AGA Clinical Practice Update on Integrating Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers Into Clinical Practice: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update (CPU) is to summarize the available evidence and offer expert Best Practice Advice on the integration of potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) in the clinical management of foregut disorders, specifically including gastroesophageal reflux disease, Helicobacter pylori infection, and peptic ulcer disease. METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Governing Board and CPU Committee to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership. This CPU expert review underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through the standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were developed based on review of the published literature and expert consensus opinion. Because formal systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Based on nonclinical factors (including cost, greater obstacles to obtaining medication, and fewer long-term safety data), clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as initial therapy for acid-related conditions in which clinical superiority has not been shown. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Based on current costs in the United States, even modest clinical superiority of P-CABs over double-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may not make P-CABs cost-effective as first-line therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as first-line therapy for patients with uninvestigated heartburn symptoms or nonerosive reflux disease. Clinicians may use P-CABs in selected patients with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Although there is currently insufficient evidence for clinicians to use P-CABs as first-line on-demand therapy for patients with heartburn symptoms who have previously responded to antisecretory therapy, their rapid onset of acid inhibition raises the possibility of their utility in this population. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as first-line therapy in patients with milder erosive esophagitis (EE) (Los Angeles classification of erosive esophagitis grade A/B EE). Clinicians may use P-CABs in selected patients with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Clinicians may use P-CABs as a therapeutic option for the healing and maintenance of healing in patients with more severe EE (Los Angeles classification of erosive esophagitis grade C/D EE). However, given the markedly higher costs of the P-CAB presently available in the United States and the lack of randomized comparisons with double-dose PPIs, it is not clear that the benefits in endoscopic outcomes over standard-dose PPIs justify the routine use of P-CABs as first-line therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Clinicians should use P-CABs in place of PPIs in eradication regimens for most patients with H pylori infection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as first-line therapy in the treatment or prophylaxis of peptic ulcer disease. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Although there is currently insufficient evidence for clinicians to use P-CABs as first-line therapy in patients with bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers and high-risk stigmata, their rapid and potent acid inhibition raises the possibility of their utility in this population.

Detection of Gastrointestinal Bleeding with Large Language Models to Aid Quality Improvement and Appropriate Reimbursement.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Early identification and accurate characterization of overt gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) enables opportunities to optimize patient management and ensures appropriately risk-adjusted coding for claims-based quality measures and reimbursement. Recent advancements in generative artificial intelligence, particularly large language models (LLMs), create opportunities to support accurate identification of clinical conditions. In this study, we present the first LLM-based pipeline for identification of overt GIB in the electronic health record (EHR). We demonstrate two clinically relevant applications: the automated detection of recurrent bleeding and appropriate reimbursement coding for patients with GIB. METHODS: Development of the LLM-based pipeline was performed on 17,712 nursing notes from 1,108 patients who were hospitalized with acute GIB and underwent endoscopy in hospital from 2014 to 2023. The pipeline was used to train an EHR-based machine learning model for detection of recurrent bleeding on 546 patients presenting to two hospitals and externally validated on 562 patients presenting to four separate hospitals. The pipeline was used to develop an algorithm for appropriate reimbursement coding on 7,956 patients who underwent endoscopy in hospital from 2019 to 2023. RESULTS: The LLM-based pipeline accurately detected melena (positive predictive value=0.972; sensitivity=0.900), hematochezia (0.900; 0.908), and hematemesis (0.859; 0.932). The EHR-based machine learning model identified recurrent bleeding with AUC=0.986, sensitivity=98.4%, and specificity=97.5%. The reimbursement coding algorithm resulted in an average per-patient reimbursement increase of $1,299 to 3,247 with a total difference of $697,460 to $1,743,649. CONCLUSION: An LLM-based pipeline can robustly detect overt GIB in the EHR with clinically relevant applications in detection of recurrent bleeding and appropriate reimbursement coding.

