Prucalopride induces high-amplitude propagating contractions in the colon of patients with chronic constipation: a randomized study.

BACKGROUND: This study compared prucalopride, a selective, prokinetic, 5-HT4 receptor agonist, with polyethylene glycol 3350 + electrolytes (PEG3350), an osmotic laxative, on colonic motility parameters, primarily high-amplitude propagating contractions (HAPCs) in patients with chronic constipation. METHODS: This randomized, cross-over, reader-blinded study was conducted at a single site in the USA. The study was open to men and women aged 18-75 years who met study inclusion criteria. Colonic manometry catheters were inserted the day before investigation. On the investigation days, patients received oral 2 mg prucalopride or 2 × 13.8 g PEG3350 in solution. The primary endpoint was HAPC count (threshold: mean amplitude ≥100 mmHg, propagation ≥20 cm [HAPC1 ]) in the 12 h after treatment administration. Analyses were also conducted at two co-primary thresholds: mean amplitude ≥75 mmHg, propagation ≥20 cm (HAPC2 ); and mean amplitude ≥75 mmHg, propagation ≥10 cm (HAPC3 ). Secondary endpoints included HAPC area under the curve (AUC), contraction force, amplitude, duration, and propagation velocity. KEY RESULTS: Thirteen women were enrolled, with 12 completing the study. Significantly more HAPC1 (8.7 ± 2.06 vs 2.9 ± 2.06; p = 0.012) and HAPC2 (9.0 ± 2.11 vs 3.3 ± 2.11; p = 0.017) were observed in the 12-h periods with prucalopride than with PEG3350. Prucalopride significantly increased mean propagation distance and velocity (HAPC2 ) and mean AUC, force, and amplitude (HAPC3 ) compared with PEG3350. Adverse events were mild or moderate. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Prucalopride was superior to PEG3350 in inducing HAPCs in patients with chronic constipation. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01707667.

Intragastric acidity and omeprazole exposure during dosing with either PA32540 (enteric-coated aspirin 325 mg + immediate-release omeprazole 40 mg) or enteric-coated aspirin 325 mg + enteric-coated omeprazole 40 mg - a randomised, phase 1, crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin therapy is associated with adverse upper gastrointestinal effects. PA32540 is a coordinated-delivery tablet containing enteric-coated aspirin (EC-ASA) 325 mg and immediate-release (IR) omeprazole 40 mg. Immediate-release omeprazole (located in outer layer of tablet) is available for instantaneous dissolution rapidly after ingestion, while dissolution of the EC-ASA core is delayed until pH >5.5. AIM: To compare the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects of PA32540 (EC-ASA 325 mg + IR-omeprazole 40 mg) vs. enteric-coated (EC)-omeprazole 40 mg. METHODS: This single-centre, open-label, randomised, two-way crossover study in healthy volunteers compared 7 days of once-daily dosing with PA32540 with 7 days of once-daily EC-ASA 325 mg + EC-omeprazole 40 mg dosed concomitantly. The primary endpoint was per cent time intragastric pH >4 over 24 h on Day 7. A key secondary endpoint was determination of the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole and salicylic acid. RESULTS: Twenty-six subjects (mean age 29 years) were enrolled into the study. On Day 7, mean per cent time intragastric pH >4 was 50.6% for PA32540 and 57.6% for EC-omeprazole 40 mg (P = 0.004) and geometric least squares mean AUC0-24 for omeprazole was 1446 h*ng/mL for PA32540 and 2558 h*ng/mL for EC-omeprazole 40 mg. Day 7 median Tmax of omeprazole was 0.5 h for PA32540 and 1.25 h for EC-omeprazole 40 mg. CONCLUSION: Total exposure to omeprazole from PA32540 was 57% of that from EC-omeprazole for the same dose amount (40 mg), while absolute difference in 24-h acid control was 7%. Omeprazole exposure and pH control with PA32540 appear similar to EC-omeprazole 20 mg.

