A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 study of the safety, tolerability and pharmacodynamics of volixibat in overweight and obese but otherwise healthy adults: implications for treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis.

BACKGROUND: Accumulation of toxic free cholesterol in hepatocytes may cause hepatic inflammation and fibrosis. Volixibat inhibits bile acid reuptake via the apical sodium bile acid transporter located on the luminal surface of the ileum. The resulting increase in bile acid synthesis from cholesterol could be beneficial in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. This adaptive dose-finding study investigated the safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of volixibat. METHODS: Overweight and obese adults were randomised 3:1 to double-blind volixibat or placebo, respectively, for 12 days. Volixibat was initiated at a once-daily dose of 20 mg, 40 mg or 80 mg. Based on the assessment of predefined safety events, volixibat dosing was either escalated or reduced. Other dose regimens (titrations and twice-daily dosing) were also evaluated. Assessments included safety, tolerability, stool hardness, faecal bile acid (FBA) excretion, and serum levels of 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one (C4) and lipids. RESULTS: All 84 randomised participants (volixibat, 63; placebo, 21) completed the study, with no serious adverse events at doses of up to 80 mg per day (maximum assessed dose). The median number of daily bowel evacuations increased from 1 (range 0-4) to 2 (0-8) during volixibat treatment, and stool was looser with volixibat than placebo. Volixibat was minimally absorbed; serum levels were rarely quantifiable at any dose or sampling time point, thereby precluding pharmacokinetic analyses. Mean daily FBA excretion was 930.61 µmol (standard deviation [SD] 468.965) with volixibat and 224.75 µmol (195.403) with placebo; effects were maximal at volixibat doses ≥20 mg/day. Mean serum C4 concentrations at day 12 were 98.767 ng/mL (standard deviation, 61.5841) with volixibat and 16.497 ng/mL (12.9150) with placebo. Total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels decreased in the volixibat group, with median changes of - 0.70 mmol/L (range - 2.8 to 0.4) and - 0.6990 mmol/L (- 3.341 to 0.570), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that maximal inhibition of bile acid reabsorption, as assessed by FBA excretion, occurs at volixibat doses of ≥20 mg/day in obese and overweight adults, without appreciable change in gastrointestinal tolerability. These findings guided dose selection for an ongoing phase 2 study in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02287779 (registration first received 6 November 2014).

Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion of [14C]-Volixibat in Healthy Men: Phase 1 Open-Label Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Volixibat is a potent inhibitor of the apical sodium-dependent bile acid transporter in development for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. This phase 1, open-label study investigated the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of [14C]-volixibat in heathy men. METHODS: Eligible men (n = 8) aged 18-50 years (body mass index 18.0-30.0 kg/m2; weight >50 kg) received a single oral dose of [14C]-volixibat 50 mg containing ~5.95 µCi radioactivity. The primary objectives were to assess the pharmacokinetics of [14C]-volixibat and to determine the total radioactivity in whole blood, plasma, urine, and feces at pre-selected time points over 6 days. The secondary objectives were to characterize metabolites and to assess the safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Low concentrations of volixibat (range 0-0.179 ng/mL) were detected in plasma up to 8 h following administration; the pharmacokinetic parameters could not be calculated. No radioactivity was observed in plasma or whole blood. The percentage (mean ± standard deviation) of total radioactivity in urine was 0.01 ± 0.007%. The vast majority (92.3 ± 5.25%) of volixibat was recovered in feces (69.2 ± 33.1% within 24 h). Unchanged volixibat was the only radioactive component detected in feces. Adverse events were mild in severity and mostly gastrointestinal. Changes in laboratory values were not clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: Following oral administration, [14C]-volixibat was excreted unchanged from the parent compound almost exclusively via fecal excretion, indicating that the drug is minimally absorbed. Consistent with other studies, adverse events were primarily gastrointestinal in nature. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02571192.