Validation of an Electronic Health Record-Based Machine Learning Model Compared With Clinical Risk Scores for Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines recommend use of risk stratification scores for patients presenting with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) to identify very-low-risk patients eligible for discharge from emergency departments. Machine learning models may outperform existing scores and can be integrated within the electronic health record (EHR) to provide real-time risk assessment without manual data entry. We present the first EHR-based machine learning model for GIB. METHODS: The training cohort comprised 2546 patients and internal validation of 850 patients presenting with overt GIB (ie, hematemesis, melena, and hematochezia) to emergency departments of 2 hospitals from 2014 to 2019. External validation was performed on 926 patients presenting to a different hospital with the same EHR from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome was a composite of red blood cell transfusion, hemostatic intervention (ie, endoscopic, interventional radiologic, or surgical), and 30-day all-cause mortality. We used structured data fields in the EHR, available within 4 hours of presentation, and compared the performance of machine learning models with current guideline-recommended risk scores, Glasgow-Blatchford Score, and Oakland Score. Primary analysis was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Secondary analysis was specificity at 99% sensitivity to assess the proportion of patients correctly identified as very low risk. RESULTS: The machine learning model outperformed the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.92 vs 0.89; P < .001) and Oakland Score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.92 vs 0.89; P < .001). At the very-low-risk threshold of 99% sensitivity, the machine learning model identified more very-low-risk patients: 37.9% vs 18.5% for Glasgow-Blatchford Score and 11.7% for Oakland Score (P < .001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: An EHR-based machine learning model performs better than currently recommended clinical risk scores and identifies more very-low-risk patients eligible for discharge from the emergency department.

Comparison of Los Angeles Grades of Erosive Esophagitis Scored by Local Investigators vs Central Adjudicators in a Clinical Trial.

Approximately 30% of patients with typical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms have endoscopic evidence of erosive esophagitis (EE).1 The severity of EE is commonly graded using the Los Angeles (LA) classification system as grade A (minimal) to D (very severe), depending on the extent of endoscopically visible mucosal breaks (Supplementary Figure 1).2 Accurate grading of EE severity is crucial in clinical trials of medical EE treatments, as EE severity strongly influences both initial rates of healing and the likelihood of recurrence during maintenance treatment.3,4 Almost all EE treatment studies have relied exclusively on local investigators' grading of EE severity to determine study eligibility and response to treatment. Those few studies that included central adjudication did not assess the reliability of grading by local investigators.5 Unlike typical studies of EE treatment, the phase III clinical trial of vonoprazan versus lansoprazole for the treatment of EE (NCT04124926) mandated central adjudication of endoscopic grading for study participation.6 The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the rate of agreement between local investigators and central adjudicators for EE grading during screening for entrance into that clinical trial.

Vonoprazan is Efficacious for Treatment of Heartburn in Non-erosive Reflux Disease: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Potassium-competitive acid blockers have documented efficacy for erosive esophagitis. We performed a randomized trial in United States subjects diagnosed with non-erosive reflux disease of vonoprazan vs placebo for 4 weeks, followed by a 20-week active-treatment extension. METHODS: Adult subjects with heartburn ≥4 days/week during screening without erosive esophagitis on endoscopy were randomized to placebo, vonoprazan 10 mg, or vonoprazan 20 mg. After 4 weeks, subjects on placebo were re-randomized to vonoprazan 10 mg or 20 mg, and those already on vonoprazan continued at the same dose for 20 weeks. Electronic diaries were completed twice daily. The primary endpoint was percentage of days without daytime or nighttime heartburn (24-hour heartburn-free days). RESULTS: Among 772 randomized subjects, the percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days was 27.7% for placebo vs 44.8% for vonoprazan 10 mg (least squares mean difference, 17.1%; P < .0001) and 44.4% for vonoprazan 20 mg (least squares mean difference, 16.7%; P < .0001). Differences in percentage of subjects with a 24-hour heartburn-free day for vonoprazan 10 mg vs placebo and vonoprazan 20 mg vs placebo were 8.3% and 11.6% on day 1 and 18.1% and 23.2% on day 2. The mean/median percentages of 24-hour heartburn-free days over the extension period were similar across the 4 study arms: 61%-63%/76%-79%. CONCLUSIONS: Vonoprazan reduced heartburn symptoms in subjects diagnosed with non-erosive reflux disease, with the benefit appearing to begin as early as the first day of therapy. Treatment effect persisted after the initial 4-week placebo-controlled period throughout the 20-week extension period. The 2 vonoprazan doses (10 mg and 20 mg) were similar in efficacy. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05195528).