Randomised clinical trial: the safety and efficacy of AST-120 in non-constipating irritable bowel syndrome - a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for safe and effective treatment options for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). AST-120 (spherical carbon adsorbent) is a non-absorbed, carbon-based adsorbent with extensive adsorbing capability for histamine, serotonin and other substances implicated in IBS pathogenesis. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of AST-120 in non-constipating forms of IBS. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in the US and Belgium enrolled 115 male and female patients fulfilling Rome III criteria for IBS; individuals with predominantly constipation symptoms were excluded. Subjects were randomised to AST-120 2 g tds or placebo for an 8-week double-blind treatment period, followed by a 2-week single-blind placebo washout and 8-week single-blind active treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects achieving at least a 50% reduction in the number of days with abdominal pain compared with baseline. RESULTS: At Week 4, 26.8% of subjects treated with AST-120 responded on the primary endpoint vs. 10.2% in the placebo arm (P=0.029); at Week 8 response rates were 32.1 and 25.4% respectively (NS). More AST-120 treated subjects experienced improvement in bloating and stool consistency. These benefits abated when AST-120 was replaced by placebo, and resumed once AST-120 was restarted. The frequency of adverse events with AST-120 were less than or equal to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: AST-120 is safe and well-tolerated and reduces pain and bloating in non-constipating IBS, although beneficial effects may be limited in duration. AST-120 represents a locally acting, non-absorbed, novel treatment for IBS and warrants further studies.

Omeprazole-Mg 20.6 mg is superior to lansoprazole 15 mg for control of gastric acid: a comparison of over-the-counter doses of proton pump inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Over-the-counter (OTC) proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) relieve heartburn by decreasing the production of gastric acid, but may not do so with equal effectiveness. It is important for healthcare professionals to compare the ability of OTC PPIs to control gastric acid when recommending them for patients with frequent heartburn. AIM: To compare the effects of omeprazole-Mg 20.6 mg and lansoprazole 15 mg (OTC doses in the US) on 24-h steady state gastric acid suppression. METHODS: This single-centre, randomized, double-blind clinical study compared the steady-state gastric acid control of omeprazole-Mg 20.6 mg vs. lansoprazole 15 mg, dosed before breakfast. Volunteers were enrolled in a 3-period, cross-over design (ABB, BAA) with 24-h gastric pH monitoring on dosing day 5. The primary efficacy variable was the percentage time intragastric pH was >4.0 over 24 h on day 5 of dosing. RESULTS: Forty subjects were enrolled; all completed the study. The mean (SE) percentage time pH was >4.0 was 45.7% (3.45%) for omeprazole-Mg 20.6 mg and 36.8% (3.45%) for lansoprazole 15 mg, an absolute difference of 8.9% (P < 0.0001), and a relative difference of 24.2%. Both drugs were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Omeprazole-Mg 20.6 mg provided a statistically significantly (P < 0.0001) greater acid control than lansoprazole 15 mg.

Intravenous esomeprazole 40 mg vs. intravenous lansoprazole 30 mg for controlling intragastric acidity in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) formulations of proton pump inhibitors are effective for patients in whom oral therapy is not appropriate. AIM: To compare IV esomeprazole and IV lansoprazole for the control of intragastric pH. METHODS: In this open-label crossover study, healthy, Helicobacter pylori-negative adults were randomized to one of two treatment sequences, each consisting of two 5-day dosing periods of IV esomeprazole 40 mg or IV lansoprazole 30 mg. Twenty-four-hour intragastric pH monitoring was conducted on days 1 and 5 of each dosing period. RESULTS: On days 1 and 5, intragastric pH was >4.0 significantly longer with esomeprazole than lansoprazole (least-squares means: day 1, 40.0% vs. 33.6%; day 5, 61.9% vs. 45.4%; both P < 0.0001). During the first 4 h of pH monitoring, intragastric pH was >4.0 significantly longer on days 1 and 5 with esomeprazole than lansoprazole (P < 0.0001). Kaplan-Meier estimates of median hours to stable pH >4.0 were 4.92 for esomeprazole and 5.75 for lansoprazole (P = 0.0014 for test on Gehan scores). CONCLUSION: In healthy adults, IV esomeprazole 40 mg controlled intragastric acidity faster and more effectively than IV lansoprazole 30 mg.