Development of the pediatric daily ulcerative colitis signs and symptoms scale (DUCS): qualitative research findings.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to develop patient-reported (PRO) and observer-reported (ObsRO) outcome measures of ulcerative colitis (UC) signs/symptoms in children aged 5-17 with mild/moderate UC. The daily ulcerative colitis signs and symptoms scale (DUCS) was developed in two phases. Phase I involved concept elicitation interviews with patients and healthcare providers, review of website posts and item generation. Phase II involved cognitive debriefing and assessment of usability and feasibility of the eDiaries. Participants were recruited from five US clinical sites, a research recruitment agency, and internet advertising. Thematic and content analysis was performed to identify concepts from Phase I. The Phase II cognitive debriefing interviews were analyzed iteratively to identify problems with clarity and relevance of eDiary content. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also reviewed and provided feedback on the eDiaries. RESULTS: Phase I included 32 participants (22 remission; 10 active disease). Phase II included 38 participants (22 remission; 16 active disease). A core set of seven signs and symptoms emerged that were reported by at least 30% of the patients interviewed: abdominal pain, blood in stool, frequent stools, diarrhea, stool urgency, nighttime stools, and tiredness. Participant input influenced changes such as refinement of item wording, revision of graphics, and selection of response scales. Revisions suggested by FDA included simplifying the response scale and adding questions to capture symptoms during sleeping hours. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of instrument development suggest that the DUCS PRO and ObsRO eDiaries are content-valid instruments for capturing the daily signs and symptoms of pediatric patients with mild to moderate UC in a clinical trial setting.

PRISM, a Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument, Accurately Measures Symptom Change in Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) experience relief following treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) (Vakil et al. in Am J Gastroenterol 101:1900-1920, 2006; Everhart and Ruhl in Gastroenterology 136:376-386, 2009). As many as 17-44% of patients, however, exhibit only partial response to therapy. Most extant GERD patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments fail to meet development best practices as described by the FDA (Talley and Wiklund in Qual Life Res 14:21-33, 2005; Van Pinxteren et al. in Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18:CD002095, 2004; El-Serag et al. in Aliment Pharmacol Ther 32:720-737, 2010). AIM: To develop and validate a PRO instrument for clinical trials involving patients with GERD who are PPI partial responders. METHODS: We prepared a systematic literature review, held patient focus groups, convened an expert panel, and conducted cognitive interviews to establish content validity. Eligible participants took PPI therapy for at least 8 weeks, had undergone an upper endoscopy, and scored at least 8 points on the GerdQ [6]. Qualitative data guided development of 26 draft items. Items were reviewed by expert panels and debriefed with patients. The resulting 21-item instrument underwent psychometric evaluation during a Phase IIB trial. RESULTS: During the trial, confirmatory factor analysis (n = 220) resulted in a four-factor model displaying the highest goodness of fit. All domains had a high inter-item correlation (Cronbach's α > 0.8). Test-retest reliability and convergent validity were strong, with highly significant (p < 0.01) correlations between average weekly PRISM scores and severity anchors and significant (p < 0.05) correlations with anchor subscales. Cumulative distribution functions revealed significant differences between responders and non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis in a clinical trial setting demonstrated strong psychometric properties suggesting validity of PRISM. Developed in line with FDA guidance on PROs, PRISM represents an important new outcome measure for patients with GERD with a partial response to PPI therapy.

Development of a Symptom-Based Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument for Functional Dyspepsia: A Preliminary Conceptual Model and an Evaluation of the Adequacy of Existing Instruments.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to document, from the perspective of the empirical literature, the primary symptoms of functional dyspepsia (FD), evaluate the extent to which existing questionnaires target those symptoms, and, finally, identify any missing evidence that would impact the questionnaires' use in regulated clinical trials to assess treatment efficacy claims intended for product labeling. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify the primary symptoms of FD and existing symptom-based FD patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. Following a database search, abstracts were screened and articles were retrieved for review. The primary symptoms of FD were organized into a conceptual model and the PRO instruments were evaluated for conceptual coverage as well as compared against evidentiary requirements presented in the FDA's PRO Guidance for Industry. RESULTS: Fifty-six articles and 16 instruments assessing FD symptoms were reviewed. Concepts listed in the Rome III criteria for FD (n = 7), those assessed by existing FD instruments (n = 34), and symptoms reported by patients in published qualitative research (n = 6) were summarized in the FD conceptual model. Except for vomiting, all of the identified symptoms from the published qualitative research reports were also specified in the Rome III criteria. Only three of the 16 instruments, the Dyspepsia Symptom Severity Index (DSSI), Nepean Dyspepsia Index (NDI), and Short-Form Nepean Dyspepsia Index (SF-NDI), measure all seven FD symptoms defined by the Rome III criteria. Among these three, each utilizes a 2-week recall period and 5-point Likert-type scale, and had evidence of patient involvement in development. Despite their coverage, when these instruments were evaluated in light of regulatory expectations, several issues jeopardized their potential qualification for substantiation of a labeling claim. CONCLUSIONS: No existing PRO instruments that measured all seven symptoms adhered to the regulatory principles necessary to support product labeling. As such, the development of a new FD symptom PRO instrument is supported.

