First-week clinical responses to dexlansoprazole 60 mg and esomeprazole 40 mg for the treatment of grades A and B gastroesophageal reflux disease

Liang, Chih‐Ming; Kuo, Ming Ling; Hsu, Pin‐I; Kuo, Chao-Hung; Tai, Wei‐Chen; Yang, Shih‐Cheng; Wu, Keng‐Liang; Wang, Hsing-Ming; Yao, Chih‐Chien; Tsai, Cheng-En; Wang, Yao‐Kuang; Wang, Jiunn-Wei; Huang, Chih-Fang; Wu, Deng‐Chyang; Chuah, Seng‐Kee

doi:10.3748/wjg.v23.i47.8395

Cited by 7 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thirty two were randomised and 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 thirteen studies were open-label. 33 , 36 , 38 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 53 , 63 , 64 The sample size ranged from 32 to 464 participants (mean = 98). One study did not list the sample size and the author has been contacted.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 33 Two studies were on pregnant women. 39 , 46 Included studies were conducted across 14 countries within the following World Health Organisation regions: Eastern Mediterranean (n = 7), 31 , 34 , 42 , 43 , 46 , 50 , 54 Western-Pacific region (n = 20), 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 44 , 49 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 ,62, 63 , 65 South-East Asia (n = 6) 32 , 39 , 47 , 48 , 51 , 64 and Europe (n = 3). 33 , 45 , 66 Treatment duration ranged from one day 45 to 24 months 63 (mean = 50 days).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many participants were required to pass one or more gastrointestinal inclusion criteria assessments; endoscopy (n = 23), 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 44 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 64 , 65 Rome diagnostic criteria for Functional Dyspepsia (FD) (n = 8), 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 47 gastrointestinal symptom score patient questionnaires (n = 10) 37 , 38 , 40 , 44 , 45 , 49 , 57 , 64 , 65 , 66 and / or biological measurements (n = 7). 33 , 35 , 52 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 65 Two studies required participants to be pregnant.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Design characteristics of comparative effectiveness trials for the relief of symptomatic dyspepsia: A systematic review

Elliott

Steel

Leech

et al. 2021

Integrative Medicine Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Dyspepsia represents a symptom domain rather than a diagnostic condition and covers a wide range of complex, underlying pathophysiologies that are not well understood. The review explores comparative effectiveness interventions for the treatment of symptomatic dyspepsia along a pragmatic-explanatory continuum. The aim is to identify relevant design characteristics applicable to future upper gastrointestinal comparative effectiveness research employing integrative medicine. Methods Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and WHO Clinical Trials were systematically searched until January 2019. Included articles were original research with two or more comparative intervention arms for the primary outcome; relief of symptomatic dyspepsia. Evaluation of the studies was conducted using the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS-2) tool. Results Thirty-six articles were included in the review. A total of 68 Patient Reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs), utilizing 50 different formats were deployed across the studies. The appraisal process revealed eligibility, flexibility in adherence, flexibility in delivery and organization domains further aligned towards an explanatory design. Conclusion This review identified three design characteristics relevant for future comparative effectiveness research for the treatment of upper gastrointestinal disorders in a community setting. Extensive exclusion eligibility criteria limited the generalization of comparative effectiveness study results by removing sub-groups of the target populations more at risk of dyspeptic symptoms. The requirement for entry endoscopy was found to be common and not always pragmatically justifiable. Development of validated PROMs appropriate for a generic application to upper gastrointestinal disorders would be advantageous for future comparative effectiveness research within integrative medicine.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Design characteristics of comparative effectiveness trials for the relief of symptomatic dyspepsia: A systematic review

Elliott

Steel

Leech

et al. 2021

Integrative Medicine Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perhaps, different durations of drug retention exist in the circulation between two potent PPIs. According to a 1-week comparison study, 40-mg esomeprazole required more time (3 days) to attain CSR than 60 mg dexlansoprazole, especially in the female group because of estrogen and progesterone enhancing the relaxants of lower esophageal sphincter 37–39. In dexlansoprazole, no accumulation effect exists after multiple, once-daily doses of 60 mg, resulting in the maximum concentration ( C max ) values of dexlansoprazole being slightly higher (<10%) on day 5 than on day 1 32,40.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Clinical efficacy of 60-mg dexlansoprazole and 40-mg esomeprazole after 24 weeks for the on-demand treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease grades A and B: a prospective randomized trial</p>