Comparison of gastric pH with omeprazole magnesium 20.6 mg (Prilosec OTC) o.m. famotidine 10 mg (Pepcid AC) b.d. and famotidine 20 mg b.d. over 14 days of treatment.

BACKGROUND: The onset of acid inhibition for proton pump inhibitors is slower than with H2RAs and generally considered to be at a steady-state after 5 days. Thus, little direct comparison data exists between H2RAs and proton pump inhibitors for gastric acid suppression on day 1 of therapy. Furthermore, the durability of their acid suppression has not been systematically compared. AIM: To compare the effects of 20.6 mg omeprazole magnesium o.m. (Ome-Mg 20), famotidine 10 mg b.d. (Fam 10) and famotidine 20 mg b.d. (Fam 20) on intragastric pH on day 1 and throughout 14 days of dosing. METHODS: The study was a randomized, double-blind, three-dosing regimens, three-period crossover. Healthy adults with frequent heartburn (> or =2 days/week) underwent 24-h gastric pH monitoring on days 0 (baseline), 1, 3, 7 and 14. RESULTS: Thirty-one subjects were included in the per-protocol analyses. On day 1, the mean percentage time pH > 4 (pH4%) was higher for Ome-Mg 20, 44.6%, than for Fam 10, 36.7% (P = 0.032), and not different from Fam 20, 46.9% (P = 0.541). The pH4% was higher for Ome-Mg 20 than either famotidine regimen on all subsequent monitoring days (P < 0.001). The 24-h area under the mean intragastric pH curve showed a similar pattern. Furthermore, after day 1, Ome-Mg 20 demonstrated an increasing and sustained effect in contrast to a decreasing effect for famotidine, consistent with H2RA tolerance. CONCLUSION: Gastric acid suppression on Ome-Mg 20 mg o.m. over 14 days was comparable with Fam 10 mg b.d. or Fam 20 mg b.d. on day 1, and superior thereafter.

Effect of naproxen on gastric acid secretion and gastric pH.

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms for the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced inflammation in the stomach are unclear. AIMS: To determine if naproxen (Naprosyn, Roche, Nutley, NJ, USA) alters basal acid output, pentagastrin-stimulated maximal acid output, or fasting gastrin. METHODS: Basal acid output and maximal acid output gastric aspirations were performed pre-naproxen and 7 days post-naproxen 500 mg b.d. in 24 healthy subjects. Volume, pH and acid mEq were determined. Fasting gastrin was obtained. Comparisons were made using paired t-tests (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Dosing with naproxen did not statistically decrease mean pH of the basal acid output gastric fluid (3.3 vs. 3.1; N.S.) or the pentagastrin-stimulated maximal acid output gastric fluid (2.7 vs. 2.6; N.S.). Basal acid output total volume was significantly decreased post-naproxen (84 vs. 61 mL/h; P = 0.01), with no change in maximal acid output total volume (196 vs. 188 mL/h; N.S.). Basal acid output mean gastric acidity was significantly increased post-naproxen (0.04 vs. 0.05 mEq/mL; P = 0.03), with no change in maximal acid output mean gastric acidity after naproxen (0.10 vs. 0.10; N.S.). Gastrin was not altered by dosing with naproxen. CONCLUSIONS: Naproxen does not influence total acid secreted but does decrease basal gastric fluid volume, thereby increasing basal gastric acid concentration. These observations define one mechanism by which non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may induce gastric injury.