Dose-dependent effects of lesogaberan on reflux measures in patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The γ-aminobutyric acid type B-receptor agonist lesogaberan (AZD3355) has been developed for use in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms despite proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (partial responders). This study aimed to explore the dose-response effect of lesogaberan on reflux episodes in partial responders. METHODS: In this randomized, single-centre, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study, partial responders taking optimised PPI therapy were given 30, 90, 120 and 240 mg doses of lesogaberan. Each dose was given twice (12 h apart) during a 24-h period, during which impedance-pH measurements were taken. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were included in the efficacy analysis and 27 in the safety analysis. The effect of lesogaberan on the mean number of reflux episodes was dose-dependent, and all doses significantly reduced the mean number of reflux episodes relative to placebo. Lesogaberan also dose-dependently reduced the mean number of acid reflux episodes (except the 30 mg dose) and weakly acid reflux episodes (all doses) significantly, relative to placebo. Regardless of dose, lesogaberan had a similar effect on the percentage of time with esophageal pH < 4 [mean reduction: 68.5% (30 mg), 54.2% (90 mg), 65.9% (120 mg), 72.1% (240 mg); p < 0.05 except 90 mg dose]. No adverse events led to discontinuation and no serious adverse events occurred during active treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Lesogaberan inhibited reflux in a dose-dependent manner in partial responders taking optimised PPI therapy, and these effects were significant versus placebo. All lesogaberan doses were well tolerated and were not associated with clinically relevant adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01043185.

Obesity does not affect treatment outcomes with proton pump inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with increased risk of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). GOAL: To evaluate the effect of obesity on symptom resolution in patients with nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) and healing rates in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE). METHODS: Two post hoc analyses were performed. Analyses included pooled data from randomized, double-blind, multicenter studies of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in GERD patients. RESULTS: Analysis 1 included 704 patients with NERD receiving esomeprazole 20 mg, esomeprazole 40 mg, or placebo. Analysis 2 included 11,027 patients with EE receiving esomeprazole 40 mg, omeprazole 20 mg, or lansoprazole 30 mg. For NERD patients, no significant association between baseline heartburn severity and body mass index (BMI) was observed. In EE patients, overweight (BMI 25 to <35 kg/m) and obese (BMI ≥35 kg/m) patients had significantly higher rates of Los Angeles (LA) grade C or D EE than patients with BMI <25 kg/m (P<0.0001). Percentages of PPI-treated patients who achieved heartburn resolution or EE healing within a given LA grade were similar across BMI categories. Heartburn resolution was significantly associated with treatment (esomeprazole vs. placebo), increasing age, and for men versus women (all P≤0.0284). EE healing was significantly associated with PPI treatment (esomeprazole and lansoprazole vs. omeprazole), increasing age, race, presence of a hiatal hernia, and lower LA grade at baseline (all P≤0.0183). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GERD, high BMI was associated with more severe EE at baseline. However, during PPI treatment, BMI is not a significant independent predictor of heartburn resolution or EE healing.