Impact of large scale, multicomponent intervention to reduce proton pump inhibitor overuse in integrated healthcare system: difference-in-difference study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how a large scale, multicomponent, pharmacy based intervention to reduce proton pump inhibitor (PPI) overuse affected prescribing patterns, healthcare utilization, and clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Difference-in-difference study. SETTING: US Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, in which one regional network implemented the overuse intervention and all 17 others served as controls. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals receiving primary care from 2009 to 2019. INTERVENTION: Limits on PPI refills for patients without a documented indication for long term use, voiding of PPI prescriptions not recently filled, facilitated electronic prescribing of H2 receptor antagonists, and education for patients and clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who filled a PPI prescription per 6 months. Secondary outcomes included percentage of days PPI gastroprotection was prescribed in patients at high risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding, percentage of patients who filled either a PPI or H2 receptor antagonist prescription, hospital admission for acid peptic disease in older adults appropriate for PPI gastroprotection, primary care visits for an upper gastrointestinal diagnosis, upper endoscopies, and PPI associated clinical conditions. RESULTS: The number of patients analyzed per interval ranged from 192 607 to 250 349 in intervention sites and from 3 775 953 to 4 360 868 in control sites, with 26% of patients receiving PPIs before the intervention. The intervention was associated with an absolute reduction of 7.3% (95% confidence interval -7.6% to -7.0%) in patients who filled PPI prescriptions, an absolute reduction of 11.3% (-12.0% to -10.5%) in PPI use among patients appropriate for gastroprotection, and an absolute reduction of 5.72% (-6.08% to -5.36%) in patients who filled a PPI or H2 receptor antagonist prescription. No increases were seen in primary care visits for upper gastrointestinal diagnoses, upper endoscopies, or hospital admissions for acid peptic disease in older patients appropriate for gastroprotection. No clinically significant changes were seen in any PPI associated clinical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The multicomponent intervention was associated with reduced PPI use overall but also in patients appropriate for gastroprotection, with minimal evidence of either clinical benefits or harms.

Review article: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding - review of current evidence and implications for management.

BACKGROUND: Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common emergency requiring hospital-based care. Advances in care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases have led to improvements in clinical outcomes. AIMS: To provide a detailed, evidence-based update on major aspects of care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases. METHODS: We performed a structured bibliographic database search for each topic. If a recent high-quality meta-analysis was not available, we performed a meta-analysis with random effects methods and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Pre-endoscopic management of UGIB includes risk stratification, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion policy unless the patient has cardiovascular disease, and pharmacologic therapy with erythromycin and a proton pump inhibitor. Patients with cirrhosis should be treated with prophylactic antibiotics and vasoactive medications. Tranexamic acid should not be used. Endoscopic management of UGIB depends on the aetiology. For peptic ulcer disease (PUD) with high-risk stigmata, endoscopic therapy, including over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and TC-325 powder spray, should be performed. For variceal bleeding, treatment should be customised by severity and anatomic location. Post-endoscopic management includes early enteral feeding for all UGIB patients. For high-risk PUD, PPI should be continued for 72 h, and rebleeding should initially be evaluated with a repeat endoscopy. For variceal bleeding, high-risk patients or those with further bleeding, a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt can be considered. CONCLUSIONS: Management of acute UGIB should include treatment plans for pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases of care, and customise treatment decisions based on aetiology and severity of bleeding.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on High-Quality Upper Endoscopy: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update (CPU) Expert Review is to provide clinicians with guidance on best practices for performing a high-quality upper endoscopic exam. METHODS: The best practice advice statements presented herein were developed from a combination of available evidence from published literature, guidelines, and consensus-based expert opinion. No formal rating of the strength or quality of the evidence was carried out, which aligns with standard processes for American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPUs. These statements are meant to provide practical, timely advice to clinicians practicing in the United States. This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates (CPU) Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopists should ensure that upper endoscopy is being performed for an appropriate indication and that informed consent clearly explaining the risks, benefits, alternatives, sedation plan, and potential diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is obtained. These elements should be documented by the endoscopist before the procedure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Endoscopists should ensure that adequate visualization of the upper gastrointestinal mucosa, using mucosal cleansing and insufflation as necessary, is achieved and documented. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: A high-definition white-light endoscopy system should be used for upper endoscopy instead of a standard-definition white-light endoscopy system whenever possible. The endoscope used for the procedure should be documented in the procedure note. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Image enhancement technologies should be used during the upper endoscopic examination to improve the diagnostic yield for preneoplasia and neoplasia. Suspicious areas should be clearly described, photodocumented, and biopsied separately. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Endoscopists should spend sufficient time carefully inspecting the foregut mucosa in an anterograde and retroflexed view to improve the detection and characterization of abnormalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Endoscopists should document any abnormalities noted on upper endoscopy using established classifications and standard terminology whenever possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Endoscopists should perform biopsies for the evaluation and management of foregut conditions using standardized biopsy protocols. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should provide patients with management recommendations based on the specific endoscopic findings (eg, peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis), and this should be documented in the medical record. If recommendations are contingent upon histopathology results (eg, H pylori infection, Barrett's esophagus), then endoscopists should document that appropriate guidance will be provided after results are available. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopists should document whether subsequent surveillance endoscopy is indicated and, if so, provide appropriate surveillance intervals. If the determination of surveillance is contingent on histopathology results, then endoscopists should document that surveillance intervals will be suggested after results are available.