Safety and efficacy of two dose formulations of alicaforsen enema compared with mesalazine enema for treatment of mild to moderate left-sided ulcerative colitis: a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Alicaforsen is an antisense oligonucleotide inhibitor of intercellular adhesion molecule 1 protein expression with activity in subjects with ulcerative colitis and pouchitis. AIM: To compare the effects of alicaforsen enema to standard of care mesalazine (mesalamine) enema in subjects with mild to moderate active left-sided ulcerative colitis. METHOD: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled multicentre clinical trial. Subjects received a nightly enema of 120 mg alicaforsen (n=55), 240 mg alicaforsen (n=50), or 4 g mesalazine (n=54) for 6 weeks, followed by a 24-week monitoring period. The primary end point was Disease Activity Index at week 6. Clinical improvement, remission and relapse were secondary end points. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between treatment arms in the primary end point. However, the median duration of response to alicaforsen enema treatment was two- to threefold longer (128 and 146 days) in comparison with mesalazine (54 days). Complete mucosal healing occurred in 24% of the 240 mg alicaforsen group, when compared with 17% in the mesalazine. CONCLUSIONS: Alicaforsen enema demonstrated an acute response and safety profile similar to mesalazine enema, but was differentiated by a more durable response. The extended length of remission suggests that alicaforsen enema treatment may have a disease modifying effect.

A phase II dose ranging, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of alicaforsen enema in subjects with acute exacerbation of mild to moderate left-sided ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Alicaforsen is an antisense oligonucleotide designed to inhibit expression of human intercellular adhesion molecule 1. Previous clinical studies have demonstrated activity of alicaforsen enema in ulcerative colitis and pouchitis. AIM: To determine the minimally effective dosing regimen of alicaforsen enema in subjects with mild to moderate left-sided ulcerative colitis. METHODS: Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, two-dose ranging multicentre study. One hundred and twelve subjects were equally randomized to receive one of four alicaforsen enema regimens or placebo daily for 6 weeks. Primary end point was Disease Activity Index at week 6. Secondary end points included evaluation of clinical improvement, relapse rates and durability of response. Analysis of data were performed on the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between treatment arms and placebo in the primary end point. A prolonged reduction in mean% Disease Activity Index relative to baseline was observed in the daily 240 mg alicaforsen enema treatment arm in comparison with placebo from week 18 (51% vs. 18%, P=0.04) to week 30 (50% vs. 11%, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Alicaforsen enema was safe and well tolerated at all doses studied. The durability of the response to alicaforsen enema treatment may suggests a disease-modifying effect.

Bioavailability and therapeutic activity of alicaforsen (ISIS 2302) administered as a rectal retention enema to subjects with active ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Alicaforsen is a phosphorothioate-modified antisense oligodeoxynucleotide designed to sequence-specifically reduce intercellular adhesion molecule 1 messenger RNA levels. AIMS: To determine the systemic and local bioavailability of alicaforsen, and its activity when administered as a once daily enema in subjects with active ulcerative colitis. METHODS An open-label study was conducted to assess the relative absorption (local and systemic pharmacokinetics) and pharmacologic activity of alicaforsen enema in subjects with active ulcerative colitis. Fifteen subjects received nightly enemas of alicaforsen (240 mg) for a treatment period of 6 weeks. Alicaforsen concentrations in plasma and colonic tissue biopsies were determined. Disease activity index and multiple measurements including endoscopy were used to assess alicaforsen activity in these subjects. RESULTS: Plasma concentrations of parent alicaforsen represented < 0.6% mean bioavailability when compared with historical intravenous area under the plasma concentration-time curves. Concentrations of the intact oligonucleotide in mucosal colonic tissue biopsies were orders of magnitude higher than those observed in plasma. A 46% reduction in mean Disease Activity Index and 33% rate of remission as defined by complete mucosal healing were observed at the end of treatment. Conclusion These data confirm that alicaforsen enema provides local treatment for a local disease with little meaningful systemic exposure.

Intragastric acid control in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users: comparison of esomeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole.