Esophageal mucosal breaks in gastroesophageal reflux disease partially responsive to proton pump inhibitor therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 20-30% of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) do not experience complete symptom resolution during proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of esophageal mucosal breaks among patients who have a partial response to PPI therapy. METHODS: This was an analysis of data from a phase 2b clinical trial carried out to assess the efficacy and safety of a reflux inhibitor, lesogaberan (AZD3355), as an add-on to PPI therapy in this patient population (clinicaltrials.gov reference: NCT01005251). A total of 661 patients with persistent GERD symptoms who had received a minimum of 4 weeks of PPI therapy were included in the study. The prevalence of esophageal mucosal breaks was assessed according to (i) the most recent endoscopy results from within the previous 24 months, if available ("historical" endoscopies), and (ii) the results of endoscopies performed at study baseline ("baseline" endoscopies). Baseline endoscopies were not carried out in patients who had a historical endoscopy showing an absence of esophageal mucosal breaks. RESULTS: Historical endoscopy results were available for 244 patients, of whom 48 (19.7%) had esophageal mucosal breaks. Baseline endoscopies were carried out in 465 patients, of whom 146 (31.4%) had esophageal mucosal breaks. Sensitivity analyses showed a prevalence of esophageal mucosal breaks of 20-30%. In both the historical and baseline endoscopies, most esophageal mucosal breaks were Los Angeles grades A or B. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GERD symptoms partially responsive to PPI therapy, mild-to-moderate severity esophageal mucosal breaks are common (prevalence 20-30%), and may contribute to symptom etiology.

Efficacy and safety of lesogaberan in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Lesogaberan (AZD3355) is a novel γ-aminobutyric acid B-type receptor agonist designed to treat gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) by inhibiting transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre phase IIb study was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of lesogaberan as an add-on to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in patients with GERD who are partially responsive to PPI therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT01005251). DESIGN: In total, 661 patients were randomised to receive 4 weeks of placebo or 60, 120, 180 or 240 mg of lesogaberan twice daily, in addition to ongoing PPI therapy. Symptoms were measured using the Reflux Symptom Questionnaire electronic Diary. Response to treatment was defined as having an average of ≥ 3 additional days per week of not more than mild GERD symptoms during treatment compared with baseline. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, 20.9%, 25.6%, 23.5% and 26.2% of patients responded to the 60, 120, 180 and 240 mg twice daily lesogaberan doses, respectively, and 17.9% responded to placebo. The response to the 240 mg twice daily dose was statistically significantly greater than the response to placebo using a one-sided test at the predefined significance level of p < 0.1. However, the absolute increases in the proportions of patients who responded to lesogaberan compared with placebo were low. Lesogaberan was generally well tolerated, although six patients receiving lesogaberan developed reversible elevated alanine transaminase levels. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GERD symptoms partially responsive to PPI therapy, lesogaberan was only marginally superior to placebo in achieving an improvement in symptoms.

Pretreatment data is highly predictive of liver chemistry signals in clinical trials.

PURPOSE: The goal of this retrospective analysis was to assess how well predictive models could determine which patients would develop liver chemistry signals during clinical trials based on their pretreatment (baseline) information. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Based on data from 24 late-stage clinical trials, classification models were developed to predict liver chemistry outcomes using baseline information, which included demographics, medical history, concomitant medications, and baseline laboratory results. RESULTS: Predictive models using baseline data predicted which patients would develop liver signals during the trials with average validation accuracy around 80%. Baseline levels of individual liver chemistry tests were most important for predicting their own elevations during the trials. High bilirubin levels at baseline were not uncommon and were associated with a high risk of developing biochemical Hy's law cases. Baseline γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT) level appeared to have some predictive value, but did not increase predictability beyond using established liver chemistry tests. CONCLUSION: It is possible to predict which patients are at a higher risk of developing liver chemistry signals using pretreatment (baseline) data. Derived knowledge from such predictions may allow proactive and targeted risk management, and the type of analysis described here could help determine whether new biomarkers offer improved performance over established ones.