Achieving Value by Risk Stratification With Machine Learning Model or Clinical Risk Score in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Cost Minimization Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We estimate the economic impact of applying risk assessment tools to identify very low-risk patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding who can be safely discharged from the emergency department using a cost minimization analysis. METHODS: We compare triage strategies (Glasgow-Blatchford score = 0/0-1 or validated machine learning model) with usual care using a Markov chain model from a US health care payer perspective. RESULTS: Over 5 years, the Glasgow-Blatchford score triage strategy produced national cumulative savings over usual care of more than $2.7 billion and the machine learning strategy of more than $3.4 billion. DISCUSSION: Implementing risk assessment models for upper gastrointestinal bleeding reduces costs, thereby increasing value.

Clinical predictive value of renalase in post-ERCP pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Plasma levels of renalase decrease in acute experimental pancreatitis. We aimed to determine if decreases in plasma renalase levels after ERCP predict the occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). METHODS: In this prospective cohort study conducted at a tertiary hospital, plasma renalase was determined before ERCP (baseline) and at 30 and 60 minutes after ERCP. Native renalase levels, acidified renalase, and native-to-acidified renalase proportions were analyzed over time using a longitudinal regression model. RESULTS: Among 273 patients, 31 developed PEP. Only 1 PEP patient had a baseline native renalase >6.0 µg/mL, whereas 38 of 242 without PEP had a native renalase > 6.0 µg/mL, indicating a sensitivity of 97% (30/31) and specificity of 16% (38/242) in predicting PEP. Longitudinal models did not show differences over time between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline native renalase levels are very sensitive for predicting PEP. Further studies are needed to determine the potential clinical role of renalase in predicting and preventing PEP.

Trends in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients on Primary Prevention Aspirin: A Nationwide Emergency Department Sample Analysis, 2016-2020.

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines do not recommend routine use of aspirin for primary cardiovascular prevention (ppASA) and suggest avoidance of ppASA in older individuals due to bleeding risk. However, ppASA is frequently taken without an appropriate indication. Estimates of the incidence of upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to ppASA in the United States are lacking. In this study, we provide national estimates of upper gastrointestinal bleeding incidence, characteristics, and costs in ppASA users from 2016-2020. METHODS: Primary cardiovascular prevention users (patients on long-term aspirin therapy without cardiovascular disease) presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding were identified in the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision codes. Trends in upper gastrointestinal bleeding incidence, etiology, severity, associated Medicare reimbursements, and the impact of ppASA on bleeding outcomes were assessed with regression models. RESULTS: From 2016-2020, adjusted incidence of upper gastrointestinal bleeding increased 29.2% among ppASA users, with larger increases for older patients (increase of 41.6% for age 65-74 years and 36.0% for age ≥75 years). The most common etiology among ppASA users was ulcer disease but increases in bleeding incidence due to angiodysplasias were observed. The proportion of hospitalizations with major complications or comorbidities increased 41.5%, and Medicare reimbursements increased 67.6%. Among patients without cardiovascular disease, ppASA was associated with increased odds of hospital admission, red blood cell transfusion, and endoscopic intervention as compared to no ppASA use. CONCLUSIONS: Considering recent guideline recommendations, the rising incidence, severity, and costs associated with upper gastrointestinal bleeding among patients on ppASA highlights the importance of careful assessment for appropriate ppASA use.

Plasma renalase levels are associated with the development of acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Severe acute pancreatitis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Identifying factors that affect the risk of developing severe disease could influence management. Plasma levels of renalase, an anti-inflammatory secretory protein, dramatically decrease in a murine acute pancreatitis model. We assessed this response in hospitalized acute pancreatitis patients to determine if reduced plasma renalase levels occur in humans. METHODS: Plasma samples were prospectively and sequentially collected from patients hospitalized for acute pancreatitis. Two forms of plasma renalase, native (no acid) and acidified, were measured by ELISA and RNLS levels were compared between healthy controls and patients with mild and severe disease (defined as APACHE-II score ≥7) using nonparametric statistical analysis. RESULTS: Control (33) and acute pancreatitis (mild, 230 (76.7%) and severe, 70 (23.3%) patients were studied. Acidified RNLS levels were lower in pancreatitis patients: Control: 10.1 µg/ml, Mild 5.1 µg/ml, Severe 6.0 µg/ml; p < 0.001. Native RNLS levels were increased in AP: Control: 0.4 µg/ml, Mild 0.9 µg g/ml, Severe 1.2 µg/ml p < 0.001; those with severe AP trended to have higher native RNLS levels than those with mild disease (p = 0.056). In patients with severe AP, higher APACHE-II scores at 24 h after admission correlated with lower acid-sensitive RNLS levels on admission (r = -0.31, p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: Low plasma acidified RNLS levels, and increased native RNLS levels are associated with AP. Additional studies should assess the clinical correlation between plasma RNLS levels and AP severity and outcomes.