BACKGROUND: Studies to date have not directly compared the pharmacodynamic efficacies of different proton pump inhibitors in controlling intragastric acidity in patients treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. AIM: To compare acid suppression with once-daily esomeprazole 40 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg in patients receiving non-selective or cyclo-oxygenase-2-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, comparative, three-way crossover study, adult patients (n = 90) receiving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were randomized to one of six treatment sequences. At the study site, patients were administered esomeprazole 40 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg for 5 days each, with a washout period of > or =10 days between each treatment. Twenty-four-hour pH testing was performed on day 5 of each dosing period. RESULTS: The mean percentage of time during the 24-h pH monitoring period that gastric pH was >4.0 was significantly greater with esomeprazole (74.2%) compared with lansoprazole (66.5%; P < 0.001) and pantoprazole (60.8%; P < 0.001), and significantly greater with esomeprazole (P < 0.05) than with the comparators regardless of whether using non-selective vs. cyclo-oxygenase-2-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. CONCLUSIONS: At the doses studied, esomeprazole treatment provides significantly greater gastric acid suppression than lansoprazole or pantoprazole in patients receiving non-selective or cyclo-oxygenase-2-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Review article: physiologic and clinical effects of proton pump inhibitors on non-acidic and acidic gastro-oesophageal reflux.

The control of oesophageal acid exposure through gastric acid inhibition, as the basis for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) treatment, arose from the apparent pH dependency of erosive oesophagitis and relationship to GERD symptoms. The current perception is that reflux disease is an entirely acid-mediated condition, and antisecretory therapies, particularly proton pump inhibitors, are the treatment of choice for patients with erosive and non-erosive reflux disease. A positive patient response to an empiric trial of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, or the 'PPI test', is commonly suggested as a method of GERD diagnosis. Recent studies have modified our understanding of the relationship between oesophageal acid exposure and GERD pathology, manifestations and symptoms. Whereas the use of PPIs to reduce oesophageal acid exposure in patients with erosions is associated with increased healing rates, non-erosive reflux disease patients are less likely to have an abnormal oesophageal pH profile. Patterns of oesophageal acid exposure, particularly nocturnal oesophageal acid exposure, have been linked to increased disease severity. Non-acidic reflux and the effect of PPIs on this parameter, including bile reflux and the toxicity of bile acids, may also be an important factor in GERD. This article explores some of these assumptions, practices and relationships, including: the association between oesophageal acid exposure and erosive and non-erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; the effect of PPIs on oesophageal acid exposure in erosive oesophagitis patients; the influence of nocturnal acid secretion in GERD and the use of PPIs to control this parameter; the relevance of the PPI test for reflux disease diagnosis; and PPI influence on non-acidic reflux.

The effects of changing temperature correction factors on measures of acidity calculated from gastric and oesophageal pH recordings.

BACKGROUND: Recently, Medtronic notified customers that new correction factors should be used for their Slimline and Zinetics24 single-use, internal-standard pH catheters. AIM AND METHODS: We selected 24-h recordings of oesophageal and gastric pH with the Zinetics24 from our archives for five healthy subjects and for five gastro-oesophageal reflux disease subjects who were studied at baseline and again after 8 days of treatment with a proton-pump inhibitor. All pH values obtained with the old correction factors were rescaled using the new correction factors. Values for median pH, integrated acidity and time pH < or = 4 were then calculated from pH values with old and new correction factors. RESULTS: The new correction factors changed values for median pH, integrated acidity and time pH < or = 4. Values for median pH and integrated acidity changed in a predictable, proportionate way, whereas values for time pH < or = 4 did not. CONCLUSIONS: The new correction factors will not change the interpretation of previously published results with median pH or integrated acidity. In contrast, values for time < or =4 cannot be converted in an obvious way with the new correction factors. Instead, the raw pH data will need to be rescaled and values for time pH < or = 4 recalculated using the rescaled pH data.