Chiang

Hsu

et al. 2019

DDDT

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Research comparing the clinical efficacy of dexlansoprazole and esomeprazole has been limited. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of single doses of dexlansoprazole (modified-release 60 mg) and esomeprazole (40 mg) after 24-week follow-up in patients with mild erosive esophagitis. Methods: We enrolled 86 adult GERD subjects, randomized in a 1:1 ratio to two sequence groups defining the order in which they received single doses of dexlansoprazole (n=43) and esomeprazole (n=43) for 8 weeks as initial treatment. Patients displaying complete symptom resolution (CSR) by the end of initial treatment (8 weeks) were switched to on-demand therapy until the end of 24 weeks. Follow-up endoscopy was performed either at the end of 24 weeks or when severe reflux symptoms occurred. Five patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 81 patients (dexlansoprazole, n=41; esomeprazole, n=40) in the per-protocol analysis. Results: The GERDQ scores at 4-, 8-, 12-, 16-, 20-, and 24-week posttreatment were less than the baseline score. The CSR, rate of symptom relapse, days to symptom resolution, sustained healing rate of erosive esophagitis, treatment failure rate, and the number of tablets taken in 24 weeks were similar in both groups. The esomeprazole group had more days with reflux symptoms than the dexlansoprazole group (37.3±37.8 vs 53.9±54.2; P =0.008). In the dexlansoprazole group, patients exhibited persistent improvement in the GERDQ score during the on-demand period (week 8 vs week 24; P <0.001) but not in the esomeprazole group (week 8 vs week 24; P =0.846). Conclusions: This study suggests that the symptom relief effect for GERD after 24 weeks was similar for dexlansoprazole and esomeprazole. Dexlansoprazole exhibited fewer days with reflux symptoms in the 24-week study period, with better persistent improvement in the GERDQ score in the on-demand period. (ClinicalTrials. gov number: NCT03128736)

show abstract

“…Эффективность декслансопразола в рамках терапии ГЭРБ была доказана в рандомизированных контролируемых исследованиях. В трех работах декслансопразол в дозе 60 мг/сут оказался более эффективным при лечении эрозивных форм ГЭРБ по сравнению с плацебо и лансопразолом [50,51]. Подобные результаты были также продемонстрированы в популяции пациентов с неэрозивной формой ГЭРБ [52,53].…”

Section: лечениеunclassified

Laryngopharyngeal reflux: clinical significance, modern approaches to diagnosis and treatment

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common pathologies in modern clinical practice. Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is considered to be an extraesophageal manifestation of GERD and is characterized by retrograde ingestion of gastric content into the larynx and pharynx, leading to recurrent otolaryngological symptoms. Classical manifestations of LPR are hoarseness, perspiration, dryness and feeling of lump in the throat, coughing. There is no «gold standard» for the diagnosis of LPR. At the same time, several instrumental methods are used in clinical practice to verify the diagnosis: laryngoscopy and EGDS are the most common, and in some cases - 24-hour pH-metry and impedancemetry. In the case of an established diagnosis of LPR, it is recommended to use a standard dosage of PPI twice a day for 3–6 months.

show abstract

First-week clinical responses to dexlansoprazole 60 mg and esomeprazole 40 mg for the treatment of grades A and B gastroesophageal reflux disease

Cited by 7 publications

References 41 publications

Design characteristics of comparative effectiveness trials for the relief of symptomatic dyspepsia: A systematic review

Design characteristics of comparative effectiveness trials for the relief of symptomatic dyspepsia: A systematic review

<p>Clinical efficacy of 60-mg dexlansoprazole and 40-mg esomeprazole after 24 weeks for the on-demand treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease grades A and B: a prospective randomized trial</p>

Laryngopharyngeal reflux: clinical significance, modern approaches to diagnosis and treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About