Validation of the reflux symptom questionnaire electronic diary in partial responders to proton pump inhibitor therapy.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop and validate the Reflux Symptom Questionnaire electronic Diary (RESQ-eD) for use in clinical trials in patients with a partial response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, using methods that meet US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory standards. METHODS: Patient interviews were performed to elicit new items and evaluate existing items from the Reflux Disease Questionnaire. The instrument's measurement properties were evaluated, based on data from two clinical trials of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with a partial response to PPIs who received lesogaberan or placebo as an add-on to PPI therapy. RESULTS: The content validity phase resulted in 13 RESQ-eD items. Principal component analysis supported a four-domain structure. All domains had a high inter-item correlation (Cronbach's alpha lower 95% confidence limit: 0.87-0.95). Test-retest reliability was good to excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.65-0.85). Convergent and discriminant validity was confirmed by correlation assessments referencing the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale. The RESQ-eD demonstrated a good ability to capture change in mean intensity and proportion of symptom-free days. Confirmatory psychometric evaluation verified internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, and ability to capture change. CONCLUSIONS: The RESQ-eD demonstrated good content validity and psychometric properties in the clinical trial setting in patients with GERD who have a partial response to PPI therapy. To our knowledge, the RESQ-eD is the first electronic symptom diary for use in partial responders to PPI that has been developed in line with the FDA guidance on patient-reported outcomes.

Effect of food on the bioavailability of lesogaberan given as an oral solution or as modified-release capsules in healthy male volunteers.

The novel Type B gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABAB)-receptor agonist lesogaberan (AZD3355) has been evaluated as an add-on to proton pump inhibitor treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease, but the effect of food on the bioavailability of this compound has not been assessed. In this openlabel crossover study, healthy males received single 100 mg doses of lesogaberan (oral solution (A) or oral modified release (MR) capsules with a dissolution rate of 50% (B) or 100% (C) over 4 h) with and without food. Blood plasma concentrations of lesogaberan were assessed over 48 h. A log-transformed geometric mean Cmax and AUC ratio within the 90% confidence interval (CI) range (0.80 - 1.25) was defined as excluding a clinically relevant food effect. Overall, 57 subjects completed the study. Only the oral lesogaberan solution had a fed/fasting Cmax ratio outside the 90% CI range (Cmax ratio: 0.76). AUC ratios were within the 90% CI limits for all three lesogaberan formulations. The only substantial change in tmax associated with food intake was observed for the oral solution (1.0 h without food, 1.8 h with food). In conclusion, a clinically relevant food effect could be excluded for the lesogaberan MR formulations, but not for the oral lesogaberan solution.

A novel reflux inhibitor lesogaberan (AZD3355) as add-on treatment in patients with GORD with persistent reflux symptoms despite proton pump inhibitor therapy: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: o evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of add-on treatment with lesogaberan (AZD3355), a novel reflux inhibitor, in patients with persistent gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) symptoms despite proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. METHODS: double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, parallel-group, multicentre phase IIA study was carried out in outpatient clinics. The study group comprised 244 adult patients with persistent GORD symptoms (heartburn and/or regurgitation) of at least mild intensity and for 3 days of 7 days before enrolment, despite ≥6 weeks of continuous PPI therapy. Patients received either lesogaberan (65 mg twice daily) or placebo in addition to PPI therapy for a period of 4 weeks. Symptom intensity, based on the Reflux Disease Questionnaire, was recorded twice daily. Treatment response (defined as at most one 24 h period with heartburn or regurgitation of not more than mild intensity during the last 7 days of treatment). Time to response, proportion of symptom-free days and measures of tolerability were also analysed. RESULTS: total of 232 (114 lesogaberan- and 118 placebo-treated patients) of the 244 randomised patients were analysed for efficacy. Treatment with lesogaberan, compared with placebo, resulted in a significantly larger proportion of responders to treatment (16% vs 8% of patients; p=0.026) and cumulative proportion of responders over time (log-rank p=0.0195). Lesogaberan was well tolerated: adverse events of mostly mild to moderate intensity were reported in 45% of patients on lesogaberan and in 37% on placebo. CONCLUSIONS: esogaberan add-on therapy to PPIs significantly improved heartburn and regurgitation symptoms; however, the proportion of responders was small. Clinical trial number NCT00394472.

Evaluation of the pharmacokinetic interaction between lesogaberan (AZD3355) and esomeprazole in healthy subjects.