Comparison of the effects of intravenously and orally administered esomeprazole on acid output in patients with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous esomeprazole may be beneficial for patients who cannot take oral medications. AIM: To compare intravenous esomeprazole with oral esomeprazole for effects on maximal acid output during pentagastrin stimulation in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms. METHODS: In four separate open-label, randomized, two-way crossover studies, adult patients were administered esomeprazole 20 or 40 mg once daily either orally or intravenously (by 15-min infusion or 3-min injection) for 10 days and switched to the other formulation with no washout period. Basal acid output and maximal acid output were measured on days 11, 13 and 21. RESULTS: In the four studies (total of 183 patients), least-squares mean maximal acid output ranged from 3.0 to 4.1 mmol/h after intravenous esomeprazole 40 or 20 mg and from 2.2 to 3.3 mmol/h after oral esomeprazole 20 or 40 mg. Differences between formulations were small and not statistically significant but did not meet the prospectively defined criterion for non-inferiority of the intravenous formulation. Median basal acid output values ranged from 0.04 to 0.27 mmol/h after intravenous administration and from 0.05 to 0.25 mmol/h after oral esomeprazole. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous esomeprazole is an acceptable alternative to the oral formulation for treatment of up to 10 days of duration.

The fractal nature of human gastro-oesophageal reflux.

BACKGROUND: We are unaware of the analyses of time series data resulting from 24 h recordings of human gastric or oesophageal pH. As a result, we have no understanding of the quantitative changes in gastric or oesophageal acidity over time, the patterns that might characterize these changes, or the physiological significance of gastro-oesophageal reflux. AIM: To examine the time series for gastric and oesophageal pH. METHODS: Detrended fluctuation analysis and lag analysis were used to analyse data from 24 h recordings of oesophageal and gastric pH in five normal subjects and five subjects with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. RESULTS: Analyses of the patterns of gastric and oesophageal pH over time in normal subjects and subjects with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease indicate that the fluctuations in pH are self-similar across different time scales and are consistent with an underlying fractal process. Furthermore, there is a significant statistical association between sequential pH values separated by as much as 2.2 h. CONCLUSIONS: We hypothesize that the self-similar, fractal pattern encodes information about gastric acidity and that the oesophagus decodes this information and, when appropriate, may signal the stomach to reduce gastric acidity. Subjects with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease might have an impaired oesophageal-gastric feedback mechanism that results in increased gastric acid, which reflux from the stomach into the oesophagus.

Oesophageal pH has a power-law distribution in control and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease subjects.

BACKGROUND: We are unaware of any solid theoretical or pathophysiological basis for selecting pH 4 or any other pH value to assess oesophageal acid exposure or to define oesophageal reflux episodes. AIM: To examine the frequency of different oesophageal pH values in control and GERD subjects. METHODS: Oesophageal pH was measured for 24 h in 57 gastro-oesophageal reflux disease subjects and 26 control subjects. Histograms were constructed using the 21,600 values from each recording and bins of 0.25 pH units. RESULTS: Compared with controls, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease subjects had significantly more low pH values and significantly fewer high pH values. In both gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and control subjects, the frequency of oesophageal pH values was characterized by a power-law distribution indicating that the same relationship that describes low pH values also describes high pH values, as well as all values in between. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of oesophageal pH values indicates that a variety of different pH values can be used to assess oesophageal acid exposure, but raises important questions regarding how oesophageal reflux episodes are defined.

Frequency analyses of gastric pH in control and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease subjects treated with a proton-pump inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: We are unaware of any solid theoretical or pathophysiological basis for selecting pH 4 or any other pH value to assess gastric acidity. AIM: To examine the frequency of different gastric pH values in control and GERD subjects. METHODS: Gastric pH was measured for 24 h in 26 control subjects, 26 gastro-oesophageal reflux disease subjects at baseline and the same 26 gastro-oesophageal reflux disease subjects during treatment with a proton-pump inhibitor. Histograms were constructed using the 21 600 values generated from each recording and bins of 0.25 pH units. RESULTS: The distribution of gastric pH values in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease subjects was significantly different from that in controls and in some instances the distributions detected significant differences that were not detected by integrated acidity. Proton-pump inhibitor treatment significantly altered the distribution of gastric pH values and the nature of this alteration during the postprandial period was different from that during the nocturnal period. Using time pH< or =4 can significantly underestimate the magnitude of inhibition of gastric acidity caused by a proton-pump inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of gastric pH values provides a rationale for selecting a particular pH value to assess gastric acidity. In some instances, the distribution of gastric pH values detects significant differences between gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and normal subjects that are not detected by integrated acidity.

