Explore the vast range of titles available.

Oesophageal adenocarcinoma is the sixth most common cause of cancer death worldwide and Barrett's oesophagus is the biggest risk factor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of high-dose esomeprazole proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and aspirin for improving outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. The Aspirin and Esomeprazole Chemoprevention in Barrett's metaplasia Trial had a 2 × 2 factorial design and was done at 84 centres in the UK and one in Canada. Patients with Barrett's oesophagus of 1 cm or more were randomised 1:1:1:1 using a computer-generated schedule held in a central trials unit to receive high-dose (40 mg twice-daily) or low-dose (20 mg once-daily) PPI, with or without aspirin (300 mg per day in the UK, 325 mg per day in Canada) for at least 8 years, in an unblinded manner. Reporting pathologists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary composite endpoint was time to all-cause mortality, oesophageal adenocarcinoma, or high-grade dysplasia, which was analysed with accelerated failure time modelling adjusted for minimisation factors (age, Barrett's oesophagus length, intestinal metaplasia) in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2004-003836-77. Between March 10, 2005, and March 1, 2009, 2557 patients were recruited. 705 patients were assigned to low-dose PPI and no aspirin, 704 to high-dose PPI and no aspirin, 571 to low-dose PPI and aspirin, and 577 to high-dose PPI and aspirin. Median follow-up and treatment duration was 8·9 years (IQR 8·2–9·8), and we collected 20 095 follow-up years and 99·9% of planned data. 313 primary events occurred. High-dose PPI (139 events in 1270 patients) was superior to low-dose PPI (174 events in 1265 patients; time ratio [TR] 1·27, 95% CI 1·01–1·58, p=0·038). Aspirin (127 events in 1138 patients) was not significantly better than no aspirin (154 events in 1142 patients; TR 1·24, 0·98–1·57, p=0·068). If patients using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were censored at the time of first use, aspirin was significantly better than no aspirin (TR 1·29, 1·01–1·66, p=0·043; n=2236). Combining high-dose PPI with aspirin had the strongest effect compared with low-dose PPI without aspirin (TR 1·59, 1·14–2·23, p=0·0068). The numbers needed to treat were 34 for PPI and 43 for aspirin. Only 28 (1%) participants reported study-treatment-related serious adverse events. High-dose PPI and aspirin chemoprevention therapy, especially in combination, significantly and safely improved outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, Wellcome Trust, and Health Technology Assessment.

Acid reflux is commonly thought to be a preventable cause of wheezing. In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, the investigators found that proton-pump inhibitors do not reduce asthma exacerbations. Acid reflux is commonly thought to be a preventable cause of wheezing. In this trial, the investigators found that proton-pump inhibitors do not reduce asthma exacerbations. Gastroesophageal reflux and asthma, both of which are common conditions, often coexist in the same patient. Persons with asthma are particularly prone to asymptomatic gastroesophageal reflux. Esophageal pH-monitoring studies have shown that 32 to 84% of persons with asthma have abnormal acid reflux, 1 – 5 and about half of patients with asthma who have reflux have no symptoms. 3 , 6 – 8 However, the role of gastroesophageal reflux in the development or persistence of asthma symptoms is not known. Symptoms of asthma — cough and chest discomfort — may overlap with those of gastroesophageal reflux, making it difficult to distinguish between the two . . .

•Newly developed esomeprazole/magnesium hydroxide fixed-dose combination (FDC) exhibits faster time to reach maximum concentration compared to enteric-coated esomeprazole.•The FDC demonstrates a shorter time to achieve gastric pH ≥ 4, indicating more rapid and effective acid suppression compared to enteric-coated esomeprazole.•Comparable systemic exposure and decrease in integrated gastric acidity over 24 hours highlight equivalent inhibition of gastric acid secretion between the FDC and enteric-coated esomeprazole.•The esomeprazole/magnesium hydroxide FDC presents as a promising option with faster absorption and effective gastric acid suppression, offering potential clinical advantages over enteric-coated esomeprazole. A fixed-dose combination (FDC) of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and antacid salts enables rapid acid suppression through the neutralizing effect of the antacid salt and the rapid absorption of PPIs. This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics (PKs) and pharmacodynamics (PDs) of a recently formulated FDC of esomeprazole and magnesium hydroxide to the enteric-coated esomeprazole in healthy subjects. A randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, two-treatment, two-way crossover design was conducted in healthy subjects. Forty-nine subjects were randomized to one of the two treatment sequences and received either the test drug (esomeprazole/magnesium hydroxide 40/350 mg) or reference drug (enteric-coated esomeprazole 40 mg) for 7 days in the first period and the alternative in the second period with a 14-day washout period. Blood samples were collected for up to 24 hours for PK assessment, and 24-hour gastric pH monitoring was conducted for PD assessment both before and after a single administration, as well as at a steady state after seven consecutive days of administration. The PK and PD parameters were compared between the two drugs. After multiple administrations, the median value of time to reach maximum concentration was faster in the test drug than in the reference drug, with a difference of 1.68 hours. The overall systemic exposure of the test drug was similar to that of the reference drug, and the PK parameter fell within the equivalence criteria. The test drug demonstrated a shorter time to reach gastric pH ≥ 4 compared to the reference drug (P = 0.0463). A decrease from baseline in integrated gastric acidity over 24 hours, which represents the degree of inhibition of gastric acid secretion, was equivalent between the two drugs. The fixed-dose combination of esomeprazole and magnesium hydroxide showed rapid absorption and quicker gastric acid suppression than enteric-coated esomeprazole with comparable PK and PD properties. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04324905 (https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04324905).

In patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) whose symptoms improve with acid-suppression therapy, on-demand treatment could constitute maintenance therapy. This study investigated the comparative efficacy and safety of on-demand tegoprazan and proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in GERD. From six university hospitals in the Daejeon-Chungcheong region, we enrolled patients with GERD who had experienced symptomatic improvement with acid-suppressive therapy and, using a randomization table, randomly allocated these participants to two groups: to receive either tegoprazan 50 mg + esomeprazole placebo or tegoprazan placebo + esomeprazole 20 mg, respectively. The primary endpoint of this study was the intergroup difference in patient satisfaction with on-demand therapy. Among the 69 participants who completed 8 weeks of on-demand therapy and rated patient satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale, the tegoprazan and esomeprazole groups scored an average of 4.31 and 4.15 points, respectively, without any significant intergroup difference. In the tegoprazan group, 26.2% (182/694) of those with episodes experienced symptom improvement within 30 min, which is a significantly higher proportion compared to 16.1% (104/646) in the esomeprazole group. Compared to the esomeprazole group, the tegoprazan group had a significantly shorter time to symptom improvement overall and a significantly higher proportion of patients who improved within 30 min. No serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported. Tegoprazan is effective as on-demand therapy for GERD and offers the expectation of faster symptom improvement than with PPIs. Clinical trial KCT0009296, registered at cris.nih.go.kr.

YYD601 is a new dual delayed-release formulation of esomeprazole, developed to enhance plasma exposure and prolong the duration of acid suppression. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetic (PK), and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of YYD601 20 mg following single and multiple oral administrations in healthy, fasting adult Koreans, and to compare these outcomes to those of the conventional esomeprazole 20 mg capsule. A randomized, open-label, two-period crossover study was conducted in 28 participants, who were divided into two treatment groups: one group received YYD601 20 mg, and the other received conventional esomeprazole 20 mg, once daily for five consecutive days. Blood samples for PK analysis were collected pre-dose and up to 24 hours post-dose. The primary PK parameters (AUC and AUC ) were evaluated. PD endpoints included integrated gastric acidity, percentage of time with intragastric pH > 4 over 24-hour and nighttime intervals, and percent change in serum gastrin levels after multiple dosing. A total of 22 participants completed the study. YYD601 displayed more prolonged plasma concentration-time profiles than the conventional formulation, although the extent of the systemic exposure (AUC values) showed no statistically significant difference between the two formulations. With regard to the 24-hour gastric acid inhibition, YYD601 was comparable to the conventional formulation. The YYD601 showed a greater tendency for acid inhibition at night, as indicated by the percentage change of time with nocturnal acid breakthrough and other PD parameters. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events reported. Through extended systemic exposure of esomeprazole, YYD601 produces gastric acid suppression that is comparable to that of the conventional esomeprazole formulation, with a greater tendency to suppress acid at night. YYD601 20 mg was safe and well tolerated following single and multiple oral administrations, supporting its use as an effective alternative to conventional esomeprazole therapy. http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03985319 (Date of registration: May 29, 2019; Study period: between July 2019 and March 2020).