BACKGROUND: Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs) have been identified as a primary cause of reflux events in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). GABA(B) receptor agonists such as lesogaberan (AZD3355) have been shown to inhibit TLESRs in healthy subjects and patients with GERD, and, therefore, offer a novel therapeutic add-on strategy to acid suppression for the management of GERD. As lesogaberan is being developed as an add-on treatment for the management of patients with GERD who have a partial response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, it is important to rule out any clinically important pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between lesogaberan and PPIs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of esomeprazole on the pharmacokinetics and safety of lesogaberan and vice versa. STUDY DESIGN: This was an open-label, randomized, three-way crossover study. The study was open to healthy adult male and female subjects. The study subjects received treatment with, in random order, lesogaberan (150 mg twice daily [dose interval 12 hours]), esomeprazole (40 mg once daily), and a combination of both, during 7-day treatment periods. MAIN OUTCOME: The presence or absence of pharmacokinetic interactions between lesogaberan and esomeprazole was assessed by measuring the steady-state area under the plasma concentration-time curves during the dosing interval (AUC(τ)) and the maximum observed plasma concentration (C(max)) for lesogaberan and esomeprazole. RESULTS: Thirty male subjects (mean age 23.2 years, 97% Caucasian) were randomized to treatment and 28 subjects completed the study (one subject was lost to follow-up, and one subject discontinued due to an adverse event). The 95% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratios for AUC(τ) and C(max) of lesogaberan and esomeprazole administered alone and concomitantly were within the recognized boundaries of bioequivalence (0.8-1.25). No new safety concerns were raised during this study. The number of patients with adverse events during treatment with lesogaberan alone (n = 17) and concomitantly with esomeprazole (n = 18) were comparable but higher than with esomeprazole alone (n = 10). Paresthesia (episodic, mild, and transient), pharyngitis, and flatulence were the most frequently reported adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: There was no observed pharmacokinetic interaction between lesogaberan and esomeprazole when concomitantly administered to healthy subjects, and concomitant therapy was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER (clinicaltrials.gov): NCT00684190.

Effects of lesogaberan on reflux and lower esophageal sphincter function in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs) are a major mechanism behind reflux. This study assessed the effects of lesogaberan (AZD3355), a novel gamma-aminobutyric acid type B receptor agonist, on reflux and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) function when used as add-on treatment in patients with reflux symptoms despite proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, patients received lesogaberan (65 mg) or placebo twice on day 1 (morning/evening) and once on day 2 (morning), in addition to existing PPI treatment. Patients consumed a standardized meal 45-60 minutes after morning doses. Ambulatory impedance-pH monitoring was conducted for 24 hours after the first dose on day 1. Stationary manometry and impedance-pH monitoring was conducted for 4 hours after the third dose on day 2. RESULTS: Of 27 randomized patients, 21 were included in the per-protocol efficacy analysis. During the 24 hours after treatment start, lesogaberan reduced the mean number of reflux events by approximately 35% compared with placebo. During the 3 postprandial hours on day 2, lesogaberan reduced the geometric mean number of TLESRs by 25% and increased geometric mean LES pressure by 28% compared with placebo. The most common adverse events were headache (placebo: 11/27 patients; lesogaberan: 8/25 patients) and paresthesia (transient; placebo: 3/27 patients; lesogaberan: 5/25 patients). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with reflux symptoms despite PPI treatment, lesogaberan decreased the number of TLESRs and reflux episodes, and increased LES pressure compared with placebo. These findings support further evaluation of lesogaberan as an add-on treatment in patients partially responding to PPIs.

