A clinical trial comparing pantoprazole and esomeprazole to explore the concept of achieving ‘complete remission’ in gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease

Summary Background and Aim  The outcome of gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease treatment is traditionally assessed by measuring endoscopically confirmed healing and symptom relief separately. Both terms together, indicating complete remission, are intuitively a more realistic clinical endpoint but are...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics Vol. 25; no. 12; pp. 1461 - 1469
Main Authors BARDHAN, K. D., ACHIM, A., RIDDERMANN, T., PFAFFENBERGER, B.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 15.06.2007
Blackwell
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Summary Background and Aim  The outcome of gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease treatment is traditionally assessed by measuring endoscopically confirmed healing and symptom relief separately. Both terms together, indicating complete remission, are intuitively a more realistic clinical endpoint but are assessed less often. Aim  To explore this concept, we formally compared the efficacy of the proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) pantoprazole and esomeprazole using rates of complete remission judged against rates of healing and symptom relief separately. Methods  Five hundred and eighty‐two patients with erosive gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease were randomized to treatment for 4, 8, or 12 weeks with either pantoprazole or esomeprazole 40 mg daily. Symptom relief was assessed with the validated ReQuest™‐GI subscale. Results  Approximately 75% of patients were free of symptoms or had no oesophageal lesions after 4 weeks’ treatment, rising to about 93% and 96%, respectively, at 12 weeks. Complete remission rates were, however, lower at these time points; approximately 60% and about 90%, respectively. Both PPIs had similar efficacy. Conclusions  Endoscopically confirmed healing and symptom relief assessed separately over‐estimated the benefits of both drugs. In contrast, complete remission indicates that patients may be treated inadequately when given the standard 4‐ to 8‐week treatment. We suggest that complete remission is a more reliable and clinically relevant endpoint of treatment.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-News-2
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ISSN:0269-2813
1365-2036
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03337.x