a scientific viewpoint, mainly because of the lack of standardization of the operative technique. This study was designed to identify a methodology for standardization of surgical technique and to measure the effectiveness of this standardization. METHODS: Surgeons contributing to a major international multicenter trial comparing optimum medical therapy with surgical therapy for treatment of gastroesophageal reflux attempted to optimize their surgical techniques so that a realistic comparison could be made that may aid clinical decision-making. The surgeons met, shared their techniques using video, and produced a standardized set of criteria for the surgical centers and a common operative technique. Data collection methods ensured accuracy of the records of the procedure applied and the data were analyzed for consistency with set surgical standards. RESULTS: There was a high degree of conformity (>95%) between the recommended method of performing a Nissen fundoplication as defined in the trial protocol, and variations were restricted to isolated individuals. The operations were completed without mortality, few conversions, and with very low postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that, contrary to commonly held belief, surgeons are able to standardize their work for the purposes of measuring the outcome of an operative procedure within the context of a randomized, controlled trial.

Esophageal stricture: incidence, treatment patterns, and recurrence rate.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the incidence, natural history, and recurrence rate of esophageal stricture diagnosed in primary care. METHODS: From the U.K. General Practice Research Database, we identified patients with a stricture diagnosis recorded between 1994 and 2000. Diagnoses were confirmed by general practitioner-completed questionnaires. Patients with stricture were compared to an age- and sex-matched sample of controls from the original source population. We estimated the incidence of stricture, potential risk factors, and comorbidities, and relative risk (RR) for subsequent stricture recurrence and mortality. RESULTS: The incidence of esophageal stricture was 1.1 per 10,000 person-years and increased markedly with age. Incidence of stricture decreased from 1994 to 2000, concomitant with a substantial increase in proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use. The majority of stricture cases (68%) were peptic. Prior dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), hiatus hernia, peptic ulcer disease, and heavy alcohol use were associated with an increased risk of stricture. The rate of stricture recurrence was 11.1 per 100 person-years. Risk of recurrence associated with long-term PPI use adjusting for other factors was 0.6 (95% CI 0.3-1.1). Mortality in patients with peptic stricture was similar to that in the control population. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal stricture is a rare event, and most cases in primary care are peptic strictures. Prior GERD, hiatus hernia, and peptic ulcer are associated with an increased risk of peptic stricture. Incidence of stricture decreased from 1994 to 2000.