Acid-related upper endoscopy findings in patients with diabetes versus non-diabetic patients.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between diabetes, GERD symptoms and acid-related mucosal damage has not been well studied. AIMS: To better quantify risk of acid-related mucosal damage among patients with and without diabetes. METHODS: A prospective study using 10 sites from the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI) National Endoscopy Database surveyed patients undergoing EGD by telephone within 30 days on medical history, symptoms and demographics. Varices and feeding tube indications were excluded. Acid-related damage was defined as any of these findings recorded in CORI: Barrett's esophagus; esophageal inflammation (unless non-acid-related etiology); healed ulcer, duodenal, gastric or esophageal ulcer; stricture; and mucosal abnormality with erosion or ulcer. RESULTS: Of 1,569 patients, 16% had diabetes, 95% being type 2. Diabetic patients were significantly more likely to be male, older and have a higher body mass index, and less likely to report frequent heartburn and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. No significant differences were found in acid reflux and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use between groups. In unadjusted analyses, diabetic patients had a similar risk for acid-related damage than non-diabetic patients (OR 1.09; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.42) which persisted after adjusting for gender, age, acid reflux, acid indication and PPI use (OR 1.04; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.39). CONCLUSIONS: No difference in risk of acid-related mucosal damage was found, even after adjustment for potential confounders. Our data do not support the need for a lower threshold to perform endoscopy in diabetic patients.

Predictors of heartburn resolution and erosive esophagitis in patients with GERD.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptom resolution rates with esomeprazole by erosive esophagitis (EE) status, and the secondary objective was to evaluate potential predictors of the presence of EE and heartburn resolution. BACKGROUND: Patients with GERD who have EE have higher reported symptom resolution rates than those with nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) when treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). STUDY: This open-label multicenter study included adults with GERD symptoms. Patients were stratified by EE status after endoscopy and received once-daily esomeprazole 40 mg for 4 weeks. Questionnaires determined symptom response rates, and baseline predictors of EE or heartburn resolution were evaluated. Potential predictors, including years with GERD, history of EE, and time to relief with antacids, were examined. RESULTS: Heartburn resolution rates at 4 weeks were higher for patients with EE than NERD (69% [124/179] vs. 48% [85/177]; p < 0.0001). Multivariate models had moderate predictive ability for EE (c-index, 0.76) and poor predictive ability (c-index, 0.57) for heartburn resolution. However, faster heartburn relief with antacid use, particularly within 15 min, was predictive of EE and heartburn resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with EE have higher heartburn resolution rates than patients with NERD after treatment, although recall bias may be possible. Fast relief with antacid use is predictive of EE and heartburn resolution with a PPI and suggests that a history of antacid relief may provide corroborative evidence to empiric PPI therapy in determining whether patients with heartburn have acid reflux disease. ClinicalTrials.Gov IDENTIFIER: NCT00242736.

Induction of intestinalization in human esophageal keratinocytes is a multistep process.

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the replacement of normal squamous esophageal mucosa with an intestinalized columnar epithelium. The molecular mechanisms underlying its development are not understood. Cdx2 is an intestine-specific transcription factor that is ectopically expressed in BE, but its role in this process is unclear. Herein, we describe a novel cell culture model for BE. Retroviral-mediated Cdx2 expression in immortalized human esophageal keratinocytes [EPC-human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT)] could transiently be established but not maintained and was associated with a reduction in cell proliferation. Coexpression of cyclin D1, but not a dominant-negative p53, rescued proliferation in the Cdx2-expressing cells. Cdx2 expression in the EPC-hTERT.D1 cells decreased cell proliferation but did not induce intestinalization. We investigated for other treatments to enhance intestinalization and found that acidic culture conditions uniformly killed EPC-hTERT.D1.Cdx2 cells. However, treatment with 5-aza-2-deoxycytidine (5-AzaC) to demethylate epigenetically silenced genes did appear to be tolerated. Multiple Cdx2 target genes, markers of intestinal differentiation and markers of BE, were induced by this 5-AzaC treatment. More interestingly, the expression level of several of these genes was enhanced only in the EPC-hTERT.D1-Cdx2 cells treated with 5-AzaC. Two of these, SLC26a3/DRA (downregulated in adenoma) and Na+/H+ exchanger 2 (NHE2), were not previously known to be elevated in BE; however, we confirmed their elevation in BE tissue samples. 5-AzaC treatment also induced cell senescence, even at low doses. We conclude that ectopic proliferation signals, alterations in epigenetic gene regulation and the inhibition of tumor suppressor mechanisms are required for Cdx2-mediated intestinalization of human esophageal keratinocytes in BE.