Dan Pericak

Symptom relief in gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized, controlled comparison of pantoprazole and nizatidine in a mixed patient population with erosive esophagitis or endoscopy-negative reflux disease

OBJECTIVES:Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in primary care practice presents symptomatically, and resources to distinguish promptly between erosive esophagitis and endoscopy-negative reflux disease (ENRD) are limited. It is therefore important to determine the roles of proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2–receptor antagonists for first-line symptom-based therapy in patients with erosive esophagitis and ENRD. The aim of this study was to compare pantoprazole 40 mg once daily versus nizatidine 150 mg b.i.d. in a mixed GERD patient population with ENRD or erosive esophagitis (Savary-Miller grades 1–3).METHODS:A 4-wk randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study conducted in Canada. Eligible patients had experienced GERD symptoms ≥4 times weekly for >6 months. Patients were randomized to pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or nizatidine 150 mg b.i.d.. Endoscopy was performed before randomization and after 4 wk of therapy.RESULTS:Of 220 patients randomized to therapy, 208 were available for a modified intent-to-treat analysis. Erosive esophagitis was present in 125 patients; 35 patients were Helicobacter pylori positive. There was complete symptom relief after 7 days of therapy in 14% of patients on nizatidine and in 40% of those on pantoprazole (p < 0.0001), and after 28 days of treatment in 36% and 63% of patients, respectively (p < 0.0001). After 28 days of treatment, adequate heartburn control was reported by 58% of the nizatidine group and in 88% of the pantoprazole (p < 0.0001); erosive esophagitis healing rates were 44% for nizatidine and 79% for pantoprazole (p < 0.001). Rescue antacid was needed by a greater number of patients using nizatidine than of those using pantoprazole (p < 0.001). H. pylori infection was associated with an increased probability of erosive esophagitis healing.CONCLUSIONS:Pantoprazole once daily was superior to nizatidine b.i.d. in producing complete heartburn relief in a mixed population of GERD patients and in achieving erosion healing. The proportions of patients with complete symptom relief were greater with pantoprazole after 7 days of therapy than with nizatidine after 28 days. The present study data suggest that pantoprazole is a highly effective first-line therapy for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in a primary care practice setting.

Validation of the GSFQ, a Self-Administered Symptom Frequency Questionnaire for Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

BACKGROUND Although the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is based primarily on symptoms experienced by a patient, relatively little attention has been paid to the development and validation of self-administered questionnaires specific to GERD symptoms. The present article presents the validation of the short, self-administered GERD Symptom Frequency Questionnaire (GSFQ). METHODS Patients with GERD participating in a randomized clinical trial comparing pantoprazole and nizatidine were asked to complete the GSFQ together with validated instruments for measurement of health-related quality of life (Medical Outcome Study Short Form 12) and gastrointestinal symptoms (Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale). Completion of the GSFQ, Medical Outcome Study Short Form 12 and Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale took place upon entry into the trial (baseline) and during the trial (days 7 and 28). Endoscopy was performed at baseline and after 28 days. Cronbach alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire. The test-retest reliability of the GSFQ was examined by the intraclass correlation coefficient among the 36 patients with stable GERD symptoms between day 7 and day 28. Construct validity was assessed by comparing the GSFQ with previously validated instruments. Known group validity was determined by comparing GSFQ scores across groups of patients known to differ clinically. Responsiveness to change was assessed by the Guyatts statistic. RESULTS Two hundred twenty-one patients formed the study baseline group. The analysis demonstrated that the GSFQ questionnaire had excellent psychometric properties shown by the high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha 0.84); that the test-retest reliability was satisfactory (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.64); that there was good evidence that the GSFQ indeed measured what it was intended to measure (validity); and that the GSFQ was highly responsive to change (Guyatts statistic 1.48). DISCUSSION The GSFQ is a short, self-administered, easy to use, GERD-specific questionnaire which should be considered as a useful assessment tool in the evaluation of patients with GERD and in the assessment of treatment outcomes.

Pantoprazole rapidly improves health-related quality of life in patients with heartburn: a prospective, randomized, double blind comparative study with nizatidine.