PurposeYH4808 is a potassium-competitive acid blocker, developed for the treatment of acid-related disorders. Two clinical studies in healthy male subjects were conducted to evaluate the effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of YH4808.MethodsThe first study, a randomized, three-treatment, three-period, crossover study, compared pharmacokinetics of YH4808 (300 mg) after a single dose at fed state with a standard or a high-fat meal to those at fasted state. The second study, a randomized, two-treatment, two-period, crossover study, investigated pharmacokinetics at fasted or fed state with a standard meal after twice daily dose of YH4808 (100 mg) for 7 days. Bloods for pharmacokinetic evaluation were sampled up to 48 h post-dose and 24 h post-dose at steady state, respectively. The pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated by non-compartmental method.ResultsAfter single dosing, the geometric means of maximum plasma concentration increased by 1.2 and 2.1 times in the fed states with a standard meal and a high-fat meal, respectively, of that in fasted state. Corresponding values of area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to the last measurable time point increased by 1.8 and 2.8 times, respectively. After multiple dosing, the geometric mean for 24-h AUC at steady state slightly increased in fed state by 1.1 times of that in fasted state.ConclusionsAs fat content of the food increased, the systemic exposure of YH4808 after single dosing increased. However, systemic exposures at steady state after multiple dosing between fasted and fed states were similar.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registry no.: NCT01520012

Patients with clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and dense eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa are suspected to have eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Topical steroids are often used as first-line therapy for EoE, although some patients respond clinically to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The purpose of this study was to compare the histological and clinical response of patients with esophageal eosinophilia treated with aerosolized swallowed fluticasone propionate vs. esomeprazole. This prospective single-blinded randomized controlled trial enrolled newly diagnosed patients with suspected EoE, defined as having clinical symptoms related to esophageal dysfunction with at least 15 eosinophils/high power field (hpf). Patients underwent 24-h pH/impedance monitoring to establish gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Patients were stratified by the presence of GERD and randomized to receive fluticasone 440 mcg twice daily or esomeprazole 40 mg once daily for 8 weeks followed by repeat endoscopy with biopsies. The primary outcome was histological response of esophageal eosinophilia, defined as <7 eosinophils/hpf. Secondary outcomes included clinical change in symptoms using the validated Mayo dysphagia questionnaire (MDQ) and interval change in endoscopic findings following treatment. Forty-two patients (90% male, 81% white, mean age 38 ± 10 years) were randomized into fluticasone (n = 21) and esomeprazole (n = 21) treatment arms. In all, 19% (8/42) of patients had coexisting GERD and were equally stratified into each arm (n = 4). Overall, there was no significant difference in resolution of esophageal eosinophilia between fluticasone and esomeprazole (19 vs. 33%, P = 0.484). In patients with established GERD, resolution of esophageal eosinophilia was noted in 0% (0/4) of the fluticasone group compared with 100% (4/4) of the esomeprazole group (P = 0.029). In GERD-negative patients, there was no significant difference in resolution of esophageal eosinophilia between treatment arms with fluticasone and esomeprazole (24 vs.18%, P = 1.00). The MDQ score significantly decreased after treatment with esomeprazole (19 ± 21 vs. 1.4 ± 4.5, P<0.001), but not with fluticasone (17 ± 18 vs. 12 ± 16, P = 0.162). Improvement in endoscopic findings and other histological markers were similar between treatment groups. Fluticasone and esomeprazole provide a similar histological response for esophageal eosinophilia. With regard to clinical response, esomeprazole was superior to fluticasone, particularly in patients with established GERD.

Given the general unavailability, common adverse effects, and complicated administration of tetracycline, the clinical application of classic bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT) is greatly limited. Whether minocycline can replace tetracycline for Helicobacter pylori ( H . pylori ) eradication is unknown. We aimed to compare the eradication rate, safety, and compliance between minocycline- and tetracycline-containing BQT as first-line regimens. This randomized controlled trial was conducted on 434 naïve patients with H . pylori infection. The participants were randomly assigned to 14-day minocycline-containing BQT group (bismuth potassium citrate 110 mg q.i.d., esomeprazole 20 mg b.i.d., metronidazole 400 mg q.i.d., and minocycline 100 mg b.i.d.) and tetracycline-containing BQT group (bismuth potassium citrate/esomeprazole/metronidazole with doses same as above and tetracycline 500 mg q.i.d.). Safety and compliance were assessed within 3 days after eradication. Urea breath test was performed at 4-8 weeks after eradication to evaluate outcome. We used a noninferiority test to compare the eradication rates of the two groups. The intergroup differences were evaluated using Pearson chi-squared or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Student's t -test for continuous variables. As for the eradication rates of minocycline- and tetracycline-containing BQT, the results of both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses showed that the difference rate of lower limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) was >-10.0% (ITT analysis: 181/217 [83.4%] vs . 180/217 [82.9%], with a rate difference of 0.5% [-6.9% to 7.9%]; PP analysis: 177/193 [91.7%] vs . 176/191 [92.1%], with a rate difference of -0.4% [-5.6% to 6.4%]). Except for dizziness more common (35/215 [16.3%] vs . 13/214 [6.1%], P = 0.001) in minocycline-containing therapy groups, the incidences of adverse events (75/215 [34.9%] vs . 88/214 [41.1%]) and compliance (195/215 [90.7%] vs . 192/214 [89.7%]) were similar between the two groups. The eradication efficacy of minocycline-containing BQT was noninferior to tetracycline-containing BQT as first-line regimen for H . pylori eradication with similar safety and compliance. ClinicalTrials.gov, ChiCTR 1900023646.