Deprescription of aspirin for primary prevention is uncommon at discharge in hospitalised patients with gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend against aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in individuals with a history of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). It is unknown how often patients on primary prevention aspirin hospitalised with GIB have aspirin discontinued at discharge. AIMS: To determine the rate of aspirin deprescription and explore long-term outcomes in patients taking aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events. METHODS: We evaluated all patients hospitalised at Yale-New Haven Hospital between January 2014 and October 2021 with GIB who were on aspirin for primary prevention. Our primary endpoint was the frequency of aspirin deprescription at discharge. Our secondary endpoints were post-discharge hospitalisations for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or GIB. Time-to-event analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test. RESULTS: We identified 320 patients with GIB on aspirin for primary prevention: median age was 72 (interquartile range [IQR] 61-81) years and 297 (92.8%) were on aspirin 81 mg daily. Only 25 (9.0%) patients surviving their hospitalisation were deprescribed aspirin at discharge. Among 260 patients with follow-up (median 1103 days; IQR 367-1670), MACE developed post-discharge in 2/25 (8.0%) with aspirin deprescription versus 37/235 (15.7%) with aspirin continuation (log-rank p = 0.28). 0/25 patients with aspirin deprescription had subsequent hospitalisation for GIB versus 17/235 (7.2%) who continued aspirin (log-rank p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin for primary cardiovascular prevention was rarely deprescribed at discharge in patients hospitalised with GIB. Processes designed to ensure appropriate deprescription of aspirin are crucial to improve adherence to guidelines, thereby improving the risk-benefit ratio in patients at high risk of subsequent GIB hospitalisations with minimal increased risk of MACE.

Vonoprazan Versus Lansoprazole for Healing and Maintenance of Healing of Erosive Esophagitis: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: For decades, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been the mainstay of treatment for erosive esophagitis. The potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan provides more potent acid inhibition than PPIs, but data on its efficacy for erosive esophagitis are limited. METHODS: Adults with erosive esophagitis were randomized to once-daily vonoprazan, 20 mg, or lansoprazole, 30 mg, for up to 8 weeks. Patients with healing were rerandomized to once-daily vonoprazan, 10 mg, vonoprazan, 20 mg, or lansoprazole, 15 mg, for 24 weeks. Primary end points, percentage with healing by week 8 endoscopy, and maintenance of healing at week 24 endoscopy, were assessed in noninferiority comparisons (noninferiority margins, 10%), with superiority analyses prespecified if noninferiority was demonstrated. Analyses of primary and secondary end points were performed using fixed-sequence testing procedures. RESULTS: Among 1024 patients in the healing phase, vonoprazan was noninferior to lansoprazole in the primary analysis and superior on the exploratory analysis of healing (92.9 vs 84.6%; difference, 8.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.5%-12.2%). Secondary analyses showed vonoprazan was noninferior in heartburn-free days (difference, 2.7%; 95% CI, -1.6% to 7.0%), and superior in healing Los Angeles Classification Grade C/D esophagitis at week 2 (difference, 17.6%; 95% CI, 7.4%-27.4%). Among 878 patients in the maintenance phase, vonoprazan was noninferior to lansoprazole in the primary analysis and superior on the secondary analysis of maintenance of healing (20 mg vs lansoprazole: difference, 8.7%; 95% CI, 1.8%-15.5%; 10 mg vs lansoprazole: difference, 7.2%; 95% CI, 0.2%-14.1%) and secondary analysis of maintenance of healing Grade C/D esophagitis (20 mg vs lansoprazole: difference, 15.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-28.4%; 10 mg vs lansoprazole: difference, 13.3%; 95% CI, 0.02%-26.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Vonoprazan was noninferior and superior to the PPI lansoprazole in healing and maintenance of healing of erosive esophagitis. This benefit was seen predominantly in more severe erosive esophagitis. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04124926).