Background Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is impaired in untreated patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In the absence of an objective marker such as erosions, assessment of treatment efficacy can be based on symptoms and HRQoL. Objective To evaluate changes in HRQoL during treatment with pantoprazole or nizatidine in patients with GERD. Methods This was a prospective, randomized, double blind Canadian multicenter study. Patients with GERD, characterized by heartburn that had occurred 4 or more times per week for at least 6 months, were treated for 28 days with either pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or nizatidine 150 mg twice daily. HRQoL assessment was performed before endoscopy (baseline) and on days 7 and 28 after treatment. HRQoL was assessed using 4 domains of the SF-36, the SF-12 summary scales and the gastrointestinal system rating scale (GSRS). Results A total of 208 patients (n = 106 pantoprazole treatment group, n = 102 nizatidine treatment group) was available for intention-to-treat analysis. Baseline HRQoL scores were comparable between the 2 treatment groups. After 7 days, treatment with pantoprazole led to a statistically significant greater improvement in HRQoL in 2 SF-36 domains: bodily pain (pantoprazole versus nizatidine, P = 0.0088) and vitality (pantoprazole versus nizatidine, P = 0.0137), and in the GSRS reflux score (pantoprazole versus nizatidine, P = 0.0078). After 28 days of treatment, the changes in scores relative to baseline were still greater with pantoprazole than with nizatidine. The improvement in the 4 SF-36 domains and the GSRS reflux score achieved by pantoprazole after 7 days were also significantly greater than those achieved by nizatidine after 28 days. Conclusions HRQoL improves more rapidly and to a greater degree following treatment with pantoprazole than nizatidine. Control of heartburn strongly predicts HRQoL improvement during the acute treatment of GERD. Our data support the approach to use pantoprazole instead of nizatidine as the initial therapy for patients with heartburn in a primary care practice setting.

Long-term outcomes with paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in everyday practice: A Canadian experience

BACKGROUND In randomized trials, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) are superior to bare metal stents (BMS) in reducing target lesion revascularization (TLR). However, recent reports suggest there may be an increase in late stent thrombosis with long-term follow-up in PES-treated patients. METHODS Prospectively collected data from a regional cardiac referral centre were analyzed to compare PES versus BMS in all consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from April 2003 to March 2004. Outcomes included combined death, myocardial infarction and clinically driven TLR, as well as stent thrombosis at four years follow-up. RESULTS A total of 512 patients were treated with PES and 722 patients with BMS. At four years, there was 92% follow-up in both groups. The composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction and TLR was 13.9% in the PES group compared with 20% in the BMS group (P=0.01). This difference was primarily driven by the reduction in TLR in the PES cohort (3.9% versus 8%, P<0.01). The rate of definite stent thrombosis was 1.6% in the PES group compared with 0.4% in the BMS group (P=0.03). CONCLUSION While PES offers an absolute 4.1% reduction in clinically driven TLR at four years, there is an associated increased risk of stent thrombosis. Further long-term studies addressing clinical outcomes including stent thrombosis with PES versus BMS are required to clarify this risk/ benefit balance.

Comparison of one-year clinical outcomes with paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in everyday practice.

BACKGROUND In randomized trials, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) have been shown to be superior to bare metal stents (BMS) in reducing restenosis. However, the effectiveness of PES in patients treated during routine practice has not been fully established. METHODS A retrospective comparison of PES with BMS in consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from April 2003 to March 2004 was conducted. Outcomes included the composite of death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at one year, as well as stent thrombosis. RESULTS A total of 512 patients were treated with PES, and 722 patients were treated with BMS. Patients in the PES group were more likely to receive stents that were 20 mm in length or longer (52.2% versus 33.3%, P<0.0001), 2.5 mm in diameter or smaller (29.1% versus 12.5%, P<0.0001) and implanted in bifurcation positions (15.4% versus 11.6%, P=0.02). At one year, the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction and TLR was 6.1% in the PES group compared with 10.8% in the BMS group (P=0.004). The one-year rate of stent thrombosis was 0.59% in the PES group compared with 0.28% in the BMS group (P=0.4). CONCLUSIONS Despite being used in higher-risk lesions, there was a lower rate of major cardiac events at one year in patients treated with PES, primarily driven by the reduction in TLR. Thus, the experience with PES in contemporary practice applied to a broader population appears to be consistent with the results reported in randomized trials.

Symptom relief in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): pantoprazole V nizatidine in a mixed patient population with endoscopy negative reflux disease (ENRD) and erosive esophagitis (EE)

Symptom relief in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): pantoprazole V nizatidine in a mixed patient population with endoscopy negative reflux disease (ENRD) and erosive esophagitis (EE)