A single dose of ranitidine 150 mg modulates oesophageal acid sensitivity in patients with functional heartburn.

BACKGROUND: The rapid onset and symptomatic response to histamine-2 receptor antagonists prior to the pharmacological effect on acid secretion suggests a different mechanism of action. AIM: To determine if ranitidine decreases oesophageal sensitivity to chemical and mechanical stimulation, potentially via oesophageal histamine receptors. METHODS: A total of 18 patients with functional heartburn received oral ranitidine 150 mg b.d. or placebo for 7 consecutive days in a double-blind randomized crossover design and underwent Barostat balloon distention and Bernstein acid infusion on study day 1 (90 min postdose) and study day 7. First sensation and pain were recorded and pain severity was rated on a 5-point Likert scale and a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Least square mean values were generated and one-tailed t-tests were performed. RESULTS: After a single dose of ranitidine 150 mg, time to pain with oesophageal acid infusion was increased by 29% (P < 0.05) and visual analogue scale and Likert scores were decreased by 20% (P < 0.06) and 23% (P < 0.02), respectively compared with placebo. After 1 week of ranitidine, positive alterations in sensory parameters persisted. Balloon distention sensory parameters were not altered by ranitidine. CONCLUSIONS: Ranitidine significantly decreased oesophageal sensitivity to acid. Failure of ranitidine to improve balloon sensory parameters supports existence of multiple sensory pathways in the oesophagus.

The basis for the decreased response to proton pump inhibitors in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients without erosive oesophagitis.

BACKGROUND: The reason why heartburn in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease subjects without oesophagitis is less responsive to proton pump inhibitors than heartburn in those with erosive oesophagitis is not known. METHODS: Gastric and oesophageal pH were determined in 26 subjects with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease at baseline and on days 1, 2 and 8 of treatment with 20 mg omeprazole or 20 mg rabeprazole in a randomized, two-way cross-over fashion. The presence or absence of erosive oesophagitis at baseline was documented by upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. RESULTS: At a given value of the integrated gastric acidity during treatment with a proton pump inhibitor, the probability of pathological oesophageal reflux was significantly higher in subjects with no oesophagitis than in those with erosive oesophagitis. This occurred because the post-prandial gastric acidity in subjects with no oesophagitis showed a decreased response to the antisecretory agent. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease subjects with erosive oesophagitis, those with no oesophagitis are relatively refractory to the pharmacodynamic effects of proton pump inhibitors on the post-prandial integrated gastric acidity.

Heartburn severity can predict pathologic oesophageal reflux in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients treated with a proton-pump inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: In gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) subjects treated with a gastric anti-secretory agent, it is not known whether there is a relationship between heartburn severity and oesophageal acid exposure. METHODS: Oesophageal pH and heartburn severity were determined in 27 GERD subjects at baseline and on days 1, 2 and 8 of treatment with 20 mg omeprazole or 20 mg rabeprazole in a randomized, two-way crossover fashion. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine values for heartburn severity that gave optimal cut-off points for distinguishing between normal and pathologic oesophageal reflux. Using these cut-off points, we found that the probability of no pathologic oesophageal reflux (Y) could be best fitted by an exponential equation: Y = a(e-bX) + c, where a, b and c are constants and X is the value of heartburn severity. There was close agreement between predicted and observed percentages of subjects with pathologic oesophageal reflux during different days of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In GERD subjects treated with a proton-pump inhibitor, the value of heartburn severity following a single standard meal can predict the likelihood of pathologic oesophageal reflux over the entire 24-h period.