Dyspeptic symptoms are frequently encountered during Ramadan and may be exacerbated by changes in eating habits. We assessed the efficacy of esomeprazole in patients with functional dyspepsia (FD) who fasted during Ramadan. In this randomized, double-blind controlled study, 245 patients diagnosed with FD who completed Ramadan fasting were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either esomeprazole (n = 122) or placebo (n = 123) for 30 days. Dyspepsia was assessed using the Short-Form Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire (SF-LDQ) at baseline (pre-Ramadan), day7, day 14, and at end of Ramadan (End-Ramadan). The primary endpoint was the rate of responders defined as a > 50% reduction from baseline in SF-LDQ score at End-Ramadan. Secondary endpoints were changes in SF-LDQ scores over time, improvement in quality of life assessed by the general health and physical function components of SF-12 score, and safety. At End-Ramadan, 95% of the patients receiving placebo and 98% receiving esomeprazole were responders ( p  = 0.5). The SF-LDQ score improved more significantly with esomeprazole than with placebo at day7 [(mean difference 0.71 (95% CI − 1.64 to 1.18)], and at day 14 [(mean difference 0.77 (95% CI − 1.7 to 4.7)]. Both treatments significantly improved quality of life from baseline. All adverse events were minor and similar in both groups. Our results showed that, in patients with FD fasting during Ramadan, esomeprazole was effective. Our findings also suggest that fasting itself may contribute to significant improvement in FD symptoms. The potential synergistic effects of fasting combined with PPIs warrant further investigation. Trial registration : The protocol was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov in 09/10/2020 under the number NCT05287633.

High-dose dual therapy (HDDT) with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and amoxicillin has attracted widespread attention due to its favorable efficacy in eradicating Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of high-dose PPI-amoxicillin dual therapy and bismuth-containing quadruple therapy for H. pylori rescue treatment. This was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, non-inferiority trial. Patients recruited from eight centers who had failed previous treatment were randomly (1:1) allocated to two eradication groups: HDDT (esomeprazole 40 mg and amoxicillin 1000 mg three times daily; the HDDT group) and bismuth-containing quadruple therapy (esomeprazole 40 mg, bismuth potassium citrate 220 mg, and furazolidone 100 mg twice daily, combined with tetracycline 500 mg three times daily; the tetracycline, furazolidone, esomeprazole, and bismuth [TFEB] group) for 14 days. The primary endpoint was the H. pylori eradication rate. The secondary endpoints were adverse effects, symptom improvement rates, and patient compliance. A total of 658 patients who met the criteria were enrolled in this study. The HDDT group achieved eradication rates of 75.4% (248/329), 81.0% (248/306), and 81.3% (248/305) asdetermined by the intention-to-treat (ITT), modified intention-to-treat (MITT), and per-protocol (PP) analyses, respectively. The eradication rates were similar to those in the TFEB group: 78.1% (257/329), 84.2% (257/305), and 85.1% (257/302). The lower 95% confidence interval boundary (-9.19% in the ITT analysis, - 9.21% in the MITT analysis, and -9.73% in the PP analysis) was greater than the predefined non-inferiority margin of -10%, establishing a non-inferiority of the HDDT group vs. the TFEB group. The incidence of adverse events in the HDDT group was significantly lower than that in the TFEB group (11.1% vs. 26.8%, P  < 0.001). Symptom improvement rates and patients' compliance were similar between the two groups. Fourteen-day HDDT is non-inferior to bismuth-containing quadruple therapy, with fewer adverse effects and good treatment compliance, suggesting HDDT as an alternative for H. pylori rescue treatment in the local region. Